Rick Hahn approval poll

[southsider2k5]

Borchard, Fields, Anderson, Morel (at least one time, 90% sure it was around 85-100) and Beckham were all Top 100 guys.

 

If Flowers was, it would have been right after that AFL season when he was still with the Braves.

 

Sweeney might have snuck in there once as well, but it would have been in the last 15-20 selections because of the concerns about him developing enough power for a corner outfield spot or possibly 1B.

 

I don't think Beckham ever was because his rookie status was gone by the time thatthe next prospect lists came out.

[Dick Allen]

Borchard, Fields, Anderson, Morel (at least one time, 90% sure it was around 85-100) and Beckham were all Top 100 guys.

 

If Flowers was, it would have been right after that AFL season when he was still with the Braves.

 

Sweeney might have snuck in there once as well, but it would have been in the last 15-20 selections because of the concerns about him developing enough power for a corner outfield spot or possibly 1B.

Morel was once #85. Flowers made it to #60. He put up big numbers for the Sox in AA, and Birmingham was a tough park to put up numbers.

Prospects get a lot of love. Some with thrive, most will fall flat on their face. As I mentioned before, if all of Garcia, Eaton and Davidson are as good as we all hope, Hahn will have to be considered a top GM. I remember when Brandon Allen was traded, someone here guaranteed he would be playing in some All Star games. He did fail to mention they would be for the over 30 beer league.

Edited January 10, 2014 by Dick Allen

[The Ultimate Champion]

Anderson never hit the way Eaton has. In AAA Anderson had a high OPS of .827

 

Eaton? .995 in AAA

 

They're worlds apart.

 

And guess what? Sweeney turned into a valuable and productive major leaguer!

Brian Anderson had legitimate power potential and was a sure bet CF defensively with an arm and range. A much more talented & toolsy player than Eaton, regardless of whatever their minor league statistics say. Anderson was a total bust. He was taken 15th overall and was not a reach.

 

Sweeney was also a total bust. He was perhaps the most exciting prospect in the system due to the sweet stroke and of course the power potential which never came. Sweeney fell to his absolute floor in the Majors. Sweeney was taken 52nd overall and that wasn't a reach either.

 

Let's temper the Eaton excitement please. He's a 19th round rick (571 overall) who was taken I believe as a junior in college and that was the first time he was ever drafted. He's a lot like Santiago, an overachiever type who continued to fight his way up levels, but let's not pretend he's all super toolsy and has the kind of upside that your average highly-ranked prospect has. If he's a solid starting CF for us then we've done very well but it's not like this guy is going to be hitting the ball out of the park anytime soon or is considered a sure-fire bet to stick in CF.

[Paulstar]

Borchard, Fields, Anderson, Morel (at least one time, 90% sure it was around 85-100) and Beckham were all Top 100 guys.

 

If Flowers was, it would have been right after that AFL season when he was still with the Braves.

 

Sweeney might have snuck in there once as well, but it would have been in the last 15-20 selections because of the concerns about him developing enough power for a corner outfield spot or possibly 1B.

Really, Morel possibly cracked the top 100?

 

Either way, I think while their prospect rankings might have been similar, there is still a huge difference in what type of players they are. Borchard, Fields, BA were all guys who were good athletes but extremely raw. They were guys if everything went right and coaching got through to them, they would be good players.

 

I'm not disagreeing if you make the same argument with Jeremy Reed, Ryan Sweeney, and Gordon Beckham.

[The Ultimate Champion]

I don't think Beckham ever was because his rookie status was gone by the time thatthe next prospect lists came out.

IIRC he was in the top-half of lists following his draft year and heading into the following season. He didn't stay there long however. That period where we had Beckham, Hudson, Flowers, Viciedo, Poreda, and Jordan Danks all garnering attention (Dexter Carter as well) made things look pretty bright. The system was still kind of barren outside of those guys though. And thank God for that Peavy trade.

[Quin]

I don't think Beckham ever was because his rookie status was gone by the time thatthe next prospect lists came out.

 

He was the 20th ranked prospect going into 2009.

[Paulstar]

Brian Anderson had legitimate power potential and was a sure bet CF defensively with an arm and range. A much more talented & toolsy player than Eaton, regardless of whatever their minor league statistics say. Anderson was a total bust. He was taken 15th overall and was not a reach.

 

Sweeney was also a total bust. He was perhaps the most exciting prospect in the system due to the sweet stroke and of course the power potential which never came. Sweeney fell to his absolute floor in the Majors. Sweeney was taken 52nd overall and that wasn't a reach either.

