Peavy to Boston, Avisail Garcia + 3 low lv specs to Sox

[kitekrazy]

I mentioned in another thread the year the Sox drafted Aaron Poreda, 4 of the top 8 picks have lower career WARS than him, and He wasn't exactly stellar. So hoping a team is miserable all summer just for a high pick usually doesn't work out as well as it does in other sports.

 

I find it more depressing since the organization drafts by agent, minors don't show seem very good at developing unless it's a pitcher.

 

[witesoxfan]

I find it more depressing since the organization drafts by agent, minors don't show seem very good at developing unless it's a pitcher.

 

The White Sox typically only avoid one agent, and that's not always the case anymore either. Beyond that, Hahn has shown a propensity towards dealing with Boras in the past as well.

 

The slotting system makes this a lot easier on the Sox too.

 

 

[GreenSox]

This thread is ridiculous. With our market/payroll, you play to win every year. I can't believe I'm reading people say, "I want to lose next year."

 

I refer you all to the Pirates/Royals/Padres of the late 90s/00's. Handfuls of early 1st round picks, nothing to show for it. Look at 1st rounds in the last ten years. Your first five picks will produce 2-3 MLB starters and then the last 25 picks of the round will give you 4-5 major league starters. You play to win the game. Picking #7 as opposed to #17 rarely makes a difference. This isn't the NBA/NFL.

I agree with you. But it is getting harder and harder to win if you don't develop your own players or get young players in trade. We are good at developing pitchers...we need to use that to broaden the quality of our team.

 

As for law, he's no better or no worse than most scouts. He's a bit condescending and dogmatic at times, but he's approachable by fans...i.e. you can read his reports and ask him questions. He has a blog and does a lot on twitter (heck he's responded to several of my questions on twitter).

And he liked Rienzo...not loved but liked him. Again, a pitcher.

In the case of Garcia, he's basically developed. Let's hope we evaluated him correctly.

Edited August 1, 2013 by GreenSox

[royoung]

Usually when you take a negative view, you will be. He's willing to be way wrong on Chris Sale and brush it off because there are several more guys that are supposed to turn into stars that will not. He comes out ahead.

 

If he really was the player evaluating genius he thinks he is, he would be putting an MLB organization together, not doing chats for espn.com.

 

He was completely wrong on Sale and now brushes it off saying he is going to break down soon due to his arm action, which is why he didn't like him in the first place. That brings me to my original point nicely though, he seems to put a high emphasis on a clean pitcher's delivery, for example, when the Sox obviously do not. Poreda, Sale, and Danish are the first few examples that jump into my head. Sox also seem to value athletic ability quite a bit, where he prefers more pure baseball skills. Etc etc

[Eminor3rd]

It's ridiculous to want to have the worst record in baseball for several years or one of the worst because it usually won't work out in the end. People become so dissinterested in your team, if the players you draft turn out to be any good, you wind up unable to pay them.

 

The last time the Sox went into a full rebuild, they struck it rich in the first round 4 years in a row.

 

McDowell was the 5th pick in 1987. Griffey Jr. was #1, so it obviously paid off to be the worst team that year. The other 3 before McDowell weren't special, in fact, had the Sox had the 4th or 3rd pick, they really wanted Mike Harkey.

 

In 1988, the Sox drafted Robin Ventura with the 10th pick. Look at the picks before him, and tell me how it paid off not to lose even more games.

 

Frank Thomas was #7 in 1989. There were some decent players before him, Ben McDonald went #1, but if the Sox drafted higher, they really wanted Jeff Jackson, a guy who never played in the major leagues, and Frank obviously was ultimately the best player of that draft.

 

They did get Alex Fernandez with the 4th pick in 1990 and there is where it may have paid off to draft that high, however, Mike Mussina was selected with the 20th pick.

 

There are really good players in every draft outside of the top 5 picks. It took teams like Tampa and Pittsburgh many years before their draft positions really paid off, and even they have made mistakes. If losing 100 games nets you Tim Beckham, it makes zero sense to try embrace being bad. The Sox are going to draft high the next draft, but I think we all should hope its the last time they draft in the top 5 or 10 for quite some time.

 

I don't think any of this changes the point I'm making, which is that each class is different. My point also doesn't argue against you saying that a team shouldn't tank every year. I'm not saying they should.

