Organizational Rankings

[daa84]

Keith Law had us 23rd among the franchises in regards to strength of farm systems...Rangers, Rays, A's, Braves and Indians were top 5...cubs were 27th

23. Chicago White Sox: In the bottom five before this winter's trades and the signing of Dayan Viciedo; although I wasn't sure how much weight to give the Cuban third baseman in the rankings, I settled on 300 pounds. A very questionable draft this year after Gordon Beckham won't do much to boost their system.

Jim Callis in his chat had this to say

 

Jim (KC): Last week you stated you would put Cleveland's farm system ahead of KC's, where would the other al central teams fit?

 

SportsNation Jim Callis: (2:31 PM ET ) I had the Indians at No. 7, the Royals at No. 9, the White Sox at No. 14, the Twins at No. 22 and the Tigers at No. 25.

 

I would rate our system as probably somewhere between the two. Which is saying quite alot given that a year and half ago we were in the bottom 2

[NorthSideSox72]

Keith Law had us 23rd among the franchises in regards to strength of farm systems...Rangers, Rays, A's, Braves and Indians were top 5...cubs were 27th

 

Jim Callis in his chat had this to say

 

I would rate our system as probably somewhere between the two. Which is saying quite alot given that a year and half ago we were in the bottom 2

Yeah, I don't agree with Law at all that the draft was questionable below Beckham (well, except for the Williams pick, which went right past questionable and on to ridiculous). I think there were a lot of nice finds in there, and results in short season 2008 seemed to agree.

 

And the 2007 draft is starting to look like it wasn't that bad either.

 

The system is definitely getting stronger in a hurry.

 

[maggsmaggs]

I'd agree more with Callis here. He generally is skeptical of White Sox prospects, rightfully so with our history, so if he gives us a 14 rating, I believe we are average or a little above-average.

[ThunderBolt]

We've discussed this. Keith Law is a tiny, bitter man who needs to be put down alone in a room with J.P. Ricciardi and settle his "daddy issues." Our sytem while not in the elite of all of baseball is not nearly as bad as it has been, and not nearly as bad as Law paints it to be.

[Palehosefan]

There's just no way you can rate our system lower than the middle third of baseball. Somewhere in the 12-20 range would seem to make sense. This is the strongest I can remember our system in a while, especially our top 5-6.

[R.J.]

20th sounds about right.

 

We don't have a ton of high upside guys. Maybe 5 or 6.

[Cerbaho-WG]

"A very questionable draft this year after Gordon Beckham won't do much to boost their system."

 

 

...Man, Keith Law is an idiot.

[Dick Allen]

"A very questionable draft this year after Gordon Beckham won't do much to boost their system."

 

 

...Man, Keith Law is an idiot.

If Beckham is half as good as they think he is, and everyone else is garbage, it will be one of the White Sox best drafts in since the Himes era.

[witesoxfan]

20th sounds about right.

 

We don't have a ton of high upside guys. Maybe 5 or 6.

 

Not a ton of high upside guys? Everyone is raving about Gordon Beckham, Jordan Danks's ceiling isn't limitless, but everything I've ever read suggests near Grady Sizemore like tools, Dayan Viciedo tore up Cuba as a 17 year old, Tyler Flowers is thought to have 30 homers power, Aaron Poreda has an absolute dynamite arm who needs to refine his secondary pitches, and the Sox actually have pitching prospects in the middle and lower levels of the minors to go along with Poreda who have considerable upside.

 

If you want to be very extreme and say they have no high upside guys like in the form of a Hanley Ramirez or Nick Markakis or even John Danks, that's entirely possible, but I wouldn't rule anything out at this point. It's not the best system in the game, but there's some resemblance of good players in the system for the first time in a long time.

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

Not a ton of high upside guys? Everyone is raving about Gordon Beckham, Jordan Danks's ceiling isn't limitless, but everything I've ever read suggests near Grady Sizemore like tools, Dayan Viciedo tore up Cuba as a 17 year old, Tyler Flowers is thought to have 30 homers power, Aaron Poreda has an absolute dynamite arm who needs to refine his secondary pitches, and the Sox actually have pitching prospects in the middle and lower levels of the minors to go along with Poreda who have considerable upside.

