Possible Suitors for Gordon Beckham

[witesoxfan]

Josh Fields was a top 100 prospect. So was Brent Morel. So was Joe Borchard. If you cannot make contact at the lower levels, you most likely will suck in the major leagues. Adam Dunn never struck out at those rates in the minors. Neither did Jim Thome or Reggie Jackson. 3 of the most prolific strike out machines at the major league level.

 

Bo Jackson did, but I think we would all agree he is a little different from anyone in the Sox system. Defend Davidson all you want, he's still young, he will probably get to Chicago, but chances are he isn't going to be this talent you think. He cannot hit the ball often enough.

 

Strikeouts have gone up over the past 5 to 10 years. Mike Trout has struck out at 21% rate in the majors and he's at 26% this year. I don't care about those numbers.

 

I don't particularly like Davidson, FWIW, but anybody denying his talent is acting foolish.

[Dick Allen]

Strikeouts have gone up over the past 5 to 10 years. Mike Trout has struck out at 21% rate in the majors and he's at 26% this year. I don't care about those numbers.

 

I don't particularly like Davidson, FWIW, but anybody denying his talent is acting foolish.

Talent doesn't mean a whole lot if you can't take advantage of it. It really doesn't matter how far you can hit a ball if you make contact, if you can't make contact.

Edited May 27, 2014 by Dick Allen

[witesoxfan]

Talent doesn't mean a whole lot if you can't take advantage of it.

 

Talented players are better than untalented players.

[Dick Allen]

Talented players are better than untalented players.

By your own definition, Matt Davidson is an afterthought.

[Eminor3rd]

Giancarlo Stanton had major contact issues all the way up, too. Sometimes they get it, sometimes they don't.

 

Given their recent track record, I think it's reasonable to question the White Sox' ability to either develop these guys or correctly identify the ones that have a real shot. But, on the other hand, it's also probable that Davidson was the biggest package of talent that could be had for a reliever like Reed. I think it's a legitimate debate: should the White Sox shy away from poor contact prospects even when they represent the best available talent? Is the answer to just avoid them, or to continue to get better at developing them?

[witesoxfan]

By your own definition, Matt Davidson is an afterthought.

 

No

[Dick Allen]

Giancarlo Stanton had major contact issues all the way up, too. Sometimes they get it, sometimes they don't.

 

Given their recent track record, I think it's reasonable to question the White Sox' ability to either develop these guys or correctly identify the ones that have a real shot. But, on the other hand, it's also probable that Davidson was the biggest package of talent that could be had for a reliever like Reed. I think it's a legitimate debate: should the White Sox shy away from poor contact prospects even when they represent the best available talent? Is the answer to just avoid them, or to continue to get better at developing them?

You mentioned track record. Didn't you tell Marty something along the lines of track record meaning nothing?

 

And Stanton's contact problems were at 18 and 19 and his other numbers were spectacular. There is no comparison to Stanton and any White Sox strike out machine in the minors.

Edited May 27, 2014 by Dick Allen

[Dick Allen]

No

Yes. You specifically told me a few months ago, guys not contributing at the major league level 4 years after being drafted are afterthoughts. Matt Davidson was drafted 5 years ago.

 

And I know, he was drafted from HS, but I specifically mentioned the Sox second round pick would probably be a HS player, and probably would be at least 5 or 6 years away from contributing to winning.

 

In fact, when I replied you really expect Courtney Hawkins to be contributing in 2 and a half years to the White Sox, you said yes.

 

 

[witesoxfan]

Yes. You specifically told me a few months ago, guys not contributing at the major league level 4 years after being drafted are afterthoughts. Matt Davidson was drafted 5 years ago.

 

And I know, he was drafted from HS, but I specifically mentioned the Sox second round pick would probably be a HS player, and probably would be at least 5 or 6 years away from contributing to winning.

 

In fact, when I replied you really expect Courtney Hawkins to be contributing in 2 and a half years to the White Sox, you said yes.

 

Except that Matt Davidson DID contribute at the MLB level, so even with my misguided and out of context quote, you're still wrong, and either way, it has nothign to do with this argument, yet somehow in your trolling ways, you've attempted to direct the argument to this point. I'm done with it on this point:

 

White Sox fans wanted Rick Hahn and upper management to go out and get high upside talent. They did that by trading Addison Reed for Matt Davidson. White Sox fans are upset. Rick Hahn is in a no-win proposition because he can't make White Sox fans happy.

[southsider2k5]

Another thread successfully trolled.

[oldsox]

Giancarlo Stanton had major contact issues all the way up, too. Sometimes they get it, sometimes they don't.

 

Given their recent track record, I think it's reasonable to question the White Sox' ability to either develop these guys or correctly identify the ones that have a real shot. But, on the other hand, it's also probable that Davidson was the biggest package of talent that could be had for a reliever like Reed. I think it's a legitimate debate: should the White Sox shy away from poor contact prospects even when they represent the best available talent? Is the answer to just avoid them, or to continue to get better at developing them?

