Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Aug 1, 2013 -> 10:55 AM)
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?!?!

Rest assured, if Keith Law knew all the answers , he would be an employee of a MLB team whether you choose to believe so or not.

He's just another guy with an opinion, and his track record is no better than anyone else in a similair position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Aug 1, 2013 -> 11:27 AM)
Rest assured, if Keith Law knew all the answers , he would be an employee of a MLB team whether you choose to believe so or not.

He's just another guy with an opinion, and his track record is no better than anyone else in a similair position.

 

I don't believe this to be true. I am guessing he is getting close to $500k a year or more working for ESPN, while he would make considerably less doing the same amount of work, or a similar or greater amount of money while working way more hours for an MLB team. At the end of the day, there wouldn't be enough difference in talent between the "top" choice (Law) and the second best choice to justify the financial cost it would take to make up the difference. And, due to his contract with ESPN, I doubt he can even be a senior advisor to a team.

Edited by witesoxfan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Aug 1, 2013 -> 11:35 AM)
I don't believe this to be true. I am guessing he is getting close to $500k a year or more working for ESPN, while he would make considerably less doing the same amount of work, or a similar or greater amount of money while working way more hours for an MLB team. At the end of the day, there wouldn't be enough difference in talent between the "top" choice (Law) and the second best choice to justify the financial cost it would take to make up the difference. And, due to his contract with ESPN, I doubt he can even be a senior advisor to a team.

I can guarantee you he is making nowhere near $500k from ESPN.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Aug 1, 2013 -> 11:37 AM)
I can guarantee you he is making nowhere near $500k from ESPN.

 

Yeah, not sure what I was thinking there, but $150-200 as shack suggested is probably closer. With all he does though, it wouldn't surprise me if it's higher than that.

 

Anyways, I have no doubt he could work for an MLB team for any number of reasons. He's good at his job. I value his opinion. If you don't, that's your perogative, and frankly I don't care. I'm done with this silly incessant argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Law has worked for a team before. He has a cake job right now. Working for ESPN doing what he does gives him great flexibility. He gets to scout, write, and still spend time with his family. I don't always agree with Keith Law but it's just another opinion that helps shape the thought process on a player. Kevin Goldstein was a guy that I really liked. He scouted for Baseball Prospectus and is a local guy. He took a position with the Houston Astros under Jeff Lunhow. It's about opportunity. Would Goldstein have taken the same position under a GM whose premise and philosophy he didn't agree with? Maybe. But maybe it's about actually enjoying your job and what you are doing. Keith Law does not hate the White Sox. He hates teams that value what the Sox have always valued. He does not understand not spending money on the draft and taking the process seriously. KW wanted high impact toolsy players but JR did not want to spend money. That is how you end up with the Jared Mitchells and Keenyn Walkers of the world. Law didn't like Sale or Tyler Danish because of the delivery. There are many other people equivalent to Keith Law who disagree and liked both players though. It's just a matter of preference. Law would have disliked the Danish pick for anyone not just the White Sox. When the Sox start drafting better, Keith Law's opinion of the front office will change. He praised the Tim Anderson pick this year and the Hawkins pick last year. He also liked the Andrew Mitchell pick this year. Law is a pompous asshole a lot of times but he does put in a large enough amount of time to validate him having an opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Aug 1, 2013 -> 01:11 PM)
You did not answer the question.

 

You are just being ridiculous. What proof do you have that he is as talented and sought-after as you think and the only reason he isn't running a team is because he wants to spend time with his family? You didn't answer that when I asked.

 

You like Keith Law, I do not. Let's just leave it at that. Every claim you can make that I have no idea what I'm saying, I can throw right back at you. So this is all pointless.

Edited by Dick Allen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Aug 1, 2013 -> 01:19 PM)
You are just being ridiculous. What proof do you have that he is as talented and sought-after as you think and the only reason he isn't running a team is because he wants to spend time with his family? You didn't answer that when I asked.

 

You like Keith Law, I do not. Let's just leave it at that. Every claim you can make that I have no idea what I'm saying, I can throw right back at you. So this is all pointless.

 

No, because as I said a couple posts ago, I'm NOT making a claim that he could run a baseball team. You and wite were arguing over whether he was good or sucked, and you backed your argument that he's bad up by saying, "if he was as good as you say, he would be working for a baseball team." All I'm saying is that that argument makes no sense at all. That would be like me saying "If you had the ability to accurately assess Keith Law's ability, you would be his manager!"

