Minor League talent rankings

[Jordan4life_2007]

What the hell do you want with depth? Players that are above replacement level? Because if they did that, they would not have the team they have right now. You are seriously sacrificing a lot by wanting more.

 

Do you disagree with the fact that the White Sox have a replacement (or perhaps better) player behind every single position on the diamond? With the exception of outfield and starting pitching of course. I don't even see how that's an arguable point. If the Sox were to lose Rios, Konerko, or Dunn for an extended period of time, odds are the Sox would be f'ed anyways. Not comparing him directly, but if the Twins lost Mauer for an extended period of time, what they hell are they going to do?

 

(again, I'm not comparing them directly, merely the importance of them)

 

I have never said the system was good. No one has. All I've said was that they have the depth to handle an injury. Do you want a backup for the backup?

 

You damn right I disagree. I don't see s*** that could come up and play at a replacement level if we lost a starter. Especially pitching wise (not sure what they plan on doing with Sale). And why are you using Joe Mauer as an example of a team being screwed if they lost him? He's one of the top 5-10 players in the game. Of course you couldn't replace him. We'd be f***ed if Juan Pierre went down. And that's sad. We haven't produced a damn homegrown reliever since, I don't know, forever?

[Balta1701]

We haven't produced a damn homegrown reliever since, I don't know, forever?

WTF? Homegrown relievers? We're back presumably on to the "defining home-grown so narrowly that we can avoid counting guys like Santos, Jenks, and Thornton"...and then on to ignoring Infante and Carter who are probably arriving this year and next, and ignoring the fact that we've traded away guys like Russell, Poreda, etc.

[scenario]

This post is all over the place. First of all, what do you mean by "hate the minor leagues"? Because I don't give two s***s about overall minor league records, playoffs and championships? If that means I hate the minor leagues then so be it. You couldn't pay me to care if the Knights won the AAA title or not. Your minor league system serves exactly two purposes: To supplement your major league team with impact talent and to be able to go out and upgrade at other positions with other talent. We've done a solid, not great, job with the latter. But a horrible job with the former during the KW era. And why are you acting as if the only difference between the masses ranking our system at the bottom compared to maybe middle-tier is one first round pick getting to the majors quickly? Now I'm not gonna lie. I don't get to see a lot of these guys. It's not like minor league games are on TV all the time. All I can go by is statistics, scouting reports, projections, age appropriate guys for whatever league they're in, ect. And when our system is consistently ranked in the bottom 5 by people who get paid to do this for a living, that's enough for me. I like Mitchell and Viciedo's potential. Besides that? Color me extremely unimpressed with what we currently have (and I'm not counting Sale, he's not really even a prospect anymore at this point).

 

First of all... my post is NOT all over the place. I simply made an observation questioning your interest in the topic before beginning the main point.

 

And second, the reason we are consistently ranked low IS that we trade away most of our highly ranked talent to obtain major league players. Our minor league system would obviously be higher ranked if, for example, we didn't trade Chris Carter for Carlos Quentin, etc., etc. In fact, many of the players we traded away in the last few years made OTHER teams top prospect lists. For example, 3 of Oakland's top 10 prospects were former WhiteSox prospects; 1 of Kansas City's; 1 of Arizona's; and I'm sure I could find a couple of others if I looked harder.

 

Which helps illustrate the problem... would we be better off if we kept all the minor league players we traded? We would have had a MUCH better minor league ranking if we had kept them.

 

And if we would not be better off by keeping them, then what the hell is the point for berating the team for its minor league ranking???

Edited December 24, 2010 by scenario

[Jordan4life_2007]

WTF? Homegrown relievers? We're back presumably on to the "defining home-grown so narrowly that we can avoid counting guys like Santos, Jenks, and Thornton"...and then on to ignoring Infante and Carter who are probably arriving this year and next, and ignoring the fact that we've traded away guys like Russell, Poreda, etc.

 

This argument was about system depth and what could we hypothetically do if we had multiple injuries. I don't even care about homegrown relievers that much. Though to have 1 or 2 would be nice so you don't have to give 4-year deals to a clearly declining, ballpark dependent Scott Linebrink. Wite's argument is that we could somehow replace anybody on the roster at a replacement level outside of Rios, Dunn and PK. I say hell to the no. I don't think we could replace anybody at a replacement level with what we currently have.

