Tigers Set to Sign Porcello

[Balta1701]

Well the twins are pretty much doomed to finish out of the playoffs in this division for awhile, and without Santana they have basically no chance. Its nice that their best players were top draft picks (morneau 3rd round i guess not really a top pick, Mauer #1) and basically no-brainers and all, but without Johan, they are nothing but an average team.

That depends...if they were to say, trade Johan, they could essentially rebuild that team in no time. And if Liriano were to somehow come back healthy, and Garza could continue to develop, along with the rest of their young pitching, that team could completely rebuild on the fly if they make the right moves.

[WHITESOXRANDY]

I'll go out on a limb here and say that the Sox will finish behind the Twins each of the next 3 years.

[NorthSideSox72]

I'll go out on a limb here and say that the Sox will finish behind the Twins each of the next 3 years.

 

Do you know the lottery numbers for today too?

 

Three years. That's a laugh. No one, not even KW knows what this team will look like in 2010.

 

[Steve9347]

I'll go out on a limb here and say that the Sox will finish behind the Twins each of the next 3 years.

How profound. Good reasoning, too.

[ZoomSlowik]

That's actually not THAT inconceivable. They're likely to lose Santana and could lose Hunter and/or Nathan as well. Those are some pretty key pieces. There are A LOT of wildcards though.

 

They'll still have Morneau and Mauer for a while, that's a good start, and they always seem to find enough scrappy guys to make the offense work around them. As for the pitching, Garza looks like a keeper, Slowey has some ability, and then of course there's Liriano. You can have a franchise core a lot worse than that, though there are some "ifs" on the pitching side. Then of course there are the Sox, who look like they need some additions to get back to where they were the last two years.

 

I could see it, but I certainly wouldn't bet my life on it. 2008 would be the key, the Sox would have to close that gap while they still have Santana. Plus they have a MUCH better track record of finding replacements within their system than the Sox do.

Edited August 22, 2007 by ZoomSlowik

[michelangelosmonkey]

That's actually not THAT inconceivable. They're likely to lose Santana and could lose Hunter and/or Nathan as well. Those are some pretty key pieces. There are A LOT of wildcards though.

 

They'll still have Morneau and Mauer for a while, that's a good start, and they always seem to find enough scrappy guys to make the offense work around them. As for the pitching, Garza looks like a keeper, Slowey has some ability, and then of course there's Liriano. You can have a franchise core a lot worse than that, though there are some "ifs" on the pitching side. Then of course there are the Sox, who look like they need some additions to get back to where they were the last two years.

 

I could see it, but I certainly wouldn't bet my life on it. 2008 would be the key, the Sox would have to close that gap while they still have Santana. Plus they have a MUCH better track record of finding replacements within their system than the Sox do.

I'm not sure where all the Twins love comes from. ...like they are this genius organization. From 1994 to 2001...eight year period...they draftred in the top ten 7 times, including a number one overall and twice number two overall. They were a BAD team for most of a decade. Eight years ago they got lucky trading for a 20 year old single A pitcher Santana who had an 8-8 record and a 5 ERA. And lucky again getting Liriano and Nathan at a deadline deal. And all this high drafting and two real lucky trades has gotten them what? They've won one 5-game playoff series in the last 15 years. And how about them RELEASING David Ortiz so they wouldn't have to pay him arbitration money work out for them? Morneau and Mauer are good players...but when Santana leaves??? Convince me that Boof Bonser, Matt Garza, Scott Baker and Liriano are going to be better major league pitchers than Gio, Danks, De los Santos and Floyd? I wouldn't trade Danks for anyone of them.

[CWSGuy406]

I wouldn't trade Danks for anyone of them.

 

.......

 

Thanks for giving me my biggest chuckle of the day -- Deadspin and WithLeather are going to have a tough time topping that statement.

[ZoomSlowik]

I'm not sure where all the Twins love comes from. ...like they are this genius organization. From 1994 to 2001...eight year period...they draftred in the top ten 7 times, including a number one overall and twice number two overall. They were a BAD team for most of a decade. Eight years ago they got lucky trading for a 20 year old single A pitcher Santana who had an 8-8 record and a 5 ERA. And lucky again getting Liriano and Nathan at a deadline deal. And all this high drafting and two real lucky trades has gotten them what? They've won one 5-game playoff series in the last 15 years. And how about them RELEASING David Ortiz so they wouldn't have to pay him arbitration money work out for them? Morneau and Mauer are good players...but when Santana leaves??? Convince me that Boof Bonser, Matt Garza, Scott Baker and Liriano are going to be better major league pitchers than Gio, Danks, De los Santos and Floyd? I wouldn't trade Danks for anyone of them.

