maggsmaggs

Great job addressing all the pertinent elements.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Apr 20, 2010 -> 12:55 PM) He's right there. But for my money, give me Steve Nash. He's a marvel to watch. They are both great, and so is Chris Paul. To me, it's to hard to pick one over the other two, so I would have a top 3 of D-Will, Nash and Paul. Rose is close to those guys level though, but I don't consider him a true point guard like them, he is more like a Dwyane Wade. Rose won't ever be a 20/10 guy IMO, but rather a 26-28/8 guy just like Wade. And really that is equal production.

Just did some quick math of big strikeout hitters first year in AAA and first extended action in the Majors comparing the K-rates. Player (AAA K-rate/MLB K-rate) Ryan Howard (31.5%/32.1%) Mark Reynolds (24%/35.2%) Adam Dunn (24.3%/30.3%) Grady Sizemore (17.2%/24.6%) Curtis Granderson (29%/26.5%) Joe Borchard (31.7%/28.3%) Jack Cust (23%/26.6%) Everyone's K-rate went up except Borchard and Granderson. Borchard though had two season at the MLB level that gave him like 60 at-bats and 70 at-bats, so I didn't include those because the sample size I didn't deem big enough. Together, they aveage an increase of 3.4% at the major league level. Maybe Danks could pull a Granderson and cut his K-rate at the MLB level, but I am guessing he would fall more in line with the rest.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 20, 2010 -> 12:13 PM) Its definitely worrisome. You'd hope he could be something akin to Sizemore, in that he can hit a bit, run, field his position very well, but still K a lot. As a comparison, Sizemore had 72 K in 418 AB in his AAA year, for a 17% rate. So Danks is well above that. I am sure sabermetric guys can tell you what a AAA K-rate would likely translate to in the Majors, but just in my own guestimate, that would be close to 33% or 200 strikeouts in a 600-at-bat season. That clearly is horrible. I have always thought of him as a Grady Sizemore-lite player b/c Danks has a similar skill set, but much less power and less speed. I know the Sox won't do it, but I think trading him would be the best course of action. Obviously that would probably be detrimental in trying to sign John long-term, but I just cannot see Danks being more than an average offensive talent. I really hope I am proven wrong because he brings the athleticism that we need. But people are going to get frustrated very easily with him when he Ks with a runner on second with no outs or Ks with a runner on third and less than two outs.

I know I am being stubborn, but until I see significant improvements in that K rate (28% k-rate is actually worse than last year) I cannot take him seriously as an offensive player. Yes, I understand that I will be ridiculued by overlooking his extra-base hits, great average thus far, ability to walk and stolen bases, but I do not have faith he can do any of that at the major league level with such a poor contact rate. Flame away.

Hey Lebron, quick your winking. You're barely beating the #8 seed at home. My god do I hate his antics. I am sure though if I wasn't a Bulls fan, the things MJ did would irk me.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Apr 19, 2010 -> 08:54 PM) Garland and Buehrle (some were including him at #8-10 on the prospects list then, I THINK) legitimiately have turned out much better than Rauch/Guerrier. Guerrier was more 2001/2002. Fogg and Bradford made major contributions to rosters, Rocky Biddle as well. Wright/Ginter/Barcelo/Stumm, not so much. Off my memory of the 2000 BA Handbook which is pretty good since I actually still take a look at it, I know both Garland/Buehrle were not considered rookies for the 2001 season and thus not eligible for the 2000 Prospect Book. You're probably right though about Guerrier being a bit later.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Apr 19, 2010 -> 08:46 PM) They're actually hanging in there. I just have that bad feeling that they won't be able to close and that Lebron is gonna get some crap call in the last couple of minutes. But if we could steal this game, it becomes a best-of-5 series with homecourt advantage for us.

Welcome to the game Kirk.

Again, where is Flip Murray? Hinrich blows. We need someone to stretch the defense a bit and Flip can do that.

QUOTE (beckham15 @ Apr 19, 2010 -> 08:35 PM) noah has f***ing heart He is never going to be extremely skilled or strong, but no one will play harder. He only has a fifth gear, and I love it.

Please give me Flip Murray. Hinrich couldn't hit water if he fell out of a boat tonight.