[iamshack]

This post is all over the place. First of all, what do you mean by "hate the minor leagues"? Because I don't give two s***s about overall minor league records, playoffs and championships? If that means I hate the minor leagues then so be it. You couldn't pay me to care if the Knights won the AAA title or not. Your minor league system serves exactly two purposes: To supplement your major league team with impact talent and to be able to go out and upgrade at other positions with other talent. We've done a solid, not great, job with the latter. But a horrible job with the former during the KW era. And why are you acting as if the only difference between the masses ranking our system at the bottom compared to maybe middle-tier is one first round pick getting to the majors quickly? Now I'm not gonna lie. I don't get to see a lot of these guys. It's not like minor league games are on TV all the time. All I can go by is statistics, scouting reports, projections, age appropriate guys for whatever league they're in, ect. And when our system is consistently ranked in the bottom 5 by people who get paid to do this for a living, that's enough for me. I like Mitchell and Viciedo's potential. Besides that? Color me extremely unimpressed with what we currently have (and I'm not counting Sale, he's not really even a prospect anymore at this point).

I think it's pretty clear what you want, J4L, and that's a system stocked with high-ceiling guys that have the potential to turn into mlb all-stars or superstars. No one is going to fault you for that. It's no secret that you love young players with high-ceilings, and you tend to be very impressed by organizations that have brought players like this to the major leagues recently.

 

I can agree that it would be exciting to bring up a player like CarGo or Kershaw or Stanton or Posey.

 

But I think there are two things in play here that cause you to gravitate towards those teams. First, you tend to see more of our young players and therefore their flaws are a bit more evident. You see guys like Beckham and Sale struggle at times and so the luster wears off a bit more than it might with guys like Kershaw, who you see primarily when he pitches well, on highlight reels and such. Secondly, I think being that you are a fan of the White Sox and not so much these other teams, you get frustrated with the failures of our mlb club and this causes you to become a bit more impatient with the overall scheme of things, whereas you are not a die-hard Rockies fan or Dodgers fan or Marlins fan. You don't become frustrated with the overall scheme of things in those organizations and therefore, you can remain positive on their young prospects because the failures of their mlb club does not frustrate you in the way that the White Sox do.

 

But you read enough message boards to know that despite the rosy outlook of some of these other organization's young players, they have real failures and real issues elsewhere, particularly with their mlb teams, that their fanbases are frustrated too; they're just frustrated about different things. These fans are tired of hearing how great their prospects are and want to see the rubber meet the road. They want to see tangible results.

 

Well, IMHO, the White Sox are much more focused on tangible results than on MiLB rankings or Baseball America or what Keith Law has to say. Perhaps that's because their payroll allows them to approach things this way, and this probably goes hand-in-hand with Kenny's philosophy on the farm system. I think many of the organizations you're high on would love to be in their division race every year. They would be happy to make the playoffs every few years and feel like they have a chance to win the World Series almost every season. That is something that we, as White Sox fans, do indeed have. At least I feel like we do.

 

The simple reality is that almost every team, save for the Yankees, Red Sox, and maybe one or two others, have to approach the concept of winning in a particular way. Some teams choose the develop from within route; others try to manipulate the market place a bit; others try to sign big names. And it's been proven that there are more ways than one to reach the ultimate goal of winning a World Series. But while some teams have success with one method, others have success with other methods, and as fans, we tend to see one team succeeding doing one thing, and another succeeding doing another, and we want OUR team to succeed doing them all. Well, in most cases, that is simply not feasible.

 

 

[Jordan4life_2007]

I think it's pretty clear what you want, J4L, and that's a system stocked with high-ceiling guys that have the potential to turn into mlb all-stars or superstars. No one is going to fault you for that. It's no secret that you love young players with high-ceilings, and you tend to be very impressed by organizations that have brought players like this to the major leagues recently.

 

I can agree that it would be exciting to bring up a player like CarGo or Kershaw or Stanton or Posey.

 

But I think there are two things in play here that cause you to gravitate towards those teams. First, you tend to see more of our young players and therefore their flaws are a bit more evident. You see guys like Beckham and Sale struggle at times and so the luster wears off a bit more than it might with guys like Kershaw, who you see primarily when he pitches well, on highlight reels and such. Secondly, I think being that you are a fan of the White Sox and not so much these other teams, you get frustrated with the failures of our mlb club and this causes you to become a bit more impatient with the overall scheme of things, whereas you are not a die-hard Rockies fan or Dodgers fan or Marlins fan. You don't become frustrated with the overall scheme of things in those organizations and therefore, you can remain positive on their young prospects because the failures of their mlb club does not frustrate you in the way that the White Sox do.

