SOX @ Mariners 3:05 PM CSN

[3E8]

Over/under on homers for Fields: 19.5.

 

I'd probably take the under, but that's a real real close under -- I'd peg him for 18 or 19.

Keith I remember when you posed this question at SSS and I thought to myself, there's no way he'll hit 20. But now he needs just a HR each week to hit that mark.

[Greg The Bull Luzinski]

The good news is after this game, we will be in line for the 4th pick in the draft. While the D-Rays are way out of range, the Pirates and Giants are catchable

Edited August 19, 2007 by Greg The Bull Luzinski

[santo=dorf]

The good news is after this game, we will be in line for the 4th pick in the draft. While the D-Rays are way out of range, the Pirates and Giants are catchable

What difference does draft position make if the organization won't change their philosophy? What is the difference if the White Sox draft Danks 4th or 10th? Oh right, he gets more money.

[Greg The Bull Luzinski]

What difference does draft position make if the organization won't change their philosophy? What is the difference if the White Sox draft Danks 4th or 10th? Oh right, he gets more money.

 

Because when the White Sox refuse to sign him, they can just keep collecting compensation picks until they have 10 in the first round in 2017! Then KW's philosophy pays off and we finally succeed in the draft.

Edited August 19, 2007 by Greg The Bull Luzinski

[Flash Tizzle]

What difference does draft position make if the organization won't change their philosophy? What is the difference if the White Sox draft Danks 4th or 10th? Oh right, he gets more money.

Even if they're unwilling to go overslot or deal with Boras, the chances are still better we'll find a quality player at 4th or 5th than 10th or above.

 

Yes, there's uncertainty even at the top of the draft, but as I've said countless times when this issue has been discussed, you atleast want the opportunity to scout a larger number of players. Not having to hope, for once, that the player we've set our sights on falls.

 

Any benefit for us in the draft should be taken advantage of. I'm really surprised everyone isn't aboard considered the pure crap we've produced the last decade.

Edited August 19, 2007 by Flash Tizzle

[Gregory Pratt]

Even if they're unwilling to go overslot or deal with Boras, the chances are still better we'll find a quality player at 4th or 5th than 10th or above.

 

Yes, there's uncertainty even at the top of the draft, but as I've said countless times when this issue has been discussed, you atleast want the opportunity to scout a larger number of players. Not having to hope, for once, that the player we've set our sights on falls.

 

Any benefit for us in the draft should be pursued. I'm really surprised everyone isn't aboard considered the pure crap we've produced the last decade.

 

Why spend money on one guy who may or may not bomb when we can save it for many lesser players who may be good but probably won't be?

[santo=dorf]

Why spend money on one guy who may or may not bomb when we can save it for many lesser players who may be good but probably won't be?

or

Why spend money on one guy who may or may not bomb when we can save it for many, many more scouts who will help us discover talented players?

[Gregory Pratt]

or

Why spend money on one guy who may or may not bomb when we can save it for many, many more scouts who will help us discover talented players?

 

I have been all over this organization's scouts and coaches. If it were up to me, we'd have new prospectors and new people to chisel them but you'd also spend the money on good players, too. With our luck, though, we'd wind up asking Hawk Harrelson to leave the broadcast booth to scout.

[Gregory Pratt]

Jim at SoxMachine recently wondered why we didn't go after Curtis Granderson in the draft a few years ago. I have the same question. Atlanta, as Jim rightly points out, has a big hold on Georgia players but we can't watch Granderson and pick him up? He didn't go all that high, either, so he'd have been worth a look, but I suppose having scouts in Chicago is too much to ask as opposed to the Arizona Fall League or Mexican Ball. Maybe we should buy them new radar guns and an instructional manual too.

[Soxfest]

Garland can go anytime in offseason! PLZ

[Flash Tizzle]

Why spend money on one guy who may or may not bomb when we can save it for many lesser players who may be good but probably won't be?

Why are we limited to spending money on one guy? Why should a team ranked five overall in payroll have to choose one over another?

