OK so answer this please about winning this time of year

[michelangelosmonkey]

Hell, just in a 4 year span the #1 overall pick produced possibly the greatest offensive 3B the game has ever seen (Jones does have the highest OPS for a 3B , though I'm sure Schmidt would get the majority of the votes) and quite possibly the best player to every play the game.

My point is you can't cherry pick. Chipper Jones...superstar. Arod...superstar. Junior...Superstar. Three .900 OPS guys in 40 years. Then some guys. Sure 3 is good...but its no sure thing.

[Kalapse]

My point is you can't cherry pick. Chipper Jones...superstar. Arod...superstar. Junior...Superstar. Three .900 OPS guys in 40 years. Then some guys. Sure 3 is good...but its no sure thing.

There's no such thing as a "sure thing" in anything in sports but you said it yourself, the #1 pick is "more" of a sure thing and that's good enough for me. There's just no downside to having the #1 pick over the #5 or the #8, the #1 is ALWAYS a better pick to have, ALWAYS.

[RockRaines]

My point is you can't cherry pick. Chipper Jones...superstar. Arod...superstar. Junior...Superstar. Three .900 OPS guys in 40 years. Then some guys. Sure 3 is good...but its no sure thing.

I cant remember what thread it was in, but someone posted that the #1 pick is something like 30 percent more effective for selecting an impact MLB player that the 2nd pick. I wish I could find that post.

[WilliamTell]

I voted for both too, which didn't make a difference since it's tied at 24 apiece. I voted for both because I want to see this team sucessful, but the last thing I want to see is them get a run and jump 6 or 7 teams because of one hot month when the rest of the year was a disaster. On the other hand if this team was to get hot, maybe it would help the confidence of the younger players going into next year.

[Kalapse]

It's pretty simple really, the #1>#2-#500 and there's no getting around it. The #1 pick is the best pick because you can take who ever you want, anyone, with the #2 pick you're limited. There's one less player you can take, with the 8th pick you're even more limited. It's not even about how often the #1 pick is effective, it's really as simple as taking the player believed to be the most talented player in the draft. He's yours with the #1 pick but may not be there when you pick at #2.

[CWSGuy406]

Still...from your list of number ones overall you have 3 stars out of 12. PLus a couple of good players. I'd put post 2002 in the "unproven" box. Then you have:

Joe Mauer career OPS .854

 

Wait, Joe Mauer isn't a star? Apparently great defensive catchers with career .394 OBPs are growing on trees these days...

[michelangelosmonkey]

It's pretty simple really, the #1>#2-#500 and there's no getting around it. The #1 pick is the best pick because you can take who ever you want, anyone, with the #2 pick you're limited. There's one less player you can take, with the 8th pick you're even more limited. It's not even about how often the #1 pick is effective, it's really as simple as taking the player believed to be the most talented player in the draft. He's yours with the #1 pick but may not be there when you pick at #2.

But this says losing is completely benign. There's 23 games left. 4+ starts per starter. Suppose Jose Contreas goes 4-0. Is that meaningless? Supposed Floyd goes 4-0...meaningless? Richar gets hot, or Josh Fields hits 6 more homers. If the team goes 19-4 with a handful of good things happening...that's better than going 4-19...irrespective of draft pick. I wouldn't be playing Erstad over Owens if he gives us a better chance to win...because what's the point of that. And I wouldn't root for Richar and Fields and Owens and Floyd and Contreas to suck...because given the choices I'd rather have hope. Now if you can create a scenario where we lose every game with Meyers giving up 5 runs in the 8th and Uribe committing 5 errors. Fine. But to damn the team for a slightly better chance at hitting on a star is just wrong.

[michelangelosmonkey]

I cant remember what thread it was in, but someone posted that the #1 pick is something like 30 percent more effective for selecting an impact MLB player that the 2nd pick. I wish I could find that post.

Well I'm not sure what the meaning of 30% is. Its not like there's a million data points. 3 hitters over .900 OPS in the first pick in the 40 years of the draft. 0 in the second pick. But in the second pick you have JR richards, Mark Mulder, Bill Gullikson and Josh Beckett with more than 20 wins than loses...versus 0 in the first pick. So we can save conclusively #2 picks are better pitchers and #1 better hitters??? The draft is a crap shoot...#1 pick, #2 pick, #500 pick. Is Sheffield, Bonds, Jeter worse than Jones, A-rod, Junior? The #6 guys.

[Dick Allen]

Bonds was drafted 6th overall

 

:D

And the White Sox had the 5th pick. I can understand why some here want the Sox to lose, but I still want victories. This draft pick probably won't be able to really help for a least a couple of years, maybe more. Another month of constant losing is another month where the core of the team is going to forget how to win. Losing breeds more losing.

Edited September 4, 2007 by Dick Allen

[michelangelosmonkey]

Wait, Joe Mauer isn't a star? Apparently great defensive catchers with career .394 OBPs are growing on trees these days...