 

But you read enough message boards to know that despite the rosy outlook of some of these other organization's young players, they have real failures and real issues elsewhere, particularly with their mlb teams, that their fanbases are frustrated too; they're just frustrated about different things. These fans are tired of hearing how great their prospects are and want to see the rubber meet the road. They want to see tangible results.

 

Well, IMHO, the White Sox are much more focused on tangible results than on MiLB rankings or Baseball America or what Keith Law has to say. Perhaps that's because their payroll allows them to approach things this way, and this probably goes hand-in-hand with Kenny's philosophy on the farm system. I think many of the organizations you're high on would love to be in their division race every year. They would be happy to make the playoffs every few years and feel like they have a chance to win the World Series almost every season. That is something that we, as White Sox fans, do indeed have. At least I feel like we do.

 

The simple reality is that almost every team, save for the Yankees, Red Sox, and maybe one or two others, have to approach the concept of winning in a particular way. Some teams choose the develop from within route; others try to manipulate the market place a bit; others try to sign big names. And it's been proven that there are more ways than one to reach the ultimate goal of winning a World Series. But while some teams have success with one method, others have success with other methods, and as fans, we tend to see one team succeeding doing one thing, and another succeeding doing another, and we want OUR team to succeed doing them all. Well, in most cases, that is simply not feasible.

 

Excellent post. I don't think I disagree with anything you said. I don't know how many times I have to say that I don't want a team that features 25 homegrown players. But why can't we be like or close to the Red Sox or Phillies? Teams that have proven you can have a productive farm and be competitive at the same time. We're the Chicago White Sox. Not the Florida or Pittsburgh White Sox. Why can't we devote more to scouting, draft and player development? Why can't we go over slot every now and then? All I'm saying is the philosophy we've adopted during the KW era has produced 2 playoff appearances in 10 years. In our division, that it not acceptable. You can come up with a billion excuses. But in this business, that doesn't fly. IMO, 2011 is absolutely HUGE. If we come up short to the Twins again, that's f***ing enough for me. Either get rid of the manager and staff or change the philosophy or something. Enough is enough.

Edited December 24, 2010 by Jordan4life

[ScottyDo]

Not saying we're great, because clearly we're not (although we are clearly headed in the right direction in terms of drafting and development). But if the vaunted Royals prospects made the big club this year, then their farm system ranking next year would suck. What does that say about the Royals farm system? Absolutely nothing. We're suffering from a similar problem, and if not for that, we might have been in the low 20's on the ranking list. Not good, but not dead last either.

[caulfield12]

Excellent post. I don't think I disagree with anything you said. I don't know how many times I have to say that I don't want a team that features 25 homegrown players. But why can't we be like or close to the Red Sox or Phillies? Teams that have proven you can have a productive farm and be competitive at the same time. We're the Chicago White Sox. Not the Florida or Pittsburgh White Sox. Why can't we devote more to scouting, draft and player development? Why can't we go over slot every now and then? All I'm saying is the philosophy we've adopted during the KW era has produced 2 playoff appearances in 10 years. In our division, that it not acceptable. You can come up with a billion excuses. But in this business, that doesn't fly. IMO, 2011 is absolutely HUGE. If we come up short to the Twins again, that's f***ing enough for me. Either get rid of the manager and staff or change the philosophy or something. Enough is enough.

 

 

It's fine to say we should model ourselves after the Phillies, although with only one team in that market...or even St. Louis, another "model" franchise, I'm not sure that I buy that.

 

I prefer to look at the Angels, because they're the "second tier" team in a major market (like the Sox) and they've won a World Series this decade and have also made some inroads in taking SOME market share back from the Dodgers, and/or creating a new market of fans with marketing/promotions and simply winning.

 

Clearly, the Angels have had a "good to great" minor league system over much of that time, but, as someone pointed out in another thread, 90% of those guys have either failed to live up to the their promise, gotten injured or they're no longer with the team. I remember all the Reggie Willits discussions the last couple of offseasons. Wood has been a disaster. McPherson, Kotchmann, Kendrick is usually hurt, Morales hasn't stayed healthy, Weaver has been very good but Santana regressed, etc.

 

Then Angels have basically had to do the same thing as the White Sox (making shrewd FA acquisitions and trades) while spending more money to do it. More of a cushion. We also were unfortunate with players like Jenks and Crede we couldn't maximize their value and trade them while they still had worth to other organizations that would net us something promising in return.

