Baseball Prospectus

[ScottyDo]

How do you know the Sox won't be able to buy an ace on the FA market? That sounds like a bunch of pessimism and "grass is always greener" attitude to me.

I think the Williams Doctrine has been fairly well established on this issue. Honestly, I'm okay with it considering our crosstown buddies just blew $40 million on the pitcher who most defines mediocrity to me. But seriously, do you ever think Williams will spring $140 for Barry Zito or his ilk? He's all but told us he won't. And this is coming from a man who cannot by any stretch of the imagination be called a pessimist.

 

(EDIT) And that man is ME! Not KW. Though you can't call him a pessimist either, I guess.

Edited March 2, 2007 by ScottyDo

[StrangeSox]

Sisco doesn't? He is a 6'10" lefty that consistently gets his fastball to the 95-97 area. He also has a very good curve. He has some control issues but his stuff is pretty damn good. You are in very good shape anytime you have 3 lefties with the potential of Gio, Danks, and Sisco. It seems as the Yankees always have big time prospects that get sent elsewhere and don't pan out, so I would be a bit leary of calling the Yankees minor league system very good. The Yankees and the media seem to talk up their prospects quite a bit.

 

How do you know the Sox won't be able to buy an ace on the FA market? That sounds like a bunch of pessimism and "grass is always greener" attitude to me.

 

You will probably use this great line by negative fans and pessimists that I love:

 

"I bet they don't, but if they do I will be pleasantly surprised."

 

Maybe their farm system isn't very good, but if they're able to trade over-inflated prospects for good players I think it works out for them.

[Jordan4life_2007]

Maybe their farm system isn't very good, but if they're able to trade over-inflated prospects for good players I think it works out for them.

 

And we haven't been able to do that?

[southsideirish]

QUOTE(ScottyDo @ Mar 2, 2007 -> 01:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think the Williams Doctrine has been fairly well established on this issue. Honestly, I'm okay with it considering our crosstown buddies just blew $40 million on the pitcher who most defines mediocrity to me. But seriously, do you ever think Williams will spring $140 for Barry Zito or his ilk? He's all but told us he won't. And this is coming from a man who cannot by any stretch of the imagination be called a pessimist.

 

(EDIT) And that man is ME! Not KW. Though you can't call him a pessimist either, I guess.

 

KWs doctrine shows that he doesn't pay for FA's? I think he will be more than willing to pay for a pitcher of Santana's caliber. Barry Zito is at best a number 2. He is not an ace. Will he spring 140 for Santana? Yeah, I think he would in a heartbeat.

 

 

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Mar 2, 2007 -> 01:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Maybe their farm system isn't very good, but if they're able to trade over-inflated prospects for good players I think it works out for them.

 

That wasn't the point, was it? This other poster seems to be able to look at the farm systems of the Yankees and Mets and Twins and Tigers and drool over them, while at the same time look at ours and see nothing. That was the point.

 

By the way, KW has been able to do this time and time again with our farm system sending over-hyped players such as Jeremy Reed out for Freddy Garcia.

[hitlesswonder]

Great minor league pitching? This should be good. The Yanks have one guy they actually drafted worth a damn in Hughes.

 

Well of course he hasn't proven anything at the major league level. He's a prospect. The Yankees have Hughes, Sanchez, Clippard, Garcia, and Chamberlain. That is a very good set of pitching prospects. My point wans't that the Yankess were drafting better than the Sox, but that the Yankees had great prospects despite having poor draft position. I just would like the Sox to do the same.

[ScottyDo]

KWs doctrine shows that he doesn't pay for FA's? I think he will be more than willing to pay for a pitcher of Santana's caliber. Barry Zito is at best a number 2. He is not an ace. Will he spring 140 for Santana? Yeah, I think he would in a heartbeat.

Well, yeah, but if Zito is going for $140 million, Santana is going for $200 million or more to another team. And do you think KW is doing that? My point is his established value for free agents is bellow what overpaying, fiscally irresponsible (sort of) teams are willing to shell out. Any bid he offers is likely to get beat, even if it's perfectly reasonable.

[hitlesswonder]

Sisco doesn't? He is a 6'10" lefty that consistently gets his fastball to the 95-97 area. He also has a very good curve. He has some control issues but his stuff is pretty damn good.

 

When I saw Sisco pitch last season I saw a fastball clocked at 92 to 94. Which is still good. But I didn't see him sitting at 96. Maybe he is faster -- I don't know for sure.

 

How do you know the Sox won't be able to buy an ace on the FA market? That sounds like a bunch of pessimism and "grass is always greener" attitude to me.

 

The Sox have a policy of not going beyond 3 years for a contract with a pitcher. That's not going to sign Johan Santana. I think the chances of the Sox signing an ace on the FA market are extremely small. They'll need to develop or trade for one, unless they are willing to top contracts like the one Zito signed.

 

I'm not saying this is a bad policy, just that if they stick to it they really need to develop some pitching. Which it looks like Williams is trying to do.

Edited March 2, 2007 by hitlesswonder

[Jordan4life_2007]

Well of course he hasn't proven anything at the major league level. He's a prospect. The Yankees have Hughes, Sanchez, Clippard, Garcia, and Chamberlain. That is a very good set of pitching prospects. My point wans't that the Yankess were drafting better than the Sox, but that the Yankees had great prospects despite having poor draft position. I just would like the Sox to do the same.