I never saw any evidence that the Sox were shopping Reed prior to the Davidson deal. Fact is, AZ played Davidson extensively the end of 2013 season; from what I heard, they cooled on him, shopped him, and the rest is history.

[witesoxfan]

I never saw any evidence that the Sox were shopping Reed prior to the Davidson deal. Fact is, AZ played Davidson extensively the end of 2013 season; from what I heard, they cooled on him, shopped him, and the rest is history.

 

Addison Reed would be the 4th or 5th best right handed reliever in the Sox pen this year. Do you think that there was perhaps a reason they were shopping him?

[Dick Allen]

Except that Matt Davidson DID contribute at the MLB level, so even with my misguided and out of context quote, you're still wrong, and either way, it has nothign to do with this argument, yet somehow in your trolling ways, you've attempted to direct the argument to this point. I'm done with it on this point:

 

White Sox fans wanted Rick Hahn and upper management to go out and get high upside talent. They did that by trading Addison Reed for Matt Davidson. White Sox fans are upset. Rick Hahn is in a no-win proposition because he can't make White Sox fans happy.

September call ups on a team out of contention isn't contributing to winning. Sorry to call you out on your foolishness. I hope Davidson is a stud, but he strikes out way to much against inferior pitching. I have been told by the saber guys Viciedo swung at too many bad pitches and couldn't improve. Either Davidson is swinging at too many bad pitches or he is swinging at good pitches and cannot make contact. Personally, I hope he is swinging at bad pitches, because I believe that is correctable. Not being able to hit AAA strikes doesn't bode well for his future.

 

It is funny when you get called out for your foolishness, and no , it wasn't taken out of context. Your defense is someone is trolling. How was it taken out of context? Did you not say what I claimed you said? It was in reference to the Sox 2nd round pick. I said I read the draft wasn't very strong, better than last year, but HS heavy. Chances were the Sox second round pick would be a HS player and wouldn't contribute to winning for at least 5 or 6 years. You argued with me about that. Even said Hawkins will be contributing to winning in Chicago in 2016.

Edited May 27, 2014 by Dick Allen

[Dick Allen]

Addison Reed would be the 4th or 5th best right handed reliever in the Sox pen this year. Do you think that there was perhaps a reason they were shopping him?

According to reports last winter, the Sox had a couple of untouchables, Abreu and Sale, and the reports were Reed was next to untouchable. They obviously thought a lot of Davidson, and I seriously doubt the were shopping Reed.

[witesoxfan]

September call ups on a team out of contention isn't contributing to winning. Sorry to call you out on your foolishness. I hope Davidson is a stud, but he strikes out way to much against inferior pitching. I have been told by the saber guys Viciedo swung at too many bad pitches and couldn't improve. Either Davidson is swinging at too many bad pitches or he is swinging at good pitches and cannot make contact. Personally, I hope he is swinging at bad pitches, because I believe that is correctable. Not being able to hit AAA strikes doesn't bode well for his future.

 

It is funny when you get called out for your foolishness, and no , it wasn't taken out of context. Your defense is someone is trolling. How was it taken out of context? Did you not say what I claimed you said?

 

I merely said you will likely have an idea after 4 years about whether or not someone will be contributing. Matt Davidson did within 4 years (and he was actualy up from August 11th on, so there goes your September call-up theory). If Hawkins is in AA/AAA in the next year or two, we'll have a pretty good idea with him too. That's entirely beside my point, which is the trolling aspect of it, bringing in previous arguments to fit round pegs into square holes. Either way, I'm not wrong on that - if you don't have a pretty good idea about whether a guy is going to be on the MLB roster or have a shot at contributing value to the MLB team either directly or indirectly by the time he has to be added to the 40-man, then odds are pretty good he's not going to contribute. That argument isn't flawed whatsoever, is perfectly reasonable, and is not on topic anyways.

 

You have done a perfect job of fitting the exact definition of the White Sox fan I'm describing though. Thank you for that.

[Eminor3rd]

You mentioned track record. Didn't you tell Marty something along the lines of track record meaning nothing?

 

And Stanton's contact problems were at 18 and 19 and his other numbers were spectacular. There is no comparison to Stanton and any White Sox strike out machine in the minors.

 

No, and I elaborated what I did and didn't mean, very clearly, at least three times in that thread. If you read that, you're being dense on purpose (business as usual), and if you didn't read it, you shouldn't put words in others mouths.

 

For the final time (although no one seems to be confused about this except you at this point), I said track record should be a component of what is used to predict future performance, but that the important factor in a GMs decision to value or acquire a player is, and should be, exclusively what that player will do going forward.

[Eminor3rd]

I never saw any evidence that the Sox were shopping Reed prior to the Davidson deal. Fact is, AZ played Davidson extensively the end of 2013 season; from what I heard, they cooled on him, shopped him, and the rest is history.

 

Certainly a possibility.