 

Let's temper the Eaton excitement please. He's a 19th round rick (571 overall) who was taken I believe as a junior in college and that was the first time he was ever drafted. He's a lot like Santiago, an overachiever type who continued to fight his way up levels, but let's not pretend he's all super toolsy and has the kind of upside that your average highly-ranked prospect has. If he's a solid starting CF for us then we've done very well but it's not like this guy is going to be hitting the ball out of the park anytime soon or is considered a sure-fire bet to stick in CF.

Ah please, thats one of the worst arguments you can use. Look at where Pujols was drafted, look at where Kemp was drafted, look at where Trout was drafted, etc. Where a player gets drafted doesn't matter after the fact, what matters is how they preform in the minors and what type of tools they have. I don't understand why draft position should be a part of this discussion at all.

 

I understand the White Sox have had prospects highly ranked before. But what gets me excited about Eaton and Garcia and to a lesser extent Davidson is how they just aren't toolsy and raw players. They have shown a good feel for hitting and actually being baseball players, not athletes playing baseball (even though Garcia does seem like a great athlete).

[Reddy]

Anderson didn't play in Reno. BA also was once rated the #37th best prospect. Eaton hasn't sniffed that. All that really matters is how he plays in the major leagues. Hopefully he is world's apart from BA, but the fact is, prospects rated in the 70s really isn't anything new for the White Sox. Perhaps these will pan out. That would be new.

I'd also like to point out that rankings generally don't mean too much.

 

Remind me where Buehrle, Piazza and Pujols were drafted?

[The Ultimate Champion]

Ah please, thats one of the worst arguments you can use. Look at where Pujols was drafted, look at where Kemp was drafted, look at where Trout was drafted, etc. Where a player gets drafted doesn't matter after the fact, what matters is how they preform in the minors and what type of tools they have. I don't understand why draft position should be a part of this discussion at all.

 

I understand the White Sox have had prospects highly ranked before. But what gets me excited about Eaton and Garcia and to a lesser extent Davidson is how they just aren't toolsy and raw players. They have shown a good feel for hitting and actually being baseball players, not athletes playing baseball (even though Garcia does seem like a great athlete).

The argument this is in response to is the "better prospect" argument, which it fits well.

 

Eaton is definitely more of an overachiever and grindier than any of these guys. He also brings a different skillset. None of this means he was a better prospect than those guys were. If so, and grindiness/overachieverness outweighed raw talent then Tyler Skaggs wouldn't have been the headliner of that Trumbo deal, it would have been Santiago as the main piece.

 

I'm happy with the deal too even though I do like Santiago's upside (I think he's been quite underrated nationally), and I hope Eaton can be somewhat of a poor man's Scott Podsednik who can be a better defensive fit as a CF.

[Reddy]

Brian Anderson had legitimate power potential and was a sure bet CF defensively with an arm and range. A much more talented & toolsy player than Eaton, regardless of whatever their minor league statistics say. Anderson was a total bust. He was taken 15th overall and was not a reach.

 

Sweeney was also a total bust. He was perhaps the most exciting prospect in the system due to the sweet stroke and of course the power potential which never came. Sweeney fell to his absolute floor in the Majors. Sweeney was taken 52nd overall and that wasn't a reach either.

 

Let's temper the Eaton excitement please. He's a 19th round rick (571 overall) who was taken I believe as a junior in college and that was the first time he was ever drafted. He's a lot like Santiago, an overachiever type who continued to fight his way up levels, but let's not pretend he's all super toolsy and has the kind of upside that your average highly-ranked prospect has. If he's a solid starting CF for us then we've done very well but it's not like this guy is going to be hitting the ball out of the park anytime soon or is considered a sure-fire bet to stick in CF.

 

Um... http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/s/sweenry01.shtml

 

Ryan Sweeney is a valuable bench piece and continues to be so. Was he a superstar? No. Was he expected to be? No. Has he had a successful major league career? Absolutely.

[Reddy]

The argument this is in response to is the "better prospect" argument, which it fits well.

 

Eaton is definitely more of an overachiever and grindier than any of these guys. He also brings a different skillset. None of this means he was a better prospect than those guys were. If so, and grindiness/overachieverness outweighed raw talent then Tyler Skaggs wouldn't have been the headliner of that Trumbo deal, it would have been Santiago as the main piece.

 

I'm happy with the deal too even though I do like Santiago's upside (I think he's been quite underrated nationally), and I hope Eaton can be somewhat of a poor man's Scott Podsednik who can be a better defensive fit as a CF.

 

What makes you say "poor man's" Pods?

 

 

[Jake]

Voted approve/agree that it's premature.

 

The major source of my anxiety is that the two guys from AZ only achieved upper-level success in the PCL, and those types of guys are numerous, and dicey. Cautious optimism.