 

To answer your question directly, you select the one guy with the higher position who may or may not bomb because there's higher potential associated with him. Go through the draft, dating back as far as possible, and try to find me one instance where a round outside the first produced more major leaugers in any given season. You'll find a gem here or there, but I'd rather try and find our Tim Lincecum in the Top 10 rather than our Matt Garza around 25.

Edited August 19, 2007 by Flash Tizzle

[santo=dorf]

Why are we limited to spending money on one guy? Why should a team ranked five overall in payroll have to choose one over another?

 

To answer your question directly, you select the one guy with the higher position who may or may not bomb because there's less risk associated with him. Go through the draft, dating back as far as possible, and try to find me one instance where a round outside the first produced more major leaugers in any given season.

Wait, what? Now you are arguing rounds? I thought you were arguing for a higher slot.

 

You simply can't say a player has less risk than another player simply because he was drafted higher. That is completely asinine and you know it.

[Flash Tizzle]

or

Why spend money on one guy who may or may not bomb when we can save it for many, many more scouts who will help us discover talented players?

Again, I don't understand why this has to be an either/or issue. We're a major league team two years removed from a World Series in the 3rd largest city in the United States. Our payroll last year and this year was over 100 million. We should have more than enough to hire scouts and provide high bonuses for players. Finishing 26th overall in draft bonuses just shouldn't happen.

[CWSGuy406]

That is completely asinine and you know it.

 

What's the problem? What Flash is saying is quite simple -- at least if you pick fourth as opposed to tenth, you'll have the chance to take that tenth player along with those slotted from four to ten. That doesn't mean the player taken fourth will be better than the tenth player, the fifteenth player, hell the 300th player -- but you have a chance to draft ALL of those guys with the fourth overall.

 

My hope is that Tampa Bay gets first and somehow, someway, those two teams below us are able to get on a little hot streak. The D'Rays strike me as a franchise that could still use more pitching, even with the selection of Price. They have Longoria and Brignac (sp?) on the left side of the infield, so maybe they'd think about passing on Alvarez.

 

It's really a shame that Weiters got signed by Baltimore -- Boras client or not, he'd've been a perfect selection for this organization (okay, Porcello would've been a perfect fit, but he was taken in the top te--... oh, wait).

[Flash Tizzle]

Wait, what? Now you are arguing rounds? I thought you were arguing for a higher slot.

 

You simply can't say a player has less risk than another player simply because he was drafted higher. That is completely asinine and you know it.

I only addressed rounds because Pratt was questioning the reason why one player should be given a certain amount of money when that amount can be thrown about a larger number of players. To me, this means devoting more money to players taken later in the draft. That's all I infered from his statement. Suggesting there's still less risk with the first round selection than taking several overslotted 12-15th rounders is the point I'm trying to make here.

 

 

[29andPoplar]

Jim at SoxMachine recently wondered why we didn't go after Curtis Granderson in the draft a few years ago. I have the same question. Atlanta, as Jim rightly points out, has a big hold on Georgia players but we can't watch Granderson and pick him up? He didn't go all that high, either, so he'd have been worth a look, but I suppose having scouts in Chicago is too much to ask as opposed to the Arizona Fall League or Mexican Ball. Maybe we should buy them new radar guns and an instructional manual too.

 

The main Sox area scout for this area is Nathan Durst so I guess he is the guy to ask.

 

Granderson went 80th overall to Detroit. Detroit had two picks before Granderson, both were busts.

 

White Sox had two picks before #80. First pick was Royce Ring and second pick was Jeremy Reed.

 

Royce Ring was far from a great pick but he has reached the majors and was a key piece in a 2004 trade. As for Reed, his story is well known.

 

Detroit had two players turn out from that draft, Granderson and Zumaya.

[Gregory Pratt]

I only addressed rounds because Pratt was questioning the reason why one player should be given a certain amount of money when that amount can be thrown about a larger number of players. To me, this means devoting more money to players taken later in the draft. That's all I infered from his statement. Suggesting there's still less risk with the first round selection than taking several overslotted 12-15th rounders is the point I'm trying to make here.