 

I have no idea if Keith Law is good enough to contribute to a Major League team, or if he's better or worse than current ML scouts. If you think you do, you need to make a better argument than, "he wouldn't be working at ESPN." I'm just asking you to back your opinion of him up -- because so far, the only thing that seems to be floating out there about his ability is "he was wrong about Chris Sale" which isn't even true.

Edited by Eminor3rd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Law used to dislike the White Sox because KW had singled him out as an "idiot" in the past. I think he has since, more or less, buried the hatchet. There are reasons not to like Avisail Garcia. When he was asked about Avisail on ESPN, he was very diplomatic. He said there is division among people like him about how his approach will play at the MLB level over time. He first presented the case that many see him being a perennial all-star, but said that his and some others' opinion was that he "has no plan at the plate" and thus is unlikely to hit it big.

Edited by Jake
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Jake @ Aug 1, 2013 -> 03:12 PM)
I think Law used to dislike the White Sox because KW had singled him out as an "idiot" in the past. I think he has since, more or less, buried the hatchet. There are reasons not to like Avisail Garcia. When he was asked about Avisail on ESPN, he was very diplomatic. He said there is division among people like him about how his approach will play at the MLB level over time. He first presented the case that many see him being a perennial all-star, but said that his and some others' opinion was that he "has no plan at the plate" and thus is unlikely to hit it big.

One thing worth thinking about though is that "No plan at the plate" is a mental issue that can be changed with coaching. A guy can develop a plan at the plate. Paul Konerko dramatically improved his plan at the plate with time. "No plan at the plate" is being stated there like it's a genetic issue, like one of his arms is 30 centimeters shorter than the other one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 1, 2013 -> 02:15 PM)
One thing worth thinking about though is that "No plan at the plate" is a mental issue that can be changed with coaching. A guy can develop a plan at the plate. Paul Konerko dramatically improved his plan at the plate with time. "No plan at the plate" is being stated there like it's a genetic issue, like one of his arms is 30 centimeters shorter than the other one.

 

You are right. However, I think that poor plate discipline can be either "no plan at the plate" or "cannot recognize pitches fast enough." The former is coachable, the latter may not be. I personally struggle to be able to tell which one it is when watching guys on TV. Presumably, the coaching staff has a way better idea of this from talking to the players and seeing them practice, but if they think they are getting guys that can be coached out of their hackiness, it sure doesn't seem to be working :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Aug 1, 2013 -> 02:32 PM)
You are right. However, I think that poor plate discipline can be either "no plan at the plate" or "cannot recognize pitches fast enough." The former is coachable, the latter may not be. I personally struggle to be able to tell which one it is when watching guys on TV. Presumably, the coaching staff has a way better idea of this from talking to the players and seeing them practice, but if they think they are getting guys that can be coached out of their hackiness, it sure doesn't seem to be working :(

 

To me, I see a guy like Viciedo as "no plan at the plate," where he has no idea what he's going to do except something very basic. That's improving, but still.

 

I view a guy like Tyler Flowers as "cannot recognize pitches fast enough" because he knows what he wants and where he wants it, but he doesn't have the hand-eye coordination to make the sweet spot make contact often enough.

 

Based on numbers alone, Garcia is going to fit into the former rather than the latter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Aug 1, 2013 -> 03:02 PM)
To me, I see a guy like Viciedo as "no plan at the plate," where he has no idea what he's going to do except something very basic. That's improving, but still.

 

I view a guy like Tyler Flowers as "cannot recognize pitches fast enough" because he knows what he wants and where he wants it, but he doesn't have the hand-eye coordination to make the sweet spot make contact often enough.

 

Based on numbers alone, Garcia is going to fit into the former rather than the latter.

 

I more or less agree with that. I think Dayan is a guy who is constantly being coached and given a plan and his success seems to be dictated by how good that plan is and how well he sticks to it.

 

Flowers is constantly being coached and given plans but rarely seems to produce based on this type of instruction because he seems simply incapable of either recognizing pitches or just hitting pitches he recognizes on a consistent basis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Viciedo is the most frustrating player I've honestly ever seen in a Sox uniform. I wish he'd show a bit better balance at the plate, but he has monstrous potential. I've made the comparison about a zillion times on here, but he really looks like primetime Adrian Beltre at the plate...short, compact, quick, powerful swing. But, when he's going bad, he looks like Wily Mo Pena - swinging for the fences on every pitch, and maybe he'll hit one out but probably not and look at that, he's 0 for his last 17 with 10 K's. He is still very young and has time to become very productive, but he needs to improve his consistency.