QUOTE (Flash Tizzle @ Apr 19, 2010 -> 07:52 PM) People around here for many years were disgusting me with the excuses used to explain the lack of development in the minor league department. Our draft position was often cited. I honestly believed what I read was echoed by management -- most notably that because Williams could deal prospects for proven veterans, all we needed was to draft people who could perform well in the minors and then ship them off. As if other teams don't have scouts. Someone should browse through the 2005/2006 draft threads, and I guarantee you'll find that exact argument thrown about by respected posters. What annoys me is, it's not even as if we'd be upset if several more million was spent on a 1st or 2nd round pick that ultimately busted. That doesn't mean breaking the bank for an athletic Joe Borchard, but instead take advantage of quality players -- whether high school or college -- who drop due to sign ability concerns. I'd take Nevin Griffith a million times over Donny Lucy, even if it means one person reaches the majors and the other never makes AAA. Yes, the draft is much less certain than other sports; but with that knowledge, why not improve your odds of developing a potential #1, instead of another #5. Or a studly 1B instead of another 4th OF? Although I'm pleased that, atleast on the surface (Buddy Bell, Williams stating his committal to a strong system), it appears we're more concerned with the draft. Also, I'll end on this question concerning our international prowess -- name me the last contributing player from Latin America that was developed through our system? Hint -- you'll have to go back a LONG time. It has to be Carlos Lee.

QUOTE (Jerksticks @ Apr 19, 2010 -> 05:44 PM) I kinda disagree with everything here. You say he hasn't given you one reason to trust him since 2005, but every year he's been in charge we've been competitive at least through July-August. Every year going into spring training, I've felt like we have had a chance to win the division. Some years are better than others, but no more The Kids Can Play or some boring manager like Jerry Manuel running the team. Ticket sales are higher, payrolls are higher, Ozzie Guillen is pretty much Mr. Baseball, and there is no revolving door at any front office position. I mean, the Twins sucked one year and hit paydirt with Joe freakin Mauer; it happens. We have the best prospects I've ever seen this team have (I'm only 25 though); granted they aren't Joe Mauer, but they aren't Kip Wells and Danny Wright either. There is upside down there. There is upside everywhere; I think we all got a little greedy with 2005. First of all, it isn't enough to be competitive through July/August. I do remember the old adage that KW put the best team on the field (I think Hawk said this every year we didn't win the division), but at some point, I think we need to be realists and realize maybe, in fact, we didn't have the better team and maybe that's why we didn't win. In 2003/2004 (when we finished nine games/four games out of first place, respectively) I also agreed with Hawk that KW put the best team out there, and it just didn't happen. But I have realized that was just a poor excuse. It really was KW not putting a better team out there, and really with the payroll we have had compared to our division rivals, there is no reason we shouldn't have won more than two divisions in KW's reign. We also said the "best prospects" thing in 2000. And where did those guys end up? Well, the two best probably are kicking our butt in the Twins bullpen, but clearly they didn't pan out quite like the experts thought. We don't have a top-50-type prospect, rather three or four 50- to 100- range prospects. I am just sick of the same excuses that KW has done all he can because clearly he hasn't built the best team.

QUOTE (joeynach @ Apr 19, 2010 -> 06:15 PM) Isnt the draft budget just a function of the quality of players we are able to select. The better the draft picks, meaning the higher the picks, the more $$ we are going to spend. If we keep drafting late picks, lower talent picks, then our draft spending will be lower. Not really. Top prospects fall all the time due to bonus demands. Just look at the Tigers, they nabbed Porcello and their recent top prospect Jacob Turner (both consensus top HS pitchers in the draft) late b/c of their bonus demands. Also, you have fringe first-round picks who asks for seven-figure bonuses that get picked up in the 5- to 15-round range.

QUOTE (justBLAZE @ Apr 19, 2010 -> 03:37 PM) It's really weird but I was just coming here to post the exact same thing. I am not here to start more pessimism, but honestly the whole In Kenny I trust is old. He hasn't given me one reason to trust him since the 2005 season. I wholeheartedly agree this is a long season and the Sox will probably get on a hot streak soon, but still, this team is clearly not a playoff-caliber team as constructed. And we don't even have thr prospects really to get a big name and worse yet, we don't have the prospects that can come up and make an immediate impact.

Since 1991 when the Sox became the world drafting team in the Major Leagues on the heels of being arguably the best drafting team in baseball for a 5-year stretch, the White Sox have had one all-star appearance from their first-round picks (supplemental picks included). That player was Aaron Rowand, and he didn't even become an all-star with the Sox. To me that is the most telling stat about our drafting. Where you are supposed to rebuild your franchise and bring in your next future stars, the Sox have done horribly -- the very worst in the major leagues. http://www.baseball-reference.com/draft/?q...aft_type=junreg Is there a more depressing list? Now in the 1990s, I would say that is more just bad scouting than anything, but in the 2000s, it has been about bad scouting and horrible appropriations of funds by the Sox organization. It's also kinda hilarious that the one time they go out and spend big on a player (Borchard), he was a complete bust. If I have time today at work, I will try to do more research about the money the Sox pay to their draft pick at each respective spot in the draft compared to other teams in different years.