[Dick Allen]

I merely said you will likely have an idea after 4 years about whether or not someone will be contributing. Matt Davidson did within 4 years (and he was actualy up from August 11th on, so there goes your September call-up theory). If Hawkins is in AA/AAA in the next year or two, we'll have a pretty good idea with him too. That's entirely beside my point, which is the trolling aspect of it, bringing in previous arguments to fit round pegs into square holes. Either way, I'm not wrong on that - if you don't have a pretty good idea about whether a guy is going to be on the MLB roster or have a shot at contributing value to the MLB team either directly or indirectly by the time he has to be added to the 40-man, then odds are pretty good he's not going to contribute. That argument isn't flawed whatsoever, is perfectly reasonable, and is not on topic anyways.

 

You have done a perfect job of fitting the exact definition of the White Sox fan I'm describing though. Thank you for that.

Then why did you use your argument against me when I said if a HS player was picked in the second round in 2014, he probably wouldn't contribute to winning until 2019 or 2020?

 

 

[witesoxfan]

Then why did you use your argument against me when I said if a HS player was picked in the second round in 2014, he probably wouldn't contribute to winning until 2019 or 2020?

 

He could certainly be traded in 2018, he could certainly be up in 2018, or he might not be contributing until then but if he's good enough, he'll likely be on the 40 man and we'll have a pretty good idea as fans if he is going to be a significant contributor. Many of us lauded the Nevin Griffith pick and signing in the 2nd, and he completely flopped. We had a pretty good idea that was going to happen too based on numbers and scouting reports within 4 years of drafting him.

 

However, it's hard to know exactly what will happen 5 years from now. If you can tell me exactly, I would appreciate it. I'll write you up a TPS Report and you can let me know what more we can do at that point.

 

EDIT: Either way, I see nothing that this has to do with my original point. Please try and get back on topic.

Edited May 27, 2014 by witesoxfan

[Dick Allen]

He could certainly be traded in 2018, he could certainly be up in 2018, or he might not be contributing until then but if he's good enough, he'll likely be on the 40 man and we'll have a pretty good idea as fans if he is going to be a significant contributor. Many of us lauded the Nevin Griffith pick and signing in the 2nd, and he completely flopped. We had a pretty good idea that was going to happen too based on numbers and scouting reports within 4 years of drafting him.

 

However, it's hard to know exactly what will happen 5 years from now. If you can tell me exactly, I would appreciate it. I'll write you up a TPS Report and you can let me know what more we can do at that point.

 

EDIT: Either way, I see nothing that this has to do with my original point. Please try and get back on topic.

But the point was I didn't think the 2nd round pick was as valuable as a lot of people and pointed out the draft was said to be HS heavy, so they player wouldn't contribute for 5 or 6 years making the pick less valuable, which you argued with. Now you say they will have a good idea within that timeframe.

 

Great. We should have a good idea of Matt Davidson. What is he going to be? And when?

 

You try to have it both ways. If you are going to say something, and it is wrong, don't just start calling me names and try to change the subject. Own up to it.

[Dick Allen]

No, and I elaborated what I did and didn't mean, very clearly, at least three times in that thread. If you read that, you're being dense on purpose (business as usual), and if you didn't read it, you shouldn't put words in others mouths.

 

For the final time (although no one seems to be confused about this except you at this point), I said track record should be a component of what is used to predict future performance, but that the important factor in a GMs decision to value or acquire a player is, and should be, exclusively what that player will do going forward.

Projections are mostly based on track record, and similar players' track record.

[witesoxfan]

But the point was I didn't think the 2nd round pick was as valuable as a lot of people and pointed out the draft was said to be HS heavy, so they player wouldn't contribute for 5 or 6 years making the pick less valuable, which you argued with. Now you say they will have a good idea within that timeframe.

 

Great. We should have a good idea of Matt Davidson. What is he going to be? And when?

 

You try to have it both ways. If you are going to say something, and it is wrong, don't just start calling me names and try to change the subject. Own up to it.

 

I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect that Davidson is going to be a starter at 3B, but right now, the Sox have a pretty good 3B. It's not as if Davidson has to play for the White Sox to provide value to them. Still, they felt strongly that about his bat and his upside so they traded a middle reliever for him. I will never have any problem with them doing that, which is why, as disappointing as Nestor Molina was and has been, I had no problem with that trade either.

[greg775]

Addison Reed would be the 4th or 5th best right handed reliever in the Sox pen this year. Do you think that there was perhaps a reason they were shopping him?

 

You are joking, right? I assume you are a Nate Jones lover. Nate is not very good IMO.

[Dick Allen]

I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect that Davidson is going to be a starter at 3B, but right now, the Sox have a pretty good 3B. It's not as if Davidson has to play for the White Sox to provide value to them. Still, they felt strongly that about his bat and his upside so they traded a middle reliever for him. I will never have any problem with them doing that, which is why, as disappointing as Nestor Molina was and has been, I had no problem with that trade either.

Addison Reed wasn't and isn't a middle reliever.

[witesoxfan]

You are joking, right? I assume you are a Nate Jones lover. Nate is not very good IMO.

 

I disagree with your opinion, but Jones has been hurt this year anyways, so I'm not sure why you mentioned him.

 

Addison Reed wasn't and isn't a middle reliever.

 

He would be on this team.