bigruss Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 The White Sox had four prospects in Baseball America's Top 100 45 JOSH FIELDS, 3b, White Sox This former college quarterback is working out much better for Chicago than Joe Borchard did Opening Day Age: 24. ETA: 2007 55 RYAN SWEENEY, of, White Sox Has been on the fast track since hitting .367 in big league camp as a 19-year-old Opening Day Age: 22. ETA: 2007 ^^^^^ Sweeney was also labeled as a risk factor 56 JOHN DANKS, lhp, White Sox Quality young pitching is hard to acquire, yet White Sox traded for Danks and Gio Gonzalez this offseason Opening Day Age: 21. ETA: 2007 72 GIO GONZALEZ, lhp, White Sox The White Sox liked him so much they reacquired him this winter after including him in the Jim Thome deal a year earlier Opening Day Age: 21. ETA: 2008 heres the link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dasox24 Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 I see Donald Veal is ranked at #52. This saddens me b/c we drafted him out of high school, but couldn't sign him, so he went to college, and now the Cubs have him... The only worse thing would have been if he landed with the Twins or Tigers, but still, it sucks knowing he could've been ours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Honda Civic Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 Sweeney wasn't labeled as a "Risk Factor." He was listed in an expanded free feature called Risk Factor that examines the best and worst case scenarios for a prospect. Sweeney was compared to Garret Anderson and Sean Burroughs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Spencer Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 I see Chris Young is 12th 7 EVAN LONGORIA, 3b, Devil Rays Backed up his reputation as the 2006 draft's best pure hitter by batting .315 with 18 homers in his pro debut Opening Day Age: 21. ETA: 2007 Take away the "n" in Evan and you got a #1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 (edited) I'm fairly surprised Danks is that low. He was 59th in the 2006 edition, which means he only jumped a couple spots despite moving a year closer to the big leagues. BA must have soured on him somewhat. Edited March 1, 2007 by Balta1701 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flash Tizzle Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 1, 2007 -> 04:45 PM) I'm fairly surprised Danks is that low. He was 59th in the 2006 edition, which means he only jumped a couple spots despite moving a year closer to the big leagues. BA must have soured on him somewhat. Or the development of 55 players exceeded that of Danks. Looking over his statistics, I would hardly be overwhelmed without knowledge of his age compared to pitchers within the league, or adjustments made within various level (A,AA). Hopefully, our advanced scouts have absolute certaintly he'll be equal or greater than McCarthy....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elrockinMT Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 Is four out of a total of 100 very good? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 QUOTE(elrockinMT @ Mar 1, 2007 -> 05:09 PM) Is four out of a total of 100 very good? 30 teams. Divide 100 by 30, and each team should have on average just under 4 people on that list, if they were evenly distributed. So I'd say the Sox are slightly above average in terms of total number...but given that all of the guys the Sox have on there are below rank 45, i'd say our average rank isn't very good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sircaffey Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 QUOTE(elrockinMT @ Mar 1, 2007 -> 08:09 PM) Is four out of a total of 100 very good? 8 Rockies 7 Devil Rays 6 Diamondbacks 5 Red Sox, Yankees 4 Braves, Dodgers, Indians, Mets, Reds, Twins, White Sox 3 Angels, Astros, Athletics, Brewers, Cubs, Mariners, Marlins, Orioles, Pirates, Royals 2 Blue Jays, Cardinals, Giants, Tigers 1 Nationals, Phillies, Rangers 0 Padres Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregory Pratt Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 Poor Padres. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3E8 Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Mar 1, 2007 -> 10:39 PM) Poor Padres. Kouzmanoff should be on there for sure and I'd take Carrillo over several of the pitchers at the bottom of their list. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flash Tizzle Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 QUOTE(Jim Spencer @ Mar 1, 2007 -> 04:36 PM) I see Chris Young is 12th I love their analysis. White Sox fans still can't believe their club traded his 30-30 potential to get Javier Vazquez Hopefully within the next several seasons someone will say this about a prospect Williams obtained over the offseason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Mar 1, 2007 -> 05:00 PM) Or the development of 55 players exceeded that of Danks. Looking over his statistics, I would hardly be overwhelmed without knowledge of his age compared to pitchers within the league, or adjustments made within various level (A,AA). Hopefully, our advanced scouts have absolute certaintly he'll be equal or greater than McCarthy....... So a player in Sweeney who hasn't put up staggering numbers and hasn't really hit well outside of the hitter's paradise known as Charlotte is being rated ahead of a pitcher who has adjusted to each level at an astonishing rate? I don't have the exact numbers in front of me, but as I recall, Danks put up a 2.50-3.00 ERA after a few starts in AA. He may never be more than Cliff Lee, but Cliff Lee is pretty damn good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flash Tizzle Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Mar 2, 2007 -> 05:48 AM) So a player in Sweeney who hasn't put up staggering numbers and hasn't really hit well outside of the hitter's paradise known as Charlotte is being rated ahead of a pitcher who has adjusted to each level at an astonishing rate? I don't have the exact numbers in front of me, but as I recall, Danks put up a 2.50-3.00 ERA after a few