 

I wasn't questioning s***. I was being sarcastic and I think obviously so.

 

Really,

 

"We can spread the money around instead of using it up on the first round pick!!!!!!"

 

Right right right.

[santo=dorf]

What's the problem? What Flash is saying is quite simple -- at least if you pick fourth as opposed to tenth, you'll have the chance to take that tenth player along with those slotted from four to ten. That doesn't mean the player taken fourth will be better than the tenth player, the fifteenth player, hell the 300th player -- but you have a chance to draft ALL of those guys with the fourth overall.

That's not how I read it.

 

There are risks such as injury potentials, high bonus demands, and signability issues such as wanting to play another year in college (which could relate to the signing bonus.)

 

I'm simply not going to buy this logic that higher pick # = less risk for the player.

 

 

[Gregory Pratt]

The main Sox area scout for this area is Nathan Durst so I guess he is the guy to ask.

 

Granderson went 80th overall to Detroit. Detroit had two picks before Granderson, both were busts.

 

White Sox had two picks before #80. First pick was Royce Ring and second pick was Jeremy Reed.

 

Royce Ring was far from a great pick but he has reached the majors and was a key piece in a 2004 trade. As for Reed, his story is well known.

 

Detroit had two players turn out from that draft, Granderson and Zumaya.

 

Drafts are somewhat understandable, to an extent, because you've got guys who mostly don't pan out, but some things aren't acceptable. Passing on Boras clients, big money clients, going after big ex-football players all the time, generally very very bad, but I don't understand why we let Granderson go. If we can't even scout our own area, what can we scout? Clearly not Arizona or Mexico.

[29andPoplar]

but I don't understand why we let Granderson go. If we can't even scout our own area, what can we scout? Clearly not Arizona or Mexico.

 

At that time if you'd asked just about every knowledgeable baseball exec, publication, scout, whoever, they take Reed over lots of guys including Granderson. It worked out great for Detroit and those things happen. There is no evidence whatsoever the White Sox were unaware of Granderson but my recollection is Curtis was a gangly kid who showed potential but nothing like he shows now. I think there's even a guy on this board who played with or against him who said the same thing.

 

I'm not defending the White Sox amateur scouting because clearly it needs improvement, they have identified it as a front burner issue and have taken some definitive action already. Not to say whatever they do will be the cure all because who knows and as many here have said amateur scouting is an inexact science. I mean, any of the people on this board can come up with examples all night of guys certain teams passed on and ask "why".

 

Not that it matters but for the record another Chicago team, the Cubs, passed on Granderson a few times too. Not a rationalization but it's a fair point nonetheless.

[Gregory Pratt]

It's fair, I agree, and I'm not jumping all over them for that, only and exactly, but it's something that's rather curious.

 

The scouts suck and so do the coaches, though, and I think that's almost undeniable. I think Cooper's good at what he does, though.

[29andPoplar]

It's fair, I agree, and I'm not jumping all over them for that, only and exactly, but it's something that's rather curious.

 

The scouts suck and so do the coaches, though, and I think that's almost undeniable. I think Cooper's good at what he does, though.

 

The guy in your avatar, one of his top protogees is running the White Sox player development area as of this year. That is Alan Regier, who also spent considerable time learning from Bill Lajoie one of the most respected baseball people alive.

[Gregory Pratt]

The guy in your avatar, one of his top protogees is running the White Sox player development area as of this year. That is Alan Regier, who also spent considerable time learning from Bill Lajoie one of the most respected baseball people alive.

 

I'm not sure if it's true that he's one of John's "top protegees" because I can't find anything about him in the acknowledgements or index of Schuerholz' book and he goes out of his way to talk about many people, so how BIG he is, I don't know, but the fact is that even if Schuerholz came here himself, as long as we have our bulls*** policies about Boras and our lack of coaching and lack of scouting, I doubt we're going to get much better.