 

They TRADED for Sanchez. And out of the other 3 you named, only Chamberlain is ranked in the top 100 by BA, lower than Gio and Danks. It seems like BA rankings mean a lot to you. I'm not saying our system or the way we do things is perfect. Far from it. But don't use the Yankees of all teams as the model for drafting and developing players. They haven't produced jack s*** for years.

[ScottyDo]

When I saw Sisco pitch last season I saw a fastball clocked at 92 to 94. Which is still good. But I didn't see him sitting at 96. Maybe he is faster -- I don't know for sure.

That was day 2 of spring training. If you go by those types of numbers, Jenks was a bum last preseason

[elrockinMT]

Our finish for 2007 was probably a suggestion from the Twins-Tigers and Indians, etc

[Flash Tizzle]

Then why do you keep whining about it?

I continue whining about our lack of legitimate pitching prospects because until we change our philosophy, we're not going to match the rotations within our division.

 

Step 1: no more "safe, projectable" picks for the forseeable future. If risking a selection, especially in this deep draft, gives us the possibility of a Phillip Hughes, Scott Kazmir, or Matt Garza -- rather than a Lance Broadway of Kyle McCulloch -- I'd take that risk. If it's a bust, so what? It seems the only good pitching prospects we've had the last 10 years have been lucky, late round picks.

[Jordan4life_2007]

I continue whining about our lack of legitimate pitching prospects because until we change our philosophy, we're not going to match the rotations within our division.

 

OK, I get that. My problem is you're acting like guys like Verlander, Miller, Sowers, ect, are lurking all over the place. You just admitted that draft position is the reason the Tigers and Indians appear to be stacked with all these arms. That we have to overcome it. I agree. Why not just leave it at that? Kenny has already put our scouting department on notice. So it's not like they're ignorant to what's going on.

 

Step 1: no more "safe, projectable" picks for the forseeable future. If risking a selection, especially in this deep draft, gives us the possibility of a Phillip Hughes, Scott Kazmir, or Matt Garza -- rather than a Lance Broadway of Kyle McCulloch -- I'd take that risk. If it's a bust, so what? It seems the only good pitching prospects we've had the last 10 years have been lucky, late round picks.

 

I agree with all of this.

[CWSGuy406]

But don't use the Yankees of all teams as the model for drafting and developing players. They haven't produced jack s*** for years.

 

Wang and Cano are pretty good. And Cabrera is a nice fourth OFer.

 

Not very deep, but Wang just put up a 120 ERA+ while Cano looks to be a strong 2B option for the next decade.

[knightni]

Someone should bump that thread so we can all laugh at ourselves. I'm sure I had some gems in there.

 

[Buehrle>Wood]

No one in the NL winning 90 games??

And only the D-backs did such a thing winning exactly 90.

 

 

Fake edit: I guess either the Pads or Rockies will end up with 90 too, but that is kind of unfair there.

[fathom]

Wow, kudos to BP.

[klaus kinski]

Even the Farmers Almanac is right once in a while-but this is sure strange not only to predict we'd stink-but get the record too

[CWSGuy406]

Wow, kudos to BP.

 

Looks like they did a real quality job this year. Here's what Flash posted as the projected 2007 standings:

 

Yankees 93-69

Red Sox 93-69

Blue Jays 80-82

Devil Rays 77-85

Orioles 74-88

 

Twins 91-71

Indians 89-73

Tigers 85-77

White Sox 72-90

Royals 67-95

 

Angels 87-75

Athletics 81-81

Rangers 80-82

Mariners 73-89

 

NL

East

Philadelphia 87-75

New York 85-77

Atlanta 81-81

Florida 79-83

Washington 66-96

 

Central

Chicago 85-77

Milwaukee 84-78

St.Louis 81-81

Houston 79-83

Pittsburgh 77-85

Cincinnati 71-91

 

West

Arizona 88-74

San Diego 86-76

Los Angeles 80-82

Colorado 80-82

San Francisco 78-84

 

Nailed the NL East; undersold Cleveland and 'oversold' Minny; undersold both LAA and Seattle but still had the Angels atop the West; nailed Philly over the Mets; nailed the NL Central; nailed Arizona and San Diego while underselling Colorado. Damn. That's impressive.

[Rishard101]

Looks like they did a real quality job this year. Here's what Flash posted as the projected 2007 standings:

Nailed the NL East; undersold Cleveland and 'oversold' Minny; undersold both LAA and Seattle but still had the Angels atop the West; nailed Philly over the Mets; nailed the NL Central; nailed Arizona and San Diego while underselling Colorado. Damn. That's impressive.

 

 

 

 

wow why even bother playing the season, BP can tell us the standings before the season starts. That is really impressive.

[CWSGuy406]

wow why even bother playing the season, BP can tell us the standings before the season starts. That is really impressive.

 

Pretty tough to disagree with God, so I'm thinking baseball should definitely go that route.

[RME JICO]

Pretty tough to disagree with God, so I'm thinking baseball should definitely go that route.

amen?

[whitesoxfan101]

That 72-90 exact right prediction for us is impressive, and in fact besides the Twins winning the AL Central nonsense and their Rockies prognostication they did a great job actually.

Edited October 1, 2007 by whitesoxfan101