 

As pointed out, replacing Pierre with DeAza and Quentin with Viciedo or Gartrell wouldn't be the best...but we all know Dayan has a ton of ability IF IF IF he ever puts it all together. Apparently enough that KW held off on pulling the trigger with a trade in 2010 during the season.

 

With Hudson, we'll see if he's another Brandon McCarthy or ends up becoming an All-Star in the NL. Sure, if he pitched the same for the White Sox, it would have been great...just like it would have been great if Kip Wells or Josh Fogg had done the same, but we'll never know.

 

The huge negative with mixing players from so many organizations together is that they don't play together in the minors, bond and learn how to win a couple of minor league championships with 3-4-5 players all coming up at the same time as part of a "wave" of talent. One of the biggest disappointments has been player development and progression at both the major and minor league levels, especially the last 10 years. We've had numerous arguments about Bell and Ozzie and our team's lack of fundamental/small ball skills, and why that has happened. Ozzie focuses on it occasionally with his "mini-camps" and "back to basics" lectures and then it all goes out the window once the season begins. Then he asks players to do things they're simply not confident enough or capable enough to do, like Brian Anderson or Josh Fields being a "small ball" guy and hitting to the right side, etc.

 

Not having a consistent organizational philosophy (The Twins' Way, the Butler Way, the UCLA Way under Wooden) that starts from the time of drafting all the way up to their first rookie at bat or pitch has partially caused some of our disappointments, particularly 2003, 2006 and 2010.

 

Of course, the counter-argument is that the Twins and A's never did anything more than win one first round playoff series, both against each other...for all their organizational development, drafting, trades and acquisitions, best-selling books and "copy cats" and maximization of budgetary outlays.

Edited December 25, 2010 by caulfield12

[joeynach]

It's fine to say we should model ourselves after the Phillies, although with only one team in that market...or even St. Louis, another "model" franchise, I'm not sure that I buy that.

 

I prefer to look at the Angels, because they're the "second tier" team in a major market (like the Sox) and they've won a World Series this decade and have also made some inroads in taking SOME market share back from the Dodgers, and/or creating a new market of fans with marketing/promotions and simply winning.

 

Clearly, the Angels have had a "good to great" minor league system over much of that time, but, as someone pointed out in another thread, 90% of those guys have either failed to live up to the their promise, gotten injured or they're no longer with the team. I remember all the Reggie Willits discussions the last couple of offseasons. Wood has been a disaster. McPherson, Kotchmann, Kendrick is usually hurt, Morales hasn't stayed healthy, Weaver has been very good but Santana regressed, etc.

 

Then Angels have basically had to do the same thing as the White Sox (making shrewd FA acquisitions and trades) while spending more money to do it. More of a cushion. We also were unfortunate with players like Jenks and Crede we couldn't maximize their value and trade them while they still had worth to other organizations that would net us something promising in return.

 

As pointed out, replacing Pierre with DeAza and Quentin with Viciedo or Gartrell wouldn't be the best...but we all know Dayan has a ton of ability IF IF IF he ever puts it all together. Apparently enough that KW held off on pulling the trigger with a trade in 2010 during the season.

 

With Hudson, we'll see if he's another Brandon McCarthy or ends up becoming an All-Star in the NL. Sure, if he pitched the same for the White Sox, it would have been great...just like it would have been great if Kip Wells or Josh Fogg had done the same, but we'll never know.

 

The huge negative with mixing players from so many organizations together is that they don't play together in the minors, bond and learn how to win a couple of minor league championships with 3-4-5 players all coming up at the same time as part of a "wave" of talent. One of the biggest disappointments has been player development and progression at both the major and minor league levels, especially the last 10 years. We've had numerous arguments about Bell and Ozzie and our team's lack of fundamental/small ball skills, and why that has happened. Ozzie focuses on it occasionally with his "mini-camps" and "back to basics" lectures and then it all goes out the window once the season begins. Then he asks players to do things they're simply not confident enough or capable enough to do, like Brian Anderson or Josh Fields being a "small ball" guy and hitting to the right side, etc.

 

Not having a consistent organizational philosophy (The Twins' Way, the Butler Way, the UCLA Way under Wooden) that starts from the time of drafting all the way up to their first rookie at bat or pitch has partially caused some of our disappointments, particularly 2003, 2006 and 2010.