starts in AA. He may never be more than Cliff Lee, but Cliff Lee is pretty damn good. At a certain point, there's probably a fair amount of similarities among players and they're merely plugging names into slots. Perhaps reputation and/or scouting reports, as well as statistics, factor in. Remember, how often have we heard articles which suggest scouts love his swing? I don't know exactly how much time Baseball America puts into these rankings. Or how they judge the difference between #30 and #55. Even though I suggested 55 people might have shown more progress than Danks, it was more a theory than something I personally believe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hitlesswonder Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Mar 2, 2007 -> 09:33 AM) At a certain point, there's probably a fair amount of similarities among players and they're merely plugging names into slots. Perhaps reputation and/or scouting reports, as well as statistics, factor in. Remember, how often have we heard articles which suggest scouts love his swing? I don't know exactly how much time Baseball America puts into these rankings. Or how they judge the difference between #30 and #55. Even though I suggested 55 people might have shown more progress than Danks, it was more a theory than something I personally believe. BA is traditionally very toolsy and Danks doesn't have great stuff. Someone with a fastball that sits around 90 MPH isn't going to get rated that highly by them, I think. Also, they may be using the fact that the Sox traded for him as a strike against him (i.e. if the Sox scouts think he's good, he probably isn't ) Scouts still like Sweeney, and BA seems to veer more towards scouting rather than stats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flash Tizzle Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 QUOTE(hitlesswonder @ Mar 2, 2007 -> 09:46 AM) BA is traditionally very toolsy and Danks doesn't have great stuff. Someone with a fastball that sits around 90 MPH isn't going to get rated that highly by them, I think. Also, they may be using the fact that the Sox traded for him as a strike against him (i.e. if the Sox scouts think he's good, he probably isn't ) Scouts still like Sweeney, and BA seems to veer more towards scouting rather than stats. Please, someone tell me Danks throws at a higher velocity than ~90mph. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Mar 2, 2007 -> 05:35 PM) Please, someone tell me Danks throws at a higher velocity than ~90mph. Nope, according to his pitching coach from last year, he throws between 88 and 90 mph. I'm with you Flash, I'm with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hometeamfan Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 QUOTE(fathom @ Mar 2, 2007 -> 11:43 AM) Nope, according to his pitching coach from last year, he throws between 88 and 90 mph. I'm with you Flash, I'm with you. Wrong....Danks has an easy stride of 89 - 93mph (hits 94 once he gets cranked up). Tell me you aren't listening what the Rangers say about pitching! LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 QUOTE(hometeamfan @ Mar 2, 2007 -> 05:50 PM) Wrong....Danks has an easy stride of 89 - 93mph (hits 94 once he gets cranked up). Tell me you aren't listening what the Rangers say about pitching! LOL That's a direct quote from Ed Farmer on the broadcast two days ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flash Tizzle Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 (edited) QUOTE(fathom @ Mar 2, 2007 -> 11:43 AM) Nope, according to his pitching coach from last year, he throws between 88 and 90 mph. I'm with you Flash, I'm with you. I know this will inevitably lead into a debate of 'velocity doesn't mean success.' Perhaps a few Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, and Mark Buehrle references thrown about. Hopefully, his 90 mph fastball has actual movement; and his secondary pitches are outstanding. I admit I've never seen him throw. Perhaps the newbie is right -- this is spring training, and he might not have full velocity. It's just a little shocking to me to hear his fastball is ~90mph considering the archived news stories and message board posts from Ranger fans seemed to suggest otherwise. Edited March 2, 2007 by Flash Tizzle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hitlesswonder Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Mar 2, 2007 -> 11:56 AM) I admit I've never seen him throw. Perhaps the newbie is right -- this is spring training, and he might not have full velocity. It's just a little shocking to me to hear his fastball is ~90mph considering the archived news stories and message board posts from Ranger fans seemed to suggest otherwise. From USA Today at the time of the trade: Danks is perhaps the Rangers finest pitching prospect since Kevin Brown and Bobby Witt. He has a 90-92 mph fastball, a dazzling curveball, and a solid changeup And for those really wanting some pessimism this Ranger's blog didn't think Danks would be even a #3 starter in the bigs due to his fastball. But I have no sense at all how credible that blog is, so I think it's possible to chalk that one up to simple displeasure with the Rangers historical lack of pitching development. Back to Danks fastball, I've never seen him pitch. But it seems to me that BA routinely takes the top speed anyone has seen a pitcher hit on a gun somewhere and reports that as his normal speed (and fans take over from there promulgating the myth). So, I feel pretty confident that Danks can't pump it up there at 94MPH. I would expect him to hit 89,90,91 on the gun routinely. Has anyone here seen him pitch in person? I'd love to hear a new scouting report about how his stuff looks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Parkman Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 (edited) Someone at WSI said that they saw Danks pitch in Oklahoma and that that day he was at 89-92mph. Edit: I saw him pitch today, and he was between 89-93 with the fastball. Edited March 5, 2007 by southsida86 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.