[Dick Allen]

He was completely wrong on Sale and now brushes it off saying he is going to break down soon due to his arm action, which is why he didn't like him in the first place. That brings me to my original point nicely though, he seems to put a high emphasis on a clean pitcher's delivery, for example, when the Sox obviously do not. Poreda, Sale, and Danish are the first few examples that jump into my head. Sox also seem to value athletic ability quite a bit, where he prefers more pure baseball skills. Etc etc

The problem is, even guys with "clean" deliveries get hurt. Pitching to me is like smoking. We all know it's bad for you, and pitching is bad for your arm, shoulder, elbow. Some people smoke all day everyday until they are 95 and die in a car accident. Some get sick and die from it in their 40's. It's easy to project Sale eventually getting hurt. I've done it myself. But really you could say that about any pitcher.

[Eminor3rd]

If he really was the player evaluating genius he thinks he is, he would be putting an MLB organization together, not doing chats for espn.com.

 

This is absolutely not a valid argument. Working for a team and working in the media are drastically different lifestyles and it it not at all unreasonable to want to be ESPN's Keith Law rather than an anonymous member of the Astros working 80 hours a week.

[Dick Allen]

This is absolutely not a valid argument. Working for a team and working in the media are drastically different lifestyles and it it not at all unreasonable to want to be ESPN's Keith Law rather than an anonymous member of the Astros working 80 hours a week.

If that job requires 80 hours a week, how could his opinion be informed when he's not working anywhere near that? Are there specifics examples over the years of Law's opinion being superior ?

 

And if his opinions were superior working whatever he was working, I'm sure a team would offer him a job paying him more money, working the same amount of hours he's working now, for exclusive rights to those opinions.

Edited August 1, 2013 by Dick Allen

[witesoxfan]

He was completely wrong on Sale and now brushes it off saying he is going to break down soon due to his arm action, which is why he didn't like him in the first place. That brings me to my original point nicely though, he seems to put a high emphasis on a clean pitcher's delivery, for example, when the Sox obviously do not. Poreda, Sale, and Danish are the first few examples that jump into my head. Sox also seem to value athletic ability quite a bit, where he prefers more pure baseball skills. Etc etc

 

I genuinely don't believe you could be further from the truth here, at least regarding the first two points.

 

#1) His assessment of Sale was that he did not believe he could make it as a starter. He did not have a good grasp on how good his slider was, but he had him as as a supplemental value because he believed he was a reliever.

#2) The Sox DO put an emphasis on clean delivery. Mark Buehrle, Freddy Garcia, Jose Contreras, Jon Garland, Javier Vazquez, John Danks, Gavin Floyd, Hector Santiago, Jose Quintana, Dylan Axelrod, and I'm sure I'm missing a few too. The only two real exceptions to this rule are Chris Sale and Jake Peavy. The Sox traded Brandon McCarthy in part because they did not believe he would hold up over the duration of a season. They weren't wrong.

[royoung]

The problem is, even guys with "clean" deliveries get hurt. Pitching to me is like smoking. We all know it's bad for you, and pitching is bad for your arm, shoulder, elbow. Some people smoke all day everyday until they are 95 and die in a car accident. Some get sick and die from it in their 40's. It's easy to project Sale eventually getting hurt. I've done it myself. But really you could say that about any pitcher.

 

I completely agree. I haven't seen an empirically evidence that pitches with 3/4th slot deliveries get injured more often the traditional deliveries and I highly doubt it exists. I have no problem with scooping up the Sale's and Danish's of the world because other teams are scared off by delivery. Interested to see how Danish's career progresses.

[iamshack]

I think a large component of all this is just how much of an art player evaluation is than a science. Correctly evaluating players is very much in its infancy still. There is no data that I am aware of, which shows that any one method has proven to be more accurate than another. There is certainly a few "accepted" approaches that have proven to be relatively effective, but this is still quite the crapshoot.

 

I am sure if some particular methodology is proven to produce significantly more accurate results in player evaluation than another, folks that are well-schooled in that method will be high in demand. However, at this time, there is sort of a battle playing out between observing tools and projecting talent (old school scouting) and data compilation (sabermetrics). The best method will probably prove to be some combination of the two.

 

Everyone is still sort of winging it though.

[royoung]

I genuinely don't believe you could be further from the truth here, at least regarding the first two points.

 

#1) His assessment of Sale was that he did not believe he could make it as a starter. He did not have a good grasp on how good his slider was, but he had him as as a supplemental value because he believed he was a reliever.