 

Of course, the counter-argument is that the Twins and A's never did anything more than win one first round playoff series, both against each other...for all their organizational development, drafting, trades and acquisitions, best-selling books and "copy cats" and maximization of budgetary outlays.

 

Excellent Post!

[JPN366]

Do you agree that he was an overdraft?

 

Too early to tell, not enough games and at bats, but I love his power potential.

Edited December 25, 2010 by JPN366

[NorthSideSox72]

With all the injuries and illness in 2010, I'd be shocked if the system doesn't take some nice steps forward in 2011. But sadly, I have to agree that this is a bottom tier system as it stands in terms of current talent.

 

That does NOT mean that the system's VALUE is bottom tier, necessarily. Sale and Beckham cruised all the way through, and many prospects were traded for major league talent - these rankings simply don't take that into account.

 

[Dick Allen]

With all the injuries and illness in 2010, I'd be shocked if the system doesn't take some nice steps forward in 2011. But sadly, I have to agree that this is a bottom tier system as it stands in terms of current talent.

 

That does NOT mean that the system's VALUE is bottom tier, necessarily. Sale and Beckham cruised all the way through, and many prospects were traded for major league talent - these rankings simply don't take that into account.

What it does do, assuming the rest of baseball agrees with this analysis, is handcuffs them for midseason additions in 2011 unless some of these guys play a lot better. Alsi assuming they will be at the mark they cannot add salary, and with not much impressive talent to deal, it will be next to impossible to acquire anything major during the season without giving up a big piece of your current team.

Edited December 26, 2010 by Dick Allen

[caulfield12]

What it does do, assuming the rest of baseball agrees with this analysis, is handcuffs them for midseason additions in 2011 unless some of these guys play a lot better. Alsi assuming they will be at the mark they cannot add salary, and with not much impressive talent to deal, it will be next to impossible to acquire anything major during the season without giving up a big piece of your current team.

 

 

But they do have Viciedo, and the possibility of Flowers, Phegley and Jordan Danks rebounding (at least one of the 3). A lot of scouts are intrigued with T. Thompson, Escobar and Infante/Carter.

 

Combine that with some of the starting pitching from the last two drafts having a Daniel Hudson, Brandon McCarthy or DeLosSantos "breakout" season and you still have enough to trade for an impact player without killing yourself or subtracting from the MLB roster.

 

Sox pretty much have to keep Mitchell to replace Pierre eventually, and the jury's still out with Viciedo fitting into the future picture or not.

[iamshack]

But they do have Viciedo, and the possibility of Flowers, Phegley and Jordan Danks rebounding (at least one of the 3). A lot of scouts are intrigued with T. Thompson, Escobar and Infante/Carter.

 

Combine that with some of the starting pitching from the last two drafts having a Daniel Hudson, Brandon McCarthy or DeLosSantos "breakout" season and you still have enough to trade for an impact player without killing yourself or subtracting from the MLB roster.

 

Sox pretty much have to keep Mitchell to replace Pierre eventually, and the jury's still out with Viciedo fitting into the future picture or not.

I agree....while the depth isn't strong, they do have enough pieces to get most of the players they might want come the midseason, barring the availability of young superstar player.

[Dick Allen]

KW loves Viciedo. I would be shocked if he traded him. He's been working out with Cora this winter at 3B. He obviously has to play there or a corner OF spot. If he can be decent at 3B, it will really help the offense IMO. Vizquel could spell him in late innings. Morel may be able to hit in the major leagues someday, he's hit pretty well in the minors, I just think throwing him at 3B in 2011 on a team who has a marketing slogan "All In" is a recipe for failure at the plate not for just 2011 but perhaps longer, no matter his defensive prowess. See 2006, Anderson, Brian.

 

[iamshack]

KW loves Viciedo. I would be shocked if he traded him. He's been working out with Cora this winter at 3B. He obviously has to play there or a corner OF spot. If he can be decent at 3B, it will really help the offense IMO. Vizquel could spell him in late innings. Morel may be able to hit in the major leagues someday, he's hit pretty well in the minors, I just think throwing him at 3B in 2011 on a team who has a marketing slogan "All In" is a recipe for failure at the plate not for just 2011 but perhaps longer, no matter his defensive prowess. See 2006, Anderson, Brian.

From what I have been told, they absolutely love Morel. I think they're going to give him every opportunity to lock down the job unless some obvious and clear upgrade becomes available.

