OK so answer this please about winning this time of year

[IlliniKrush]

...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?

I get absolutely zero joy out of sox games right now regardless of who's winning or who's losing. To each his own.

[jasonxctf]

If this helps your thought process... The Sox current roster has players drafted in the following rounds

 

1st- Danks, Erstad, Fields, Floyd, Garland, Konerko, MacDougal, Thornton

2nd- Lucy, Owens

3rd- Pierzynski, Podsednik

4th- Myers

5th- Crede, Gonzalez, Jenks, Vazquez

9th- Hall

11th- Bukvich

13th- Thome

17th- Dye

20th- Logan

37th- Cintron

38th- Buehrle

None- Contreras, Ozuna, Richar, Terrero, Uribe, Wassermann

 

1st Round Picks Draft Selection

 

1st- Erstad

4th- Floyd

9th- Danks

10th- Garland

13th- Konerko

18th- Fields

22nd- Thornton

25th - MacDougal

 

 

Personally if the Sox get the 1st pick or the 5th pick, it doesnt really matter.

[witesoxfan]

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...)

 

You'd seriously rather have Rick Porcello at $7.3 mill instead of Aaron Poreda who put up absolutely filthy numbers this year as opposed to Porcello not even pitching (as far as I can tell)? Just think about that.

[Gregory Pratt]

I believe in selecting the higher ceiling. I believe Poreda represents lousy principles ("draft slots..." "no Boras..." "no big money..." "safety"). Poreda might be hot now, but I'm not jumping all over his bandwagon though I do like him a little.

[witesoxfan]

I believe in selecting the higher ceiling. I believe Poreda represents lousy principles ("draft slots..." "no Boras..." "no big money..." "safety"). Poreda might be hot now, but I'm not jumping all over his bandwagon though I do like him a little.

 

6'6, left handed, hits 96, good movement on his fastball; that sounds like someone who could be a good pitcher to me.

 

I believe in drafting the highest ceiling as well, but money doesn't grow on trees, and taking Porcello - as sexy as it would have been - would have been a terrible move.

[Gregory Pratt]

Who projected him as a first round draft choice besides us? I doubt the Braves would've taken him in the first round. I doubt anybody would've except perhaps Oakland because they liked him, too, but I've never heard that they WOULD have taken him first round. He wasn't first round material except for us.

 

He can be a great player, perhaps. Good for him if he is and I'm rooting for him. Seems he's alright through the lower levels but his College stats aren't that impressive and I still don't believe he's a first round draft choice.

[29andPoplar]

Who projected him as a first round draft choice besides us? I doubt the Braves would've taken him in the first round. I doubt anybody would've except perhaps Oakland because they liked him, too, but I've never heard that they WOULD have taken him first round. He wasn't first round material except for us.

 

Yes Oakland and the Giants liked him per Callis and Sickels and supposedly would have tabbed him at 29, although they passed on him at 22 I believe.

 

Actually no one is that tuned in on Poreda's ceiling since he didn't have much baseball experience at least at advanced levels. He had a nice debut in Great Falls and hopefully he can move quickly.

 

I tend not to believe or I should say place much stock in a lot of these scouting reports on BA because all you get is a couple of paragraphs. And many times BA hears these things from scouts who may not be enamored with a particular prospect. Plus lots of these scouts play games, they talk down a prospect because they're hoping to snag him at a lower spot. Not always of course but there's a lot of information that doesn't come out.

 

One thing I would say based on early returns, Poreda to me has a higher ceiling than Broadway or McCullough.

 

Also it is fair to say the White Sox were highly interested in Main and speculation was had Texas not taken him he would've been taken by CWS. I did not want them to take Main because he had a bout of shoulder tendonitis and that's a red flag to me.

Edited September 5, 2007 by 29andPoplar

[Gregory Pratt]

One thing I would say based on early returns, Poreda to me has a higher ceiling than Broadway or McCullough.

 

Well, yeah, but that's not saying much.

[29andPoplar]

Well, yeah, but that's not saying much.