 

I don't LOVE the Twins or their management, but you gotta admit that they seem to keep pulling reasonably productive players from their system, or I should say at least more productive than our guys. Even if you ignore the guys like Santana, Hunter, Morneau, and Cuddyer, they still have guys that come up and are fairly productive in spots, like Lew Ford, Jason Bartlett, Nick Punto (not so much this year) and Jason Tyner. Are they great? No, but they're producing better than guys like Jerry Owens and Andy Gonzalez. If you can pull that off it certainly helps your cause. They've also manage to develop/find numerous quality bullpen arms like Nathan, Guardado, Hawkins (at the time), Rincon, Romero, Crain, and now Neshek.

 

The early draft picks really didn't help them all that much. Yeah, they had 8 consecutive top-15 picks, but that got them only 2 guys that are currently on their major league roster with Mauer and Cuddyer. Adam Johnson, BJ Garbe, Travis Lee and Ryan Mills aren't really playing a factor. Plus the last 8 years they've been drafting 20th or later.

 

Really? Let's see, if Liriano is healthy (granted that's an if), he already put up one MONSTER stretch over his rookie year, where he had a 2.16 ERA and 144 strikeouts in 121 innings. I'd say that's pretty good evidence that he can pitch, granted he might not come back THAT good. Matt Garza is 23 and already has 17 career starts in the majors, with solid stuff and a 3.30 ERA right now (yeah, pretty high WHIP, but good strikeout numbers, and still lower than John's). I'd think about those two. Bonser isn't a stud, but he's already got 43 league-average type starts to his name, that's at least something. Same with Scott Baker, he already has 43 career major league starts. Granted he sucked last year, but his stints in 05 and 07 are pretty decent. The bottom line is these guys are already at the major league level and you KNOW to some extent what they can contribute.

 

On the Sox side you have one guy with potential that's putting up a 5.30 ERA right now, a talented prospect that's still in AA, a talented prospect that's still in high A, and a former top prospect that is starting to look an awful lot like a AAAA scrub. And then you have Jack Egbert, who's dominating at AA. Regardless if you would rather have any of them besides Danks, you just listed 4 guys for them without even touching Kevin Slowey or Glenn Perkins, two of their other better prospects, and all of them are at/close to the majors already. Then they still have Anthony Swarzak doing quite well in AA. That's really not the same thing.

 

It's not that I hate any of our young arms, it's just looking at it objectively they're AT WORST comparable, and I'm sure most would say better/deeper.

Edited August 22, 2007 by ZoomSlowik

[Gene Honda Civic]

Eight years ago they got lucky trading for a 20 year old single A pitcher Santana who had an 8-8 record and a 5 ERA.

Luck had nothing to do with it. They identified the top unprotected player in all of baseball, and convinced the Marlins to pass him over for the "second best" unprotected player baseball and some cash. They kept him on the roster for the year despite his ineffectiveness because they saw the long-term potential, and would lose him back to the Astros if they had taken him off the 25-man roster.

 

And lucky again getting Liriano and Nathan at a deadline deal.

First of all, it wasn't a deadline deal. Second, it wasn't luck again. Liriano was another high powered lefty in the low minors who had been injured enough for Sabean to let him escape. Nathan was a good young pitcher who already had success in the majors. With his stuff, Sabean was an idiot for thinking he had reached his potential. Bonser, the other arm in the deal, was considered the prize of the deal by most. The Twins new exactly what they were getting in both of those deals; tons of potential. Alot of things had to go right for those players to reach that potential, but it's f***ing naive to call them lucky because they were able to identify (and acquire) some of the highest-ceilinged talent in baseball.

[whitesoxfan101]

To call what the Twins have done over the years luck is beyond asinine. And as for Porcello, everything I've ever read and seen on him has grave concerns over his mechanics and long term health, so we'll see.

[RockRaines]

liriano may be the next Mark Prior.

[ZoomSlowik]

liriano may be the next Mark Prior.

 

It is a possibility, but far from certain yet. He still needs about 3 more surgeries.

 

He was SOOO dominant though that even if he comes back at 90% that's pretty good. Plus it'd be hard for them to handle him as poorly as the Cubs did. One can hope though.

[michelangelosmonkey]

Luck had nothing to do with it. They identified the top unprotected player in all of baseball, and convinced the Marlins to pass him over for the "second best" unprotected player baseball and some cash. They kept him on the roster for the year despite his ineffectiveness because they saw the long-term potential, and would lose him back to the Astros if they had taken him off the 25-man roster.

 

First of all, it wasn't a deadline deal. Second, it wasn't luck again. Liriano was another high powered lefty in the low minors who had been injured enough for Sabean to let him escape. Nathan was a good young pitcher who already had success in the majors. With his stuff, Sabean was an idiot for thinking he had reached his potential. Bonser, the other arm in the deal, was considered the prize of the deal by most. The Twins new exactly what they were getting in both of those deals; tons of potential. Alot of things had to go right for those players to reach that potential, but it's f***ing naive to call them lucky because they were able to identify (and acquire) some of the highest-ceilinged talent in baseball.