 

If you want to be very extreme and say they have no high upside guys like in the form of a Hanley Ramirez or Nick Markakis or even John Danks, that's entirely possible, but I wouldn't rule anything out at this point. It's not the best system in the game, but there's some resemblance of good players in the system for the first time in a long time.

I agree with this, and there seem to be quite a few guys who can climb up the ladder quite a bit this year. Jose Martinez comes back from surgery. Dexter Carter, Shirek, and Hudson could all start in W-S. Plus there is Morel who could shoot up the prospect charts if his late-season power is for real. Anthony Carter, Ely, Retherford and Shelby will all be in Birmingham. Then there's Gilmore and Rodriguez from the Javy deal who the Sox seem to be quite optimistic about. Then there are some guys like Harrell, Santeliz, Rasner, etc. that aren't really on anyone's radar but could make cases for themselves. And of course you have Jordan Danks on top of that, plus Beckham, Poreda, Flowers, Brandon Allen, and Viciedo.

 

Out of all those players, if the big 6 (when was the last time we had 6 impact-type prospects all projected to end the season in AA or higher?) move along as expected, and if we get a couple great showings out of the rest, when you then add that to the 2009 draft which will at least net us a first rounder and a supplemental pick if not two picks, the Sox will be very close to a top-10 system, if not have a top-10 system.

 

Plus, there are also some rebound guys or off-the-radar guys that are capable of making contributions this year that would far outweigh their positions in any system ranking: Marquez, Nunez from the Swisher deal, Richard, Link, Getz, and my darkhorse Mr. Egbert, could all find themselves with extended opportunities this year.

 

The best part of our system now is that there are at least some names to look out for. It wasn't that long ago that a guy like Nevin Griffith would go down with surgery and then all of the sudden there wouldn't be a whole lot to hope for. Now at least there's something. And on top of that, it's so great to see Gomes and Orlando out of here, along with Valido, and hopefully McCulloch and Broadway are shown the door shortly afterwards. Just get all that stuff out of here and clear space for some actual prospects.

[dasox24]

"A very questionable draft this year after Gordon Beckham won't do much to boost their system."

 

 

...Man, Keith Law is an idiot.

Yes, he is. I guess guys like Jordan Danks, Dexter Carter, Daniel Hudson, Brent Morel, and Steven Upchurch were garbage last year. Not to mention someone like Tyler Kuhn destroying rookie league (though he is old for that level).

[WhiteSoxfan1986]

I put a lot more value in Callis's rankings.

[Dick Allen]

Who cares about farm system rankings? They don't give you a trophy for being ranked high. Unless your system is so awful, and you are ranked at the bottom, the rest is a crapshoot. Organizations will get ranked higher for having 4 guys who have potential to be great who turn out to be nothing than an organization that has 1 or 2 guys who actually turn out to be good or great players. As someone who has noticed the crap coming from the Sox minor league system for years, it appears to have turned around and at least there is some hope a few of these guys could be pretty good. It doesn't matter to me if they are ranked first or 25th.

[R.J.]

Yeah, six high upside guys. I mean, that's good, but then we start to stretch when we evaluate others. Just keep things in perspective is all. The talent thins out pretty soon thereafter (in comparison to uhh, about 17-18 other baseball clubs). We don't have a top 10 farm system, but we have a better system than we have for a while and it seems like we've made a commitment to getting better. That's something to pin your hats on.

 

I'm just telling you what the prospect community is all saying, and you'll be glad to know that it's all a science so volatile that we could go up or down 10 spots in a year anyway.

[NorthSideSox72]

Who cares about farm system rankings? They don't give you a trophy for being ranked high. Unless your system is so awful, and you are ranked at the bottom, the rest is a crapshoot. Organizations will get ranked higher for having 4 guys who have potential to be great who turn out to be nothing than an organization that has 1 or 2 guys who actually turn out to be good or great players. As someone who has noticed the crap coming from the Sox minor league system for years, it appears to have turned around and at least there is some hope a few of these guys could be pretty good. It doesn't matter to me if they are ranked first or 25th.

