Lillian

As the Draft approaches, most are focused on whom they would prefer that the Sox select, with their coveted 1ST overall pick. For me, I humbly defer to the organization, and hope that those involved in the evaluation process have thoroughly done their due diligence. What I find interesting and worthy of discussion is the process and some of the typical rationals employed in executing it. One of the most commonly advocated strategies is to simply take the best player available. It disregards factors such as the relative value of the player's defensive position, and his suitability to shift to other positions, as well as team needs. Contradicting that philosophy is the notion that shortstops should be preferred, not only because SS is a highly valued position, but also because shortstops are usually the best athletes, which makes them versatile enough to play other positions. Catchers, while considered key defenders, are less favored, due to longer required development time, susceptibility to injury and physical degradation, and the inability to play every day. Those are just some of the strategies and rationales cited as guiding principles in the selection process. Perhaps it would be better to focus more upon specific traits and capabilities, than to adhere strictly to those kinds of generalizations. Athleticism, versatility and durability are all valuable traits in a player's profile. The evaluation process becomes more nuanced using this approach. A good case in point is the evaluation of Cholowsky versus Lackey. Roch is regarded as a plus defender, at a premium defensive position, while Vahn would seemingly carry the stigma normally associated with catchers. However, if they are evaluated more on the basis of their traits, a different picture emerges. Lackey is considered to be a better athlete with more versatility. Therefore, in this case, it is the catcher who possesses the better potential to move to another premium position. Cholowsky is a plus defensive shortstop, but he lacks the speed to play another premium position, such as centerfield, and his value would be diminished if he were moved to another infield position. Thus the cliche about never having too many shortstops doesn't apply, in this more nuanced example. When we consider that the Sox' biggest young star is a plus defender at shortstop, and that their number 5 overall pick in last year's draft was selected primarily for his elite defense at short, the decision becomes even more difficult. Carlson, Montgomery and Cholowsky all provide the most value if they remain at SS. Carlson loses most of his value, if he is moved off of short. Montgomery appears best suited there and Roch's value would also be diminished if he were moved to second, or third. Perhaps you can indeed have too many shortstops

They are both from Des Moines

Lackey is graded as having more speed than Cholowsky, which suggest that he would be a better centerfielder. The greater point is that if Lackey is considered to be more athletic, and more capable of playing other positions, doesn't that make the assertion that "you can always move shortstops to other positions," a bit of a moot point, in this discussion?

What is the consensus opinion regarding possible slot savings, with Lackey, to be employed in later rounds?

I had the same thought. While i marvel at the athleticism, I cringe at the hazardous nature of such antics. I would hope that management would instruct him to stop doing it.

Lackey has been my preference for a few weeks now, so I'm glad to hear that the Sox may be leaning in that direction. I agree with the philosophy that a team should prioritize the best player available. I also understand the appeal of shortstops, both because SS is a premium position and because shortstops are typically outstanding athletes, who are therefore capable of playing other positions. However, in this instance, Lackey is considered the better athlete. That factor is especially important, as the Sox already have their star shortstop. They also seem committed to their catching tandem of Teel and Quero. Vargas has emerged as a future fixture at the "hot corner," and second base arguably has the most positional depth in the organization. Therefore, both Cholowsky and Lackey may need to be moved to another position, if selected. Lackey's 5 tools and superior athleticism afford his team the luxury of playing him wherever he provides the most value, relative to the team's needs. You may know that Lackey played every position, with the exception of pitcher, in a game, for the Yellow Jackets. There is also a video of him doing gymnastic flips, during a locker room celebration. When considering athleticism, the youngster is a unicorn. While catchers normally take longer to develop and usually need rest days, as a respite from the physically grueling punishment endured behind the plate, the Sox could use him at other positions on those days, or elect to employ him at another position, all together. Fortunately, the Sox do not have a glaring need for either a shortstop, or a catcher. For that matter, the Sox don't really have any major holes. They could figure out where he would provide the best value. It is true that Lackey did not perform as well as Roch, during their sophomore seasons, however he outperformed him this year, and he did so against better pitching. The ACC is considered to be a better conference than the Big Ten. Finally, I like his set up and approach in the batter's box. I have seen reports that Roch is likely going to need to make some adjustments to his. I've already mentioned elsewhere that Roch's propensity to get hit by pitches is troublesome. Major League pitchers throw too hard, in the current era, to risk injury by getting drilled so often. It also inflates his OBP, which is a little misleading, although Vahn's OBP was still significantly higher. In the final analysis, I defer to the scouting department. They are pros and are much more capable of evaluating all of the relevant factors. I'm just glad to learn that they are apparently considering Lackey.

All swinging K's

How nice of you guys, who have welcomed me back to the forum. I do appreciate it. I've been reading posts, the whole time, but just haven't participated in the discussions. Thanks

Yes, it's gratifying to see that the front office recognizes the importance of line up balance and the value of left handed hitters. It's not rocket science. Most hitters hit pitches from the opposite side better than from the same side. As we know, that's because the breaking balls are typically of the "back door" variety, when coming from the opposite side of the plate. That allows a hitter to keep his front shoulder closed, and avoid bailing on breaking balls. Combined with the fact that there are far more RH pitchers, than southpaws, it's obvious why left handed hitters are so coveted. This current Sox roster has a nice mix of both right handed and left handed hitters. Braden will further enhance that balance, if he can be effective when batting right handed. So far, his splits don't suggest that to be the case. That might be the most important reason to keep him in AAA.

Let's hope that those in charge have the best ability to determine when Braden is ready for the promotion. That said, if he's ready, it's fun to think about the following potential line up, after the All Star break: LF Antonacci !B Murakami 3B Vargas SS C. Montgomery C Teel RF B. Montgomery 2B Gonzales DH Pereira / Benintendi CF Peters

Yes, it's very gratifying to see that the front office appears to have made a concerted effort to create better balance in the lineup. At this point, the Sox might need a little more power from the right side. Roch, or Lackey would address that need.

Has anyone mentioned Roch's extraordinary propensity to get hit by pitches? if you subtract the 15 more HBP's for Roch, compared to Lackey's, the disparity in their OBP numbers is even greater. Getting hit so frequently may be acceptable for a guy like Antonacci, but not for a valued top of the Draft SS. Getting hit 24 times in 60 games is not conducive to avoiding injury.

I just thought that, given the ages, prospect rankings and ETA;s of the pitchers the Sox just acquired, that they might be expected to contribute next season. Those factors, coupled with the lack of any other Minor League arms that are ready, and ownership's unwillingness to hand out long term contracts to pitchers, suggested to me that they might go ahead and use these guys to fill out the rotation. However, your responses have dissuaded me of the notion. Thanks.

Assuming Clevinger does not return, do you think that next year's rotation will be Cease, Kopech, Toussant, Eder and Nastrini, with Bush being the 6TH man? Eder and Nastrini are currently ranked as the Sox' # 4 and 5 prospects, respectively and are projected to be in the Majors next year, so it would seem that they will likely join the rotation. No other Sox starters look ready to be promoted. Perhaps Davis Martin, once he fully recovers from his TJS. I wonder where Grant Taylor will be ranked, once the new draft class is included. In any case he will probably not be projected to be in the Majors until 2025, at the earliest.