First of all we have to set the "Star" level someplace. .900 OPS seems like a nice dividing line. And Mauer's now had three full seasons in the majors...with OPS of .783, .936 and .807. And injured a lot. Last year he was a Star. The other two years...good. Using your definition...why is Aaron Rowand not a star. And by the way...Mike Piazza...career .924 OPS. 62nd round.

[michelangelosmonkey]

And the White Sox had the 5th pick. I can understand why some here want the Sox to lose, but I still want victories. This draft pick probably won't be able to really help for a least a couple of years, maybe more. Another month of constant losing is another month where the core of the team is going to forget how to win. Losing breeds more losing.

Yeah but when you can get a high school catcher of Kurt Brown's potential...

[Gregory Pratt]

A small part of me wants the White Sox to skip a true number one talent because of Boras. Wouldn't that be hilarious? Sure, I'd be furious, but I'd love it very, very much, it would be so funny. So ironic. So true.

 

We should have a top three pick, and there's little chance we blow it, but we are the Chicago White Sox.

 

God forbid we wind up with Royce Ring one more time.

[Gene Honda Civic]

And by the way...Mike Piazza...career .924 OPS. 62nd round.

Let's start stockpiling 62nd round picks!

[WHarris1]

I clicked both cuz I could...

[Dick Allen]

Let's start stockpiling 62nd round picks!

Carrie Schueler was long gone by the 62nd round.

[Balance]

Draft picks are uncertain.

 

Losing certainly feels lousy.

 

Ergo, I'd rather see the Sox win on any given night. Draft picks seem like small consolation.

[Whitewashed in '05]

I don't like losses. It makes me sick when they lose, but seeing as how that's the only thing they know how to do I stopped getting mad a long time ago.

 

Now when they lose, oh well, we move up in the draft.

 

When they win, ok good.

[IlliniKrush]

I want whatever helps us win the world series, the goal for every season. So this season's over...

 

Wins this year does absolutely nothing.

 

A higher draft pick really could help us. Not a guarantee, but it actually could help.

 

The answer is easy.

[Rowand44]

A small part of me wants the White Sox to skip a true number one talent because of Boras. Wouldn't that be hilarious?

No.

[santo=dorf]

Go ahead and look at our last 4 top 10 picks. We pretty much haven't selected a good player with our first pick since those years until Fields a few years back.

 

I still don't understand how people could get satisfaction out of winning meaningless games. I guess that's the part I'm missing here.

I still don't understand how a "fan" would encourage losing because of some crapshoot draft. Success in the MLB draft results a s***LOAD more in scouting and the philosophy of the minor league system over something as silly as a draft position in a 60+round draft. Hell, these days most of the great MLB players aren't even drafted.

[Rowand44]

I still don't understand how a "fan" would encourage losing because of some crapshoot draft. Success in the MLB draft results a s***LOAD more in scouting and the philosophy of the minor league system over something as silly as a draft position in a 60+round draft. Hell, these days most of the great MLB players aren't even drafted.

Cause losing is the best thing for this organization right now. Winning doesn't do crap for this team, it's not that hard to figure it out really. Crapshoot or not, like Kalapse said, if we get the number 1 pick, we get the best player in the draft(at least in our minds). That's the best thing possible for this franchise right now, winning games right now doesn't do us anything.

[santo=dorf]

Cause losing is the best thing for this organization right now. Winning doesn't do crap for this team, it's not that hard to figure it out really. Crapshoot or not, like Kalapse said, if we get the number 1 pick, we get the best player in the draft(at least in our minds). That's the best thing possible for this franchise right now, winning games right now doesn't do us anything.

Wrong.

 

The Sox need a new philosohy and better scouting. That will pay off much greater dividends than a single pick.

 

I'd much rather spend $4 million on scouts instead of a hyped up high schooler or college kid. Agreed?

[IlliniKrush]

I still don't understand how a "fan" would encourage losing because of some crapshoot draft. Success in the MLB draft results a s***LOAD more in scouting and the philosophy of the minor league system over something as silly as a draft position in a 60+round draft. Hell, these days most of the great MLB players aren't even drafted.

 

 

Wrong.

 

The Sox need a new philosohy and better scouting. That will pay off much greater dividends than a single pick.

 

I'd much rather spend $4 million on scouts instead of a hyped up high schooler or college kid. Agreed?

You are completely missing the point. We're comparing winning meaningless games vs a better draft pick. This has nothing to do with philosophy, coaching, etc.

[santo=dorf]

...and I enjoy seeing the sox win games instead of losing them regardless of what the situation is.

 

Also, what is the difference in signing bonus between a #2 and a #6? What can we do with that money to improve our minor league system as well?

[Gregory Pratt]

No.

In a very ironic, iconic sort of way it would be.

 

Of course, we've skipped top five talents because of signability concerns and "slot limits" before...(this year...)