 

This is what league-adjusted statistics are for. All players mentioned did very well relative to that league

[Chicago White Sox]

While his tools may not be flashy, I honestly think Eaton has a really high floor. The fact is Eaton gets on-base at a very high rate and has above-average speed. Assuming he can play a solid CF, he'll be an incredibly valuable player for us. He may not have superstar potential, but worst case scenario he'll be a decent leadoff hitter with the possibility to be much more.

[The Ultimate Champion]

I'd also like to point out that rankings generally don't mean too much.

 

Remind me where Buehrle, Piazza and Pujols were drafted?

This isn't a very good argument because when you start comparing the success rates of prospects who were picked late to prospects selected in higher rounds you see a pretty big difference to say the least.

 

Further, Buehrle was draft-and-follow and received a bonus of a high round pick. Pujols was 13th round, but a lot of that had to do with CC. Piazza was really more of the find, but you don't always need to look to the draft to find these "extreme" examples because they show up elsewhere too. Just because the Red Sox were able to sign David Ortiz in FA doesn't mean these guys are going to be out there every year. And just because the Twins got Johan Santana in the Rule-5 doesn't mean it's likely for that to happen again sometime over the next decade.

 

I agree that rankings don't mean as much though. They are very subjective and often based on very little information. Prospect A may have been researched a lot & there is lots of info on him, while prospect B you have little video on, your "scout scource" happened to not like very much, and you just have stats, so you rate Prospect A highly & Prospect B doesn't make your list. Maybe the two aren't that far apart however & the ranking looks poor as a result. Further, the MLB playing field is the ultimate proving ground, nothing else, and as long as you get there and perform then it doesn't matter how talented you are or look or what your age is. But with that said, every prospect generally starts out as someone with one or two, and maybe several, major holes in their games along with a total lack of experience. Talent and sheer ability have to be taken into consideration and weighted appropriately. The more talented, higher ceiling guys are going to be considered the better prospects. And for good reason.

[Jake]

http://www.baseballamerica.com/minors/top-...ospect-tidbits/

 

• Of the 1,146 players to be on a Top 100 Prospects list from 1990-2009, 1,020 (89 percent) made the major leagues.

 

• Top 100 Prospects players have won 29 MVP awards, 19 Cy Young Awards and 38 Rookie of the Year awards.

 

• Of the 74 2012 all-stars, 49 (66 percent) appeared on a Top 100 Prospects list, and 23 were ranked in the top 10.

 

...

 

• Of the 80 different players ranked in the top five on Top 100 Prospects lists between 1990-2009, 44 have been all-stars and have combined for an average Baseball-Reference WAR of 19.2, so far.

 

• Of the 141 different pitchers ranked in the top 25 from 1990-2009, just 10 never reached the big leagues. The average number of innings by the pitchers who did (so far) is 855, and 46 have more than 1,000 big league innings.

 

• Of the 196 different hitters ranked in the top 25 from 1990-2009 (including Rick Ankiel), just three never reached the big leagues. The average number of plate appearances by those who did (so far) is 4,022, and 28 different hitters from that group have recorded more than 7,500 big league plate appearances.

 

1. A player being ranked in the top 100 doesn't prove anything, but it means we are dealing with a much higher probability that he becomes a contributor and star.

 

2. The top 25 is much more rarified air.

 

[LittleHurt05]

Morel was once #85. Flowers made it to #60. He put up big numbers for the Sox in AA, and Birmingham was a tough park to put up numbers.

Prospects get a lot of love. Some with thrive, most will fall flat on their face. As I mentioned before, if all of Garcia, Eaton and Davidson are as good as we all hope, Hahn will have to be considered a top GM. I remember when Brandon Allen was traded, someone here guaranteed he would be playing in some All Star games. He did fail to mention they would be for the over 30 beer league.

 

One of my favorite stats:

 

Brandon Allen career WAR: -0.2

Tony Pena WAR w/ the Sox: 0.7

[Jake]

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/looking-for...prospect-lists/

 

Also, look at this link. He goes over the best players, by position, to miss the Top 100. By and large, they don't miss. You might not pan out if you make the top 100, but if you don't make the top 100 you probably won't pan out. Get as many T100 guys as possible.

[Dick Allen]

I'd also like to point out that rankings generally don't mean too much.

 

Remind me where Buehrle, Piazza and Pujols were drafted?

Prospect rankings are a lot different than "where they were drafted". Pujols was ranked 42 and Piazza 38 at one time. Some guys will be All Stars and never ranked in the top 100. Some will be ranked #1 and be Delmon Young. The fact is, most prospects bust. You can't be sure how Hahn did until the results come in. He either hit a home run or struck out. We will know in a couple of years. Sooner if these guys can really play at the major league level. But to think the Sox haven't had prospects just as highly thought of as these through the KW regime is crazy. They just didn't develop. Hopefully the times have changed.