 

So either I'm F'ing naive or assinine to say the Twins were lucky? These brilliant Twins...these flawless visionaries who spotted Travis Lee and nabbed him with the #2 overall pick in the 96 draft. Then laughed as Ryan Mills fell to them at the #6 pick in the 98 draft. BJ Garbe at #5 in the 99 draft. Adam Johnson with the #2 overall pick in the 2000 draft. As i tried to point out earlier in this thread...getting a 20 year old power pitcher is a total crap shoot. If the system is...acquire a whole bunch of young power pitchers...again...what has that system gotten them? A couple of division titles when the Central was weak in the early 00's. And one playoff series victory in 15 years. So for nearly a decade the Twins drafted in the top 10 and were able to see things in 20 year old power pitchers that other organizations couldn't (a skill, not luck) and...at the start of the year the Twins staff consisted of Sidney Ponson, Carlos Silva and Ramon Ortiz? Shame on me for suggesting they hit lighting in a bottle...and remind me...how many divisions does Minnesota win without Santana?

[ZoomSlowik]

So either I'm F'ing naive or assinine to say the Twins were lucky? These brilliant Twins...these flawless visionaries who spotted Travis Lee and nabbed him with the #2 overall pick in the 96 draft. Then laughed as Ryan Mills fell to them at the #6 pick in the 98 draft. BJ Garbe at #5 in the 99 draft. Adam Johnson with the #2 overall pick in the 2000 draft. As i tried to point out earlier in this thread...getting a 20 year old power pitcher is a total crap shoot. If the system is...acquire a whole bunch of young power pitchers...again...what has that system gotten them? A couple of division titles when the Central was weak in the early 00's. And one playoff series victory in 15 years. So for nearly a decade the Twins drafted in the top 10 and were able to see things in 20 year old power pitchers that other organizations couldn't (a skill, not luck) and...at the start of the year the Twins staff consisted of Sidney Ponson, Carlos Silva and Ramon Ortiz? Shame on me for suggesting they hit lighting in a bottle...and remind me...how many divisions does Minnesota win without Santana?

 

Care to go over the Sox draft record of first rounders for the last 15 years?

 

That's just an awful line of logic, how many would the Sox have without Konerko? We got him for less than value too, guess we got lucky. Would we have won in 2005 without Garland? We got him for Matt Karchner, guess we got lucky. Oh, and some guy we took in the 38th round turned into our team ace. Guess our drafting is just that brilliant. You can't really have it both ways. There's a little luck involved with everything, but it's pretty clear that they have above average talent evaluators. And by the way, he didn't have that devastating changeup when they signed him, he picked it up when he was in their system.

 

Oh, and Johan Santana wasn't even a full-time starter in 2003 and 2004 when they won division titles. He threw 108 1/3 innings in 2003 when they beat us by 4 games and 158 1/3 in 2004 when they beat us by 9 games. And if you want to minimize the Twins' division titles because "the division was weak", what does that say about the Sox over the same stretch?

Edited August 22, 2007 by ZoomSlowik

[Gene Honda Civic]

So either I'm F'ing naive or assinine to say the Twins were lucky? These brilliant Twins...these flawless visionaries who spotted Travis Lee and nabbed him with the #2 overall pick in the 96 draft. Then laughed as Ryan Mills fell to them at the #6 pick in the 98 draft. BJ Garbe at #5 in the 99 draft. Adam Johnson with the #2 overall pick in the 2000 draft. As i tried to point out earlier in this thread...getting a 20 year old power pitcher is a total crap shoot. If the system is...acquire a whole bunch of young power pitchers...again...what has that system gotten them? A couple of division titles when the Central was weak in the early 00's. And one playoff series victory in 15 years. So for nearly a decade the Twins drafted in the top 10 and were able to see things in 20 year old power pitchers that other organizations couldn't (a skill, not luck) and...at the start of the year the Twins staff consisted of Sidney Ponson, Carlos Silva and Ramon Ortiz? Shame on me for suggesting they hit lighting in a bottle...and remind me...how many divisions does Minnesota win without Santana?

You do realize that pro and amateur scouting are two separate entities, right? The Twins have demonstrated that they have perhaps the best pro scouting in the game. You make fun of Carlos silva, but he's given them over 700 innings of above average starting pitching for less than the cost of 1 year of Eric Milton, the player he was traded for. That's brilliant scouting.

 

I don't think Alexi Casilla will amount to anything special, but acquiring a slick fielding 2B on the cheap for a LOOGY with a WHIP over 1.5 is another great move.