[gatnom]

I agree....while the depth isn't strong, they do have enough pieces to get most of the players they might want come the midseason, barring the availability of young superstar player.

 

Or an Adam Dunn.

[iamshack]

Or an Adam Dunn.

Well, I think that was more the case of an unrealistic GM than a player we couldn't reasonably acquire.

 

So I guess I'll throw an addendum on there that says a young superstar player or an unrealistic general manager.

[gatnom]

Well, I think that was more the case of an unrealistic GM than a player we couldn't reasonably acquire.

 

So I guess I'll throw an addendum on there that says a young superstar player or an unrealistic general manager.

 

I agree to a degree, but what else was he supposed to ask for beyond Viciedo? Perhaps I don't remember the rumors properly, but I think the final rumor was Jackson + Viciedo for Dunn? I know I wouldn't agree to any deal centered around Tyler Flowers.

 

I think my overall point with our farm system is that it should be a lot better than what it is based upon our payroll. You could get a LOT of impact talent for the money you blow on players like Mark Teahen and Scott Linebrink.

[iamshack]

I agree to a degree, but what else was he supposed to ask for beyond Viciedo? Perhaps I don't remember the rumors properly, but I think the final rumor was Jackson + Viciedo for Dunn? I know I wouldn't agree to any deal centered around Tyler Flowers.

 

I think my overall point with our farm system is that it should be a lot better than what it is based upon our payroll. You could get a LOT of impact talent for the money you blow on players like Mark Teahen and Scott Linebrink.

He wanted Gordon Beckham. For 2 months of Adam Dunn. Yeah, ok.

 

He could have asked for Hudson and any number of other prospects and that would have been a pretty solid deal for the Nats, especially given their desire for young pitching. But he never lowered his demands from Beckham.

[gatnom]

He wanted Gordon Beckham. For 2 months of Adam Dunn. Yeah, ok.

 

He could have asked for Hudson and any number of other prospects and that would have been a pretty solid deal for the Nats, especially given their desire for young pitching. But he never lowered his demands from Beckham.

 

That is a little delusional. However, two draft picks are probably worth about as much as we offered to them anyways. Unless KW was willing to do both Viciedo and Hudson in the same trade.

[iamshack]

That is a little delusional. However, two draft picks are probably worth about as much as we offered to them anyways. Unless KW was willing to do both Viciedo and Hudson in the same trade.

Not sure about that. Between the risk you take in drafting anyone, the $ it takes to sign them, it was probably a better deal to take a young major league ready pitcher and another prospect. They probably could have had Hudson and Morel, and had two mlb-ready players that are cost-controlled for 6 years for two months of Adam Dunn. Instead, now they've got to navigate the minefield that is the draft, shell out some major dough to sign the guys, then hope that one or both can contribute 2-3 years down the road.

[Balta1701]

Not sure about that. Between the risk you take in drafting anyone, the $ it takes to sign them, it was probably a better deal to take a young major league ready pitcher and another prospect. They probably could have had Hudson and Morel, and had two mlb-ready players that are cost-controlled for 6 years for two months of Adam Dunn. Instead, now they've got to navigate the minefield that is the draft, shell out some major dough to sign the guys, then hope that one or both can contribute 2-3 years down the road.

Brent Morel is pretty much worthless to them. They have that "Ryan Zimmerman" guy at 3b. And trading for a prospect who is already blocked is silly because everyone knows you can't keep both.

[iamshack]

Brent Morel is pretty much worthless to them. They have that "Ryan Zimmerman" guy at 3b. And trading for a prospect who is already blocked is silly because everyone knows you can't keep both.

Ahh, didn't even think of that.

 

The point still stands though.

[gatnom]

Not sure about that. Between the risk you take in drafting anyone, the $ it takes to sign them, it was probably a better deal to take a young major league ready pitcher and another prospect. They probably could have had Hudson and Morel, and had two mlb-ready players that are cost-controlled for 6 years for two months of Adam Dunn. Instead, now they've got to navigate the minefield that is the draft, shell out some major dough to sign the guys, then hope that one or both can contribute 2-3 years down the road.

 

Well, they do have that Zimmerman guy...

 

As far as the draft, the players they pick up are just as likely to succeed or fail as Morel and Hudson are, and they would most likely have higher ceilings. They would obviously have to pay and develop them a little more, but it all kind of depends on how soon they plan on competing. You also have to take into account that trading Dunn for Hudson and Morel is kind of a fail.