 

I would agree of course, the reason I brought it up was if choosing Poreda was a by product of sr. mgmt. telling the scouting staff to pick players who might have a higher ceiling, I like it. Plus I think taking left handed pitching, within reason, is a good idea.

 

Within reason means, no Wes Whislers.

[Gregory Pratt]

I would agree of course, the reason I brought it up was if choosing Poreda was a by product of sr. mgmt. telling the scouting staff to pick players who might have a higher ceiling, I like it. Plus I think taking left handed pitching, within reason, is a good idea.

 

Within reason means, no Wes Whislers.

 

[Gregory Pratt]

Where some take solace in the "He was good this year" part of the article, I take his lack of a breaking ball and College numbers and the tougher leagues coming into consideration.

 

No, really. I'm not trying to be a downer with regard to Poreda. He seems alright and I really hope he develops a good breaking pitch. Will he? I don't know that I trust this organization to teach him a good one. In fact, if I had to bet I'd bet that he turns into Matt Thornton. But I still wish him the best and really, really hope he develops other pitches.

[greg775]

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.

 

I read all the posts and they all are respectful and thought provoking.

Santo's post, however, is the one I agree with most.

At least we agree to disagree on this one.

I totally realize losing may help us get a better draft pick. But as I pointed out in the game threads, I could give a s*** about draft picks.

I don't want to lose games. Winter sucks. I love baseball season.

I want the Sox to win. Like somebody posted, maybe Fields will win a few games with home runs. Who's to say that won't help his development???

Maybe Richar getting a winning hit will spark him to greatness.

I just want to win games.

Nothing will change my mind and I won't change those who think opposite.

I still think this has been a good post for respectful discussion of totally different points of view.

 

[Vance Law]

As you point it out to me...it HAS been kind of a freakish year. Looks like 95 losses might get you the number one pick...when most years you need more like 105 loses. So yeah dumping may make sense in this year.

 

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

Adrian Gonzalez career OPS .830

Josh Hamilton--nothing yet

Pat Bureel: career .848

Matt Anderson 15-7 5.2 ERA

Kris Benson 68-73 4.4 ERA

Darin Erstad--grinderstad...753 career ops

Paul Wilson 40-58 4.86ERA

Arod...superstar

Phil Nevin career .815 OPS

Brien Tayler--no appearance.

Chipper Jones Star

Go back to every #1 overall pick since 1965 and there are only THREE with career OPS over .900...Ken Griffey Jr, Arod and Chipper. And not a single pitcher with +20 wins over losses in his career...only a couple with 150 victories...maybe the best Andy Benes? Floyd Bannister? Seems like about once a decade you get a dream player. Seems just as likely to get him at #7 like Frank Thomas or, say Jake Peavey in the 15th round.

This is interesting stuff. I'd be interested to know if there were more than 3 .900 OPS guys taken at other spots in the draft.

 

I posted this in another thread last week, but may as well mention again as it's germane here. I looked at position players taken in the top 10 picks from 1977 to 2003. At the various slots, it ranged from 10 to 18 position players taken over that span. I looked solely at whether or not a player reached 3000 at bats in his career, and with younger players like Delmon Young, Nick Markakis, etc, I used my judgement and gave those players the benefit of the doubt that they'd reach 3000 (true, they might get injured, but whatever). Of those 10 draft slots, in 7 of them, the percentage of players that DID NOT reach 3000 at bats in their career was 50% - 70%. The #2 and #3 picks were both at 41% NOT reaching 3000 at bats. The number 1 pick however had just 11% not reaching at least 3000 at bats. Just 2 out of 18, and none since Shawn Abner was taken in 1984.

 

Perhaps the guys who become superstars are randomly distributed among the top half of the first round of the draft. I don't know. There have certainly been a lot fewer complete busts at #1. There clearly has been a much higher percentage of guys who, even if they don't become superstars, manage to have a career of at very least 5 years, which is really quite rare among all of the players drafted. While not a superstar, a guy like Phil Nevin who manages to get 4000 plus at bats with an .815 OPS is actually very rare.

[witesoxfan]

This is interesting stuff. I'd be interested to know if there were more than 3 .900 OPS guys taken at other spots in the draft.