[Reddy]

Adam Eaton early projections via Fangraphs:

 

Steamer: .278 .350 .403 2.3 WAR

Oliver: .266 .341 .380 3.4 WAR

 

 

Obviously those are just two projections, and should be taken with a huge grain of salt - they're not even my favorite projection systems by far - but notice this is going to be his age 25 season, and Podsednik was 27 before he broke out. Eaton has a higher ceiling, and frankly a higher floor than Pods did. I don't know why you'd consider him a poor man's version. At the very least they're on the same level, with Eaton having a higher OBP almost certainly.

[The Ultimate Champion]

What makes you say "poor man's" Pods?

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/p/podsesc01.shtml

 

Scotty Pods has quietly had a pretty nice career & has a .281/.339/.379 career line. If it weren't for all the injuries he would have made a lot more money than he did. I say a poor man's Pods in relation to Eaton's offensive value as a weapon at the top of the order (not nearly the threat of a prime Pods). But given how Pods was just a LF, if Eaton can be a solid defensive CF and generally put up the type of overall numbers Pods has done then I'd say we'll be happy with this trade.

[Reddy]

Prospect rankings are a lot different than "where they were drafted". Pujols was ranked 42 and Piazza 38 at one time. Some guys will be All Stars and never ranked in the top 100. Some will be ranked #1 and be Delmon Young. The fact is, most prospects bust. You can't be sure how Hahn did until the results come in. He either hit a home run or struck out. We will know in a couple of years. Sooner if these guys can really play at the major league level. But to think the Sox haven't had prospects just as highly thought of as these through the KW regime is crazy. They just didn't develop. Hopefully the times have changed.

You absolutely can. The fact that he's flipping non-important pieces (or at least replaceable pieces) for legitmate MLB-ready prospects already means he's doing a good job regardless of the outcome. As you yourself said, most prospects flame out. Well most pitchers do too, and I'd rather have a GM who's interested and focused on rebuilding WHILE maintaining a competitive team. In one offseason Hahn did just that. If it doesn't work out 100% so what? I want the GM who makes THESE kinds of moves instead of the one who overspends for 10 year contracts to aging superstars.

[Reddy]

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/p/podsesc01.shtml

 

Scotty Pods has quietly had a pretty nice career & has a .281/.339/.379 career line. If it weren't for all the injuries he would have made a lot more money than he did. I say a poor man's Pods in relation to Eaton's offensive value as a weapon at the top of the order (not nearly the threat of a prime Pods). But given how Pods was just a LF, if Eaton can be a solid defensive CF and generally put up the type of overall numbers Pods has done then I'd say we'll be happy with this trade.

see the above post. Eaton is absolutely equal or most likely above Pods in the "offensive threat" category.

[Soxfest]

I approve I like what Hahn has done so far.

[The Ultimate Champion]

see the above post. Eaton is absolutely equal or most likely above Pods in the "offensive threat" category.

Ugh.

 

Right.

 

Go back to all the Flowers is better than AJ posts for another version of this. Or Fields over Crede, whatever. On paper ceilings look beautiful, then s*** happens.

 

Pods stole 70 bases in a single season & stole a combined 212 bases during a 4 consecutive season period *in the Major Leagues.* He also battled injuries. He was also, like Eaton, a CF prospect with questions who had to move to LF because he lacked arm strength for the position. Whatever his perfect world on-paper ceiling was it was certainly much higher than what he actually accomplished, and when you look at what he actually accomplished he did quite a bit, much more than most OF prospects who make it to the MLB level.

 

Whatever you think Eaton's ceiling is, get ready to be disappointed because it's pretty unlikely you're going to get it. And if at the end of the day Eaton puts up a career similar to what Pods has done, then he's been worth trading for & worth starting.

 

As far as that projection crap go back and look at our wonderful history of pre-season prospect projections, where guys like Flowers and Anthony Carter and Jon Link etc. play important roles on the team. It means nothing. The DBacks traded a very good LHSP prospect to upgrade over him with a butcher of a K machine in LF, looking for power. Now while it may be easy to say the DBacks are stupid & we're geniuses, I think it's much likelier that they actually know to evaluate their own players & that your expectations of Eaton are unrealistically high.

[LittleHurt05]

You absolutely can. The fact that he's flipping non-important pieces (or at least replaceable pieces) for legitmate MLB-ready prospects already means he's doing a good job regardless of the outcome. As you yourself said, most prospects flame out. Well most pitchers do too, and I'd rather have a GM who's interested and focused on rebuilding WHILE maintaining a competitive team. In one offseason Hahn did just that. If it doesn't work out 100% so what? I want the GM who makes THESE kinds of moves instead of the one who overspends for 10 year contracts to aging superstars.

 

So if these prospects do flame out and the Sox keep losing 90 games every year, is he still doing a good job?