 

Add in the Santana, Liriano, and Nathan thefts, and you've got yourself a more than solid core simply by identifying and trading for other franchises undervalued spare parts... (KW tried to do the same thing in acquiring Richar, but using Cunningham instead of a high salaried player on the ML roster was a mistake)

 

You don't trade with Terry Ryan and come out on top often. He probably knows your minor leagues/cheap players better than you do...

[Gregory Pratt]

I like GMs like that

[Gregory Pratt]

Wonder if Terry Ryan would ever trade for a player he'd mistaken for a different player.

[DBAHO]

The Braves have an Australian presence. I wouldn't really waste my time there. Latin America is the answer.

Well it all depends on the cost. There's basically 4 teams down here who have a monopoly on the talent down here, Atlanta, San Diego, Minnesota and Boston.

 

It may not be as talent laden as Latin America, but there's still a good chance you're going to find a good player down here, and probably for a lower cost compared to a similar Latin American prospect, since there's only around 4 teams bidding against you.

 

Still, all in all, the White Sox need to throw more resources into these type of regions, and I think they've finally realised that. Whether they utilise enough money to get some stud prospects, and have the scouts to actually spot these type of talents, I don't know.

[DBAHO]

To call what the Twins have done over the years luck is beyond asinine. And as for Porcello, everything I've ever read and seen on him has grave concerns over his mechanics and long term health, so we'll see.

Now that's quite an interesting observation on Porcello.

 

I wonder what the reaction would be like around here, if Porcello became chronically injured and couldn't live up to his potential. Wouldn't it be quite funny if Aaron Poreda outproduced Porcello over their careers?

 

Would be a waste of money on Detroit's part, but that's the risk you pay spending that type of money in the draft on a premium prospect I suppose.

[Gregory Pratt]

How many Australian major leaguers are there? How many Australian impact players are there? Same with places like, say, the Netherlands. I don't doubt that there are damn good athletes down there and there's got to be at least one Australian in Austrlaia who could be an impact player but there's no way I'd significantly invest in Australia over, say, Latin America and unfortunately, when you're dealing with an organization like the White Sox, I don't think we can be trusted to competently scout two places so we'll have to focus on one.

 

But seriously, I wish we could be like the Braves where we scout EVERYWHERE.

[CWSGuy406]

I don't doubt that there are damn good athletes down there and there's got to be at least one Australian in Austrlaia who could be an impact player but there's no way I'd significantly invest in Australia over, say, Latin America and unfortunately

 

Why the heck not? I'd love to see the Sox take the initiative and go to a country where baseball isn't exactly a popular sport. The way I see it, the less competition, the better -- if the Sox were to build an academy in a place like the Netherlands, any and all athletes who chose to give baseball a try would basically be controlled by the Sox.

 

If what DBAHO says is true, I think that's some very innovative thinking by those four organizations to go out to Australia.

[Gregory Pratt]

Why the heck not? I'd love to see the Sox take the initiative and go to a country where baseball isn't exactly a popular sport. The way I see it, the less competition, the better -- if the Sox were to build an academy in a place like the Netherlands, any and all athletes who chose to give baseball a try would basically be controlled by the Sox.

 

If what DBAHO says is true, I think that's some very innovative thinking by those four organizations to go out to Australia.

 

Sure, but we have enough trouble in Latin America, and I doubt we'll outbid anyone anywhere...

[Gene Honda Civic]

How many Australian major leaguers are there? How many Australian impact players are there?

According to baseball reference, there have been 19 major leaguers originally born in Austraulia the last 20 years... That works out to .4% of all major league players over that time.

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/bio/Australia_born.shtml

[DBAHO]

Why the heck not? I'd love to see the Sox take the initiative and go to a country where baseball isn't exactly a popular sport. The way I see it, the less competition, the better -- if the Sox were to build an academy in a place like the Netherlands, any and all athletes who chose to give baseball a try would basically be controlled by the Sox.

 

If what DBAHO says is true, I think that's some very innovative thinking by those four organizations to go out to Australia.

It's sort out of thinking outside the box. In China, no way is Baseball a main sport over there, and yet the Yankees are going to put quite a bit of money in there.

 

Down in Australia, there's basically no real professional league down here, there used to be about 10-15 years ago, but it folded due to financial problems.

 

HOWEVER, it is very popular under the age of 18. You see a lot of players down here play until they're eligible to go to college over in America. So the Sox could easily start up an academy down here, and get access to the best talent down here.

 

And I mean we have produced some pretty good talent. Dave Nilsson was an all-star with the Brewers, and I think Justin Huber has really been mishandled by the Royals (in fact I recommend the Sox pick him up on the cheap as a longterm 1B/OF/DH solution).

[29andPoplar]

There's an Australian Baseball Academy which is the primary place any Aussie talent goes through. In fact, several teams that sign players internationally and can't get them a visa in time will stash guys at the Australian Academy and pay them a rookie league salary.

 

Right now there are players from several countries there, including one from the Czech Republic (I think).