 

Flowers, on the other hand, is either going to have to put in a ton of work on pitch recognition (which is weird because he's a catcher, but, like I said, I just don't think he's quick enough), he needs to shorten his swing, or he needs to learn how to cheat, especially on inside pitches.

 

Both can be decent to good hitters. Viciedo is far, far likelier to get there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 1, 2013 -> 02:15 PM)
One thing worth thinking about though is that "No plan at the plate" is a mental issue that can be changed with coaching. A guy can develop a plan at the plate. Paul Konerko dramatically improved his plan at the plate with time. "No plan at the plate" is being stated there like it's a genetic issue, like one of his arms is 30 centimeters shorter than the other one.

 

It took Paul Konerko a long time to get where he was the past few years, and I don't think he started anywhere near where Garcia is. I'm not saying he can't or won't dramatically improve in this area, but I'm not sold on him being some instant all star caliber player that a lot around here seem to think he is.

 

Value-wise he is a fine center piece for a Peavy deal, no doubt. I'm just not his biggest fan, personally.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (bbilek1 @ Aug 1, 2013 -> 04:44 PM)
I'd like someone to show DA's or my argument wrong about the draft. You can't. There is no consistent correlation between losing and having a productive farm. A week ago when we were speculating about which teams we wanted to trade with because of their great farms who did we turn to? The Rangers (they have a couple pennants and have been competitive for 5 years or so), the Cardinals (who have been winning for years) and the D-Backs (usually middle of the pack).

 

Why are those teams so successful without drafting in the top ten?

 

Better player development, traditionally massive international signing budgets, and hits on veterans-for-prospects trades.

 

In other words, excellent work in areas related to farm systems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (bbilek1 @ Aug 1, 2013 -> 04:44 PM)
I'd like someone to show DA's or my argument wrong about the draft. You can't. There is no consistent correlation between losing and having a productive farm. A week ago when we were speculating about which teams we wanted to trade with because of their great farms who did we turn to? The Rangers (they have a couple pennants and have been competitive for 5 years or so), the Cardinals (who have been winning for years) and the D-Backs (usually middle of the pack).

 

Why are those teams so successful without drafting in the top ten?

Well the Rangers have typically outspent most teams, so that's why their system is amongst the best.

 

But your point is true, draft position helps some, but not nearly enough to purposely lose. And when your team can support a $100M payroll, you're definitely better off trying to be semi-competitive every year. Not only will you protect your key revenue streams (season ticket base and TV/radio renewals), but you'll also be able to spin off veteran pieces for more advanced prospects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny looking at the other longest threads in PHT history. Next up is us acquiring Manny, lol. And after that it is Peavy rejecting a deal to us, again lol. Then the Tigers signing Damon, uh okay. And then us trading for Edwin Jackson, how exciting.

Edited by Buehrle>Wood
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (gatnom @ Aug 1, 2013 -> 03:33 PM)
It took Paul Konerko a long time to get where he was the past few years, and I don't think he started anywhere near where Garcia is. I'm not saying he can't or won't dramatically improve in this area, but I'm not sold on him being some instant all star caliber player that a lot around here seem to think he is.

 

Value-wise he is a fine center piece for a Peavy deal, no doubt. I'm just not his biggest fan, personally.

Konerko was the #2 prospect in all of baseball entering the 1998 season. His age 21 season in AAA was stellar. It was in the PCL so the numbers are inflated a bit but 37 homers .327 avg over 1.000 OPS is quite impressive from a 21 year old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Aug 1, 2013 -> 08:52 PM)
Konerko was the #2 prospect in all of baseball entering the 1998 season. His age 21 season in AAA was stellar. It was in the PCL so the numbers are inflated a bit but 37 homers .327 avg over 1.000 OPS is quite impressive from a 21 year old.

 

Yeah, Paulie was supposed to be the Dodgers' catcher of the future.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Aug 1, 2013 -> 06:25 PM)
Funny looking at the other longest threads in PHT history. Next up is us acquiring Manny, lol. And after that it is Peavy rejecting a deal to us, again lol. Then the Tigers signing Damon, uh okay. And then us trading for Edwin Jackson, how exciting.

Tigers signing Damon was so long because at one point, we all thought the Sox were the team that was going to sign him. The good thing is...Soxtalk clearly still has traffic...recent moves have been the top traffic getters. Just wait till this team gets back to the playoffs and wins another series!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...