QUOTE (DBAHO @ Apr 19, 2010 -> 06:22 AM) You can also argue that the Sox have hardly had any top 10 picks besides Gordon Beckham hence why they don't have a huge draft budget over the years. I think they've taken steps to improve the farm system by signing guys like Viciedo for instance, and by just drafting better prospects, but I agree that more needs to be done. If you're going to point the finger at KW, I'd point it at him for the moves he's made major league wise over the past couple of seasons for not improving our offense. That hasn't stopped other big-market teams from having big draft budgets. With the way agents run baseball, enough elite prospects slip in the draft where they can be gobbled up in the 15-30 range, but the Sox refuse to play hardball and instead take the Kyle McCulloch's, Lance Broadway's, Royce Ring's of the world -- the easy signs (which is not a terrible thing if they make up for it later in the draft, but they don't). The Sox have rarely taken signability risk anywhere in the draft.

QUOTE (JoeCoolMan24 @ Apr 18, 2010 -> 08:36 PM) Sox players all at the game tonight. I saw Beckham (who was being interviewed), Lucy, Peavy, and Danks. They know this is as close to the playoffs as they will get this year.

QUOTE (Jenksy Cat @ Apr 18, 2010 -> 12:17 PM) And again, how are they superior? Who the f*** cares about division titles and no playoff wins? That would piss me off more than having a team that only puts it together every couple years. The Twins are like the Bulls, a fun little team to watch, but they can't, and won't ever, hang with the "big boys". One World Series is indicative of great success (Borat voice) of one year whereas multiple playoff appearances is indicative of consistent success. While you can never take away the Sox 2005 WS, sustained success is always the goal because it gives you more opportunities for World Series. I think 90% of people here would agree the Twins have the more successful franchise the past decade.

QUOTE (Jenksy Cat @ Apr 18, 2010 -> 12:08 PM) Too bad that's the only damn thing that matters. I'll take 1 ring over 6 division titles and sweeps in the first round. Of course we'll take it, but it's easy to see who the superior organization has been.

I was much worse about overreacting to the Sox pre-2005. Luckily, I got to experience that magical year and my overreactions have lessened. Still, a good Sox team will make me generally more happy and a bad team generally more pissed, but overall, I am so much better than I was pre-2005. I wish I didn't care as much, but when you do care this much, the highs are that much better and that's what makes all the lows worth it.

The more I see how inconsistent all Sox teams are, talking about from season to season, it is clear that we put too much money into the 25-man roster and not enough into the other aspects: drafting, scouting and foreign free agents. Look at the top teams of the past decade in terms of consistent success, they all build mostly from within; Twins, As, Red Sox, Dodgers, Phillies and Braves. The Yankees are an obvious exception, but are also an MLB anomaly. I would much rather have $10 million less in payroll per year if that means we increase our draft budget, get better scouts and scour the foreign free agent market better (and clearly that whole Dominican scandal set us back much). But look at the Twins who are considered up until this year a small-market team, they always have a smaller payroll than us, but also have higher draft budgets most years. Here's a quick comparison: Sox 2005: $2.7 million 2006: $2.9 million 2007: $2.8 million 2008: $4.7 million 2009: $4.2 million Twins 2005: $5.2 million 2006: $3.9 million 2007: $2.2 million 2008: $7.3 million 2009: $4.7 million I would guess further back this trend continues as well. Every year but one they outpay us in the draft. A quick check of the As, Phillies, Red Sox, Dodgers and Braves all show much higher draft budgets. I am going to say this is the main reason the Sox can't ever get that sustained success: drafting. We all know we draft poorly and KW has done a good job of turning poor draft picks into MLB players. But part of the bad drafting is the ownerships' aversion to spend money on top prospects that slip in the first round and then not selecting signability risks later (although Thompson was a nice change). Looking back, I would much have seen payrolls $10 million less and the money appropriated to better drafting. Unless you are the Yankees you will not build a strong team on a year-to-year basis without building through your farm and I think KW has proven this by his philosophy. Sometimes I kinda wish Rick Hahn were in charge because I believe he would revamp the organization philosophy. Thoughts?

Game. Hilarious.

Watching ESPN's playoff preview and seeing Byron Scott on TV reminds how much I want him as the Bulls' head coach next year. I think he would be the perfect fit. A guy who has been to the NBA Finals as both a player and a coach. He is definitely my favorite of the options out there.