 

I posted this in another thread last week, but may as well mention again as it's germane here. I looked at position players taken in the top 10 picks from 1977 to 2003. At the various slots, it ranged from 10 to 18 position players taken over that span. I looked solely at whether or not a player reached 3000 at bats in his career, and with younger players like Delmon Young, Nick Markakis, etc, I used my judgement and gave those players the benefit of the doubt that they'd reach 3000 (true, they might get injured, but whatever). Of those 10 draft slots, in 7 of them, the percentage of players that DID NOT reach 3000 at bats in their career was 50% - 70%. The #2 and #3 picks were both at 41% NOT reaching 3000 at bats. The number 1 pick however had just 11% not reaching at least 3000 at bats. Just 2 out of 18, and none since Shawn Abner was taken in 1984.

 

Perhaps the guys who become superstars are randomly distributed among the top half of the first round of the draft. I don't know. There have certainly been a lot fewer complete busts at #1. There clearly has been a much higher percentage of guys who, even if they don't become superstars, manage to have a career of at very least 5 years, which is really quite rare among all of the players drafted. While not a superstar, a guy like Phil Nevin who manages to get 4000 plus at bats with an .815 OPS is actually very rare.

 

This post should end the debate. Very good stuff.

 

 

[michelangelosmonkey]

This is interesting stuff. I'd be interested to know if there were more than 3 .900 OPS guys taken at other spots in the draft.

 

I posted this in another thread last week, but may as well mention again as it's germane here. I looked at position players taken in the top 10 picks from 1977 to 2003. At the various slots, it ranged from 10 to 18 position players taken over that span. I looked solely at whether or not a player reached 3000 at bats in his career, and with younger players like Delmon Young, Nick Markakis, etc, I used my judgement and gave those players the benefit of the doubt that they'd reach 3000 (true, they might get injured, but whatever). Of those 10 draft slots, in 7 of them, the percentage of players that DID NOT reach 3000 at bats in their career was 50% - 70%. The #2 and #3 picks were both at 41% NOT reaching 3000 at bats. The number 1 pick however had just 11% not reaching at least 3000 at bats. Just 2 out of 18, and none since Shawn Abner was taken in 1984.

 

Perhaps the guys who become superstars are randomly distributed among the top half of the first round of the draft. I don't know. There have certainly been a lot fewer complete busts at #1. There clearly has been a much higher percentage of guys who, even if they don't become superstars, manage to have a career of at very least 5 years, which is really quite rare among all of the players drafted. While not a superstar, a guy like Phil Nevin who manages to get 4000 plus at bats with an .815 OPS is actually very rare.

 

My only quibble is...if you get the #1 pick in the draft you don't want a guy that gets 3000 at bats. I think an organization that picks #1 overall will do everything to ensure that guy gets at bats. Phil Nevin was a good player. But you are taking near the top of all the #1's. And they bipassed Derek Jeter. Erstad, Jeff King, Bj Surhoff, Shawn Dunston, Bill Almon....all reached your 3,000 at bats and none of them was anything but 'servicable'.

I think the goal in drafting is to acquire a star. A top 50 player in baseball...I just googled "top 50 players in baseball" and the first thing was a Sporting News article from 2003. Now granted this is open to bias in who those players are...but the list isn't bad, and its not MY bias. Anyway I figured any year should be roughly the same...so here is how those 50 top players in baseball entered the game:

Undrafted: 13...this is the great unfairness in baseball vs football. Smart organizations can get players like Ichiro, Vlad Guerrero, Pedro Martinez, Carlo Delgado...without effecting draft...and for the most part without paying a ton. This is one area the White Sox need to get better...and it appears they are trying hard.

Draft round 10-50: 6 players. That's 12% wild luck.

draft round 3-9: 7 players.

draft round 2: 4 players

draft round 1: 20. Actually this is more like football than I thought. 40% of the best players come from the first round. If you want a star you need to get him in the first round.

And to break that down:

pick 1: 2

pick 2: 2

pick 4: 2

Pick 5: 1

pick 6: 3

Top ten: 13

And fully 26% of all stars come from the top ten picks. But 1 over 2? 2 over 4?