One guy's subjective ranking doesn't matter, I agree. But the overall quality of the system, its instruction and coaching, and its talent saturation at high levels all should matter to any Sox fan. And unfortunately, as we don't all see the players ourselves or have all the knowledge we need to evaluate them, we rely on scouting reports and lists like this. If you take a few different ones, you should get a decent idea of where things stand. Certainly not at all an exact science though.

 

[Dick Allen]

One guy's subjective ranking doesn't matter, I agree. But the overall quality of the system, its instruction and coaching, and its talent saturation at high levels all should matter to any Sox fan. And unfortunately, as we don't all see the players ourselves or have all the knowledge we need to evaluate them, we rely on scouting reports and lists like this. If you take a few different ones, you should get a decent idea of where things stand. Certainly not at all an exact science though.

I agree. What I'm saying is it really shouldn't matter if Keith Law thinks you have the 5th best system or the 25th best system. Making what you have useful or getting players who can be useful is more important. The Sox were ranked #1 9 years ago. It didn't mean anything. Its one thing if everyone who looks at it says its real bad, but there is enough variance for there to be some hope.

Edited January 22, 2009 by Dick Allen

[False Alarm]

i'm pretty sure callis is real high on viciedo. notice how in his revised sox top 10 he had viciedo above poreda. compare that with, say, sickels, who gave poreda a B+ and viciedo a B- (a big difference in his rating system). wouldn't surprise me if that accounts for most of the difference in callis's and law's rankings--a lotta pundits are skeptical of viciedo. but since callis is a viciedo believer and puts a premium on impact talent (as opposed to prospecters who value depth in a system), he ranks us more favorably.

[NorthSideSox72]

I also think these rankings sometimes focus too much on the top 5 or 10 players. History shows that many of even those players will fail to live up to expecations, and further, that many star players are found below that level. That #11 through #50 group of players might be a bigger difference maker in providing young talent than the top 10, and yet we (and they) know a lot less about them.

 

Take the SS position in our system for example. Beckham, rightfully, gets a ton of attention. But I think to get an idea of systemic depth at SS, you also need to get an idea of the potential of guys like Kuhn, Miranda, Escobar, etc.

 

[False Alarm]

I also think these rankings sometimes focus too much on the top 5 or 10 players. History shows that many of even those players will fail to live up to expecations, and further, that many star players are found below that level. That #11 through #50 group of players might be a bigger difference maker in providing young talent than the top 10, and yet we (and they) know a lot less about them.

 

Take the SS position in our system for example. Beckham, rightfully, gets a ton of attention. But I think to get an idea of systemic depth at SS, you also need to get an idea of the potential of guys like Kuhn, Miranda, Escobar, etc.

i'm not sure history bears out what you're saying here. i'm too lazy to research it, but i'm guessing if you take the annual MiLB top 100 prospect lists and compare them with the thousands of players who missed the lists each year, the majority--and probably the vast majority--of eventual major-league stars will have placed on top 100 lists at some point in their MiLB careers. and of course top 100 lists are, broadly speaking, composed of the top few players from each system.

 

now obviously depth matters, and every team needs to develop chris getzes (solid contributors with limited ceilings). but those guys are by definition more common; most teams have some. so i think star potential with a pretty high floor, a rarer commodity, should weigh heavily into system rankings (inasmuch as system rankings matter at all). and sure, occasionally a getz- or miranda-type prospect might unexpectedly bloom into a star, but that happens so rarely and unpredictably that i'm not sure how you'd incorporate it as a factor into ranking systems.

[NorthSideSox72]

i'm not sure history bears out what you're saying here. i'm too lazy to research it, but i'm guessing if you take the annual MiLB top 100 prospect lists and compare them with the thousands of players who missed the lists each year, the majority--and probably the vast majority--of eventual major-league stars will have placed on top 100 lists at some point in their MiLB careers. and of course top 100 lists are, broadly speaking, composed of the top few players from each system.

 

now obviously depth matters, and every team needs to develop chris getzes (solid contributors with limited ceilings). but those guys are by definition more common; most teams have some. so i think star potential with a pretty high floor, a rarer commodity, should weigh heavily into system rankings (inasmuch as system rankings matter at all). and sure, occasionally a getz- or miranda-type prospect might unexpectedly bloom into a star, but that happens so rarely and unpredictably that i'm not sure how you'd incorporate it as a factor into ranking systems.