#2) The Sox DO put an emphasis on clean delivery. Mark Buehrle, Freddy Garcia, Jose Contreras, Jon Garland, Javier Vazquez, John Danks, Gavin Floyd, Hector Santiago, Jose Quintana, Dylan Axelrod, and I'm sure I'm missing a few too. The only two real exceptions to this rule are Chris Sale and Jake Peavy. The Sox traded Brandon McCarthy in part because they did not believe he would hold up over the duration of a season. They weren't wrong.

 

When he was drafted, he wasn't concerned as much with a potential injury as much as a lack of a quality secondary offering and repeat ability with his delivery. He was completely wrong on his slider, but he specifics cites delivery and slot in his assessment that he will end up as a reliever. Now that he has found success as a starter, he is stating that he will break down in this role. So really, he hasn't gotten over the delivery and slot things.

 

I understand that when the Sox have had hundreds of pitchers in the past 10 years, most are going to have clean deliveries. I think it's an interesting trend, however, that when they have to make an important value selection in the draft, recently they have gone with guys with questionable deliveries (Poreda, Sale, Danish) in the past 6 years. They all expected those guys to be starters, when the majority of teams thought they were relievers.

[Y2Jimmy0]

This thread is ridiculous. With our market/payroll, you play to win every year. I can't believe I'm reading people say, "I want to lose next year."

 

I refer you all to the Pirates/Royals/Padres of the late 90s/00's. Handfuls of early 1st round picks, nothing to show for it. Look at 1st rounds in the last ten years. Your first five picks will produce 2-3 MLB starters and then the last 25 picks of the round will give you 4-5 major league starters. You play to win the game. Picking #7 as opposed to #17 rarely makes a difference. This isn't the NBA/NFL.

 

 

I respect the fact that you want to win. I do as well. I am just willing to wait to win. They don't have the offense to win next year and it will not be easily acquired. The only direction to go is back to move forward. 2014 will be a development year. I would not count on free agent signings because it just is not going to happen. We can argue all day about the draft. I think if you are going to be bad it's a good thing to give your scouts and evaluators one of the top 5 picks in each round to work with. If you draft properly that gives you the best chance at acquiring the best talent. I don't want to argue with you but they have dug themselves such a hole that next year is a wash regardless of the size of the market where the team lies.

[Eminor3rd]

If that job requires 80 hours a week, how could his opinion be informed when he's not working anywhere near that? Are there specifics examples over the years of Law's opinion being superior ?

 

And if his opinions were superior working whatever he was working, I'm sure a team would offer him a job paying him more money, working the same amount of hours he's working now, for exclusive rights to those opinions.

If you're asking me if he's the best talent evaluator in America, I would say that no one thinks that. But if you're implying that the fact he does not work for an MLB team is sufficient proof that he doesn't have the talent to work for an MLB team, you are wrong.

[Dick Allen]

If you're asking me if he's the best talent evaluator in America, I would say that no one thinks that. But if you're implying that the fact he does not work for an MLB team is sufficient proof that he doesn't have the talent to work for an MLB team, you are wrong.

If you think writing a blog and doing a chat on ESPN.com shows he has the talent to work for a MLB team, you're wrong.

 

I don't think anyone should get excited if Law says he likes a prospect, and they shouldn't get too upset if he says they will bust.

Edited August 1, 2013 by Dick Allen

[Eminor3rd]

If you think writing a blog and doing a chat on ESPN.com shows he has the talent to work for a MLB team, you're wrong.

 

I wouldn't dare make that claim, I'm not qualified to judge either way. You're the only one that's trying to tell us how Keith Law compares to ML scouts. I haven't interviewed him for a job -- have you?

[Dick Allen]

I wouldn't dare make that claim, I'm not qualified to judge either way. You're the only one that's trying to tell us how Keith Law compares to ML scouts. I haven't interviewed him for a job -- have you?

All I said is if he was as great as he thinks, he would be working for a MLB team.

 

You said the 80 hour a week thing made him walk away. If that is true, the guys working the 80 hour weeks should have a more informed opinion, correct?

Edited August 1, 2013 by Dick Allen

[witesoxfan]

All I said is if he was as great as he thinks, he would be working for a MLB team.

 

You said the 80 hour a week thing made him walk away. If that is true, the guys working the 80 hour weeks should have a more informed opinion, correct?