Brief conclusion...and again, one year, one list...but it seems sound. Drafting in the first round: important. Top ten pick: important. But inside the top ten...not much difference. So Go Sox Go. Loved Garland pitching well last night.

 

 

 

 

 

[witesoxfan]

My only quibble is...if you get the #1 pick in the draft you don't want a guy that gets 3000 at bats. I think an organization that picks #1 overall will do everything to ensure that guy gets at bats.

 

Just how is that any different from the 3rd or 9th overall selection? If a guy is drafted in the first round, they are going to want to see how he performs and they will give him a shot. In theory, if a guy is drafted in the 1st round, he's one of the best 2% of players taken within that calendar year; you are going to do everything in your power to get that player in the majors because of his talent level. So in that regard, I don't believe the #1 overall pick is any different than the 2nd, 5th, 10th, 17th, 23rd, or 30th.

 

 

Erstad, Jeff King, Bj Surhoff, Shawn Dunston, Bill Almon....all reached your 3,000 at bats and none of them was anything but 'servicable'.

 

You apparently do not appreciate the value of serviceable, nor do you appreciate longevity.

 

 

[Vance Law]

I think the goal in drafting is to acquire a star.

 

Yes, sure. Um, how do you make sure that you've drafted the guy who, in the future, is going to be a star? Seems like if you can master that, you could go right ahead and draft only superstars which would give you a leg up on the competition, who are inexplicably drafting not superstars.

Edited September 5, 2007 by Vance Law

[Milkman delivers]

Wow, I can't believe the results so far. That's f***tarded.

[greg775]

Wow, I can't believe the results so far. That's f***tarded

 

It's called a difference of opinion, milkman.

It's what makes the world go round.

[Balta1701]

It's called a difference of opinion, milkman.

It's what makes the world go round.

I disagree. I believe the world goes round because of angular momentum transferred to it about 4.5 billion years ago when a Mars-sized impactor slammed into the Earth obliquely (the same giant impact which formed the moon).

 

Does that also count as a difference of opinion?

[greg775]

Yep.

[michelangelosmonkey]

Just how is that any different from the 3rd or 9th overall selection? If a guy is drafted in the first round, they are going to want to see how he performs and they will give him a shot. In theory, if a guy is drafted in the 1st round, he's one of the best 2% of players taken within that calendar year; you are going to do everything in your power to get that player in the majors because of his talent level. So in that regard, I don't believe the #1 overall pick is any different than the 2nd, 5th, 10th, 17th, 23rd, or 30th.

You apparently do not appreciate the value of serviceable, nor do you appreciate longevity.

 

I think #1 is different because you have no defense. If you have the #9 pick you can always tell fans and management...well we WANTED Jeter...but he was already taken. I think there's more pressure on organizations with #1 overall. So they groom a path for him. If Brian Anderson was #1 overall pick...the Sox would have had him in CF this year...Ozzie's doghouse or not.

 

Still you are right for slamming me for my view on "serviceable". Having someone like Johnny Peralta or AJ Pierzinski (ie: .750 OPS guys) for 10 years is part of building a team.

[witesoxfan]

I think #1 is different because you have no defense. If you have the #9 pick you can always tell fans and management...well we WANTED Jeter...but he was already taken. I think there's more pressure on organizations with #1 overall. So they groom a path for him. If Brian Anderson was #1 overall pick...the Sox would have had him in CF this year...Ozzie's doghouse or not.

 

Still you are right for slamming me for my view on "serviceable". Having someone like Johnny Peralta or AJ Pierzinski (ie: .750 OPS guys) for 10 years is part of building a team.

 

I disagree with the first part, but going on further is just arguing a moot point. #1 is the absolute best position to be in while you draft, even if it sucks getting there.

[BearSox]

what will winning give us? A shot at 4th place and a worse draft pick? Losing will hopefully help this team in the long run.

 

However, I'd still like to see the team win games in which someone like Buehrle, Vazquez, or Garland pitch their balls off, and I would like to at least the young players do good.