That would actually be a really interesting study. Take a few given years, and look at where the Top 100 prospects ended up, versus all the rest. See which ones succeeded, by some basic measures (games played, years in majors, basic offensive/defensive/pitching stats). I'd bet that if you look at which players, for example, managed to play full time in the majors for at least a few years, that you'd have just as many outside the top 100 as inside of it. But I do not have this data, so its just a guess.

 

Also, I am certainly not saying that the CHANCES of any given player in the top 100 are less or the same as those below. The chances are higher. But its not some on-and-off thing, is what I am trying to say. Player A who is #50 on that list in a given year may have a 70% chance, and some player that would be around #150 may have a 30% chance. And since there are so many players outside the top 100, versus in it, if you add up the partials, the total for the below group might be higher.

 

[False Alarm]

That would actually be a really interesting study. Take a few given years, and look at where the Top 100 prospects ended up, versus all the rest. See which ones succeeded, by some basic measures (games played, years in majors, basic offensive/defensive/pitching stats). I'd bet that if you look at which players, for example, managed to play full time in the majors for at least a few years, that you'd have just as many outside the top 100 as inside of it. But I do not have this data, so its just a guess.

 

Also, I am certainly not saying that the CHANCES of any given player in the top 100 are less or the same as those below. The chances are higher. But its not some on-and-off thing, is what I am trying to say. Player A who is #50 on that list in a given year may have a 70% chance, and some player that would be around #150 may have a 30% chance. And since there are so many players outside the top 100, versus in it, if you add up the partials, the total for the below group might be higher.

yeah part of it would have to be defining what constituted star-caliber performance in MLB too. i do agree that most "regular" players'd come from outside the top 100.

[Chisoxfn]

That would actually be a really interesting study. Take a few given years, and look at where the Top 100 prospects ended up, versus all the rest. See which ones succeeded, by some basic measures (games played, years in majors, basic offensive/defensive/pitching stats). I'd bet that if you look at which players, for example, managed to play full time in the majors for at least a few years, that you'd have just as many outside the top 100 as inside of it. But I do not have this data, so its just a guess.

 

Also, I am certainly not saying that the CHANCES of any given player in the top 100 are less or the same as those below. The chances are higher. But its not some on-and-off thing, is what I am trying to say. Player A who is #50 on that list in a given year may have a 70% chance, and some player that would be around #150 may have a 30% chance. And since there are so many players outside the top 100, versus in it, if you add up the partials, the total for the below group might be higher.

There will be a lot of busts in the top 100, but most MLB stars and all stars ranked in the top 100 prospects at some point in there career which gives a lot of value to having high upside prospects and its why those type of prospects should be heavily valued in a farm system ranking.

[winninguglyin83]

Baseball America ranked the sox system first in 2000, I believe.

 

Back in the days of Jon Rauch, Matt Ginter, Joe Crede, Rocky Biddle and a few other hits and misses.

 

didn't seem to mean that much.

 

Other than Rowand, Crede and Buehrle, most of the players on the title team were plucked from elsewhere.

[DaTank]

That would actually be a really interesting study. Take a few given years, and look at where the Top 100 prospects ended up, versus all the rest. See which ones succeeded, by some basic measures (games played, years in majors, basic offensive/defensive/pitching stats). I'd bet that if you look at which players, for example, managed to play full time in the majors for at least a few years, that you'd have just as many outside the top 100 as inside of it. But I do not have this data, so its just a guess.

 

Also, I am certainly not saying that the CHANCES of any given player in the top 100 are less or the same as those below. The chances are higher. But its not some on-and-off thing, is what I am trying to say. Player A who is #50 on that list in a given year may have a 70% chance, and some player that would be around #150 may have a 30% chance. And since there are so many players outside the top 100, versus in it, if you add up the partials, the total for the below group might be higher.

 

Actually, minorleagueball.com did this with the 2004 class recently.

http://www.minorleagueball.com/2009/1/16/7...ching-prospects

http://www.minorleagueball.com/2009/1/15/7...ing-prospects-o

[Balta1701]

I did that a while back with the top 10's, it was my impression that roughly 1/2 of the top 10 prospects wound up busting.