 

For the love of god, yes. That doesn't change the fact that Keith Law is a skilled talent evaluator.

 

I also don't understand why you're driving this "if he's as great as he thinks" angle. I am great at my job, and I work 40 hours a week at it. If I worked 80, I'd be better. I don't need to work 80 and I don't want to work 80 because I value my personal time. Why can't Keith Law do the same?

[witesoxfan]

BTW Soxtalk, congratulations on the longest thread in PHT history. Next closest? Only 2,980 or something like that.

 

http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=80747

[Dick Allen]

For the love of god, yes. That doesn't change the fact that Keith Law is a skilled talent evaluator.

 

I also don't understand why you're driving this "if he's as great as he thinks" angle. I am great at my job, and I work 40 hours a week at it. If I worked 80, I'd be better. I don't need to work 80 and I don't want to work 80 because I value my personal time. Why can't Keith Law do the same?

I suspect that wasn't the real reason Law decided not to continue his quest. I'm pretty sure he knew the time commitment from the get go.

 

But you said if you worked 80 you would be better, and I'm sure every team has guys who work that, so you are admitting Law, doing what he is doing, is not as good as any current team's evaluators.

 

You made my point. Thank you.

[royoung]

BTW Soxtalk, congratulations on the longest thread in PHT history. Next closest? Only 2,980 or something like that.

 

http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=80747

 

Nothing like a trainwreck to drum up interest! Also, woo!

[iamshack]

I suspect that wasn't the real reason Law decided not to continue his quest. I'm pretty sure he knew the time commitment from the get go.

 

But you said if you worked 80 you would be better, and I'm sure every team has guys who work that, so you are admitting Law, doing what he is doing, is not as good as any current team's evaluators.

 

You made my point. Thank you.

But that doesn't mean his opinion is invalid. Maybe he doesn't really evaluate certain areas as much because of his time constraints or whatever. Doesn't mean he doesn't have a solid opinion on a particular player or a group of players relative to what other evaluators have.

 

If I am a lawyer and I work 40 hours workweeks because I work in corporate law, I may know certain aspects of the particular work I focus on just as well or better than a lawyer that works 80 hours a week in his own practice or firm.

 

No one evaluator is going to know everything or everyone.

[witesoxfan]

I suspect that wasn't the real reason Law decided not to continue his quest. I'm pretty sure he knew the time commitment from the get go.

 

But you said if you worked 80 you would be better, and I'm sure every team has guys who work that, so you are admitting Law, doing what he is doing, is not as good as any current team's evaluators.

 

You made my point. Thank you.

 

your initial point was that, "if Law was so good, why didn't he have offers?" And he did have offers. Then it was "well if he has offers, why did he turn them down to be with his family?" To be with his family. "But he must not be good enough if he is spending time with his family." It's an 80 hour week. "So if they work 80 hours, he must not be good enough." 40 hours vs 80 hours. "You made my point."

 

WHAT?!?!

Edited August 1, 2013 by witesoxfan

[Eminor3rd]

All I said is if he was as great as he thinks, he would be working for a MLB team.

 

You said the 80 hour a week thing made him walk away. If that is true, the guys working the 80 hour weeks should have a more informed opinion, correct?

 

The 80 hour week thing was just an example of the type of thing that might prevent someone from accepting a job. I'm just trying to illustrate that it's erroneous to assume that he is incapable of taking a job solely because he doesn't currently hold that job. There are lots of reasons that people choose their jobs, they don't simply accept anything offered to them.

[witesoxfan]

But that doesn't mean his opinion is invalid. Maybe he doesn't really evaluate certain areas as much because of his time constraints or whatever. Doesn't mean he doesn't have a solid opinion on a particular player or a group of players relative to what other evaluators have.

 

If I am a lawyer and I work 40 hours workweeks because I work in corporate law, I may know certain aspects of the particular work I focus on just as well or better than a lawyer that works 80 hours a week in his own practice or firm.

 

No one evaluator is going to know everything or everyone.

 

This is actually a great point. A scouting director is going to need to know detailed scouting reports on about 1500 players while having basic knowledge of another 5000 players, and that's merely active players. You probably also have, in total, data for upwards of 20,000 players.

 

As a baseball scouting writer, you are primarily dealing with top prospects and major leaguers. I'm sure he knows a few others, but there are minor leaguers he never needs to know or worry about. Maybe 500 players at any one time. But he can be very good at evaluating them.