Gregory Pratt

He's a White Sox prospect. Why do I feel he's got a bad ceiling? He doesn't have particularly noteworthy stuff. That's about the long and short of it.

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Oct 11, 2007 -> 08:43 PM) Where did I ever mention his being on the list or not? I didn't even look at the list, but it sounds like his age is one of the reasons you are marginalizing him as a prospect. Says the guy who likes him because of his name. See the above post -- I'm not trying to trash the guy. I admire his ethic and his work, but that doesn't spell success and I don't think he has the stuff to be much more than bad at the ML level.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Oct 11, 2007 -> 08:41 PM) I love Egbert...he's probably my favorite prospect in the system right now because I'm almost positive he's going to contribute quite a few innings at the major league level, whether with the Sox or not, and I don't believe Pratt is saying he's not on the list because he sucks and he's going to suck. A lot of these lists are about stuff too, so that would also make sense as to why he's not on there. I don't necessarily believe he can't be a 3, but by all accounts, he doesn't have front of the rotation potential. That too is going to get more love in these lists than a guy with mediocre stuff but outstanding numbers. That said, it is really hard to ignore all of his peripherals; K/9 of 9, K/BB of 4, 0.16 HR/9, 1.13 WHIP, 7.5 H/9, 1.93 GO/AO, and I'm sure there are more and more. Point blank, he's not on the list because he doesn't have electric stuff, but he's got a future in the bigs. I don't know what kind, but I'm sure he has a future. That's about right -- and I'm also making the point that he has to post those periphals at AAA next, before anybody goes ga-ga, and after that he's got to produce something in the majors.

Give me a break -- you know as well as I that he's a fringe prospect who has a lot to prove. And since you didn't answer my question -- which player does he belong on the list over -- I'm not going to waste time explaining to you why Egbert's age is a factor.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Oct 11, 2007 -> 08:29 PM) Why the f*** doyou have to go after me when we were having a nice discussion in this thread. Nobody was attacking anyone until you decided to post. You were making incredibly sarcastic comments to hitlesswonder. I wasn't "attacking" you -- I was definitely teasing you, but I thought you could handle such, especially when you're going off about how someone claimed Egbert will never make it when they didn't say such a thing. And you think I should grow up? Your suggestion is noted. Now I think you should grow up. QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 11, 2007 -> 08:30 PM) What kind of fastball does he have? What kind of velocity, location and movement? I really don't know, but you seem to. Egbert's track record speaks for itself. It doesn't mean he is a lock for some spectacular future, but looking at his cohorts at that level and their track records, I think its a very positive set of indications that he is likely to succeed. I am looking forward to see how he does at Charlotte. His velocity is mid-80s, if I recall correctly, and he's beating up minor leaguers in a pitcher's park at an age where success doesn't necessarily indicate he's got a huge ML future. He definitely doesn't belong on that list, and it still baffles me that anybody thinks so.

Just win, Rockies.

You have to be better than the people on that list, for one, and have a higher ceiling. Where was the indignation when Heath Phillips wasn't rewarded for his season last year with inclusion on such a list?

He doesn't have much of a fastball and as such doesn't belong on this list. Besides, I don't think he's better than anyone on that list, and he definitely has no high ceiling. He's "smart," and he has good control, and he throws a good sinker, but with his fastball, he's going to have to prove some things at AAA and at the majors before he can be indignant that someone says he isn't a top prospect by any standard. I can't believe people are actually indignant because Jack Egbert isn't on this list.

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Oct 11, 2007 -> 08:04 PM) Give us your rundown on Jack then. What have you heard about him? I'd like to know. You know what I've heard about him. You've told me three fourths of it. And I've learned, If Heads likes a player, a prospect, it's over for that guy.

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Oct 11, 2007 -> 08:04 PM) Give us your rundown on Jack then. What have you heard about him? I'd like to know. You know what I've heard about him. You've told me three fourths of it. And I've learned, If Heads likes a player, a prospect, it's over for that guy.

QUOTE(hitlesswonder @ Oct 9, 2007 -> 04:19 PM) I don't know how many times you can get this wrong but I never said Egbert wouldn't make it. I guess the concept that each player in the minors has some chance of being a big league player, and that some have a better chance than others, is just crazy talk huh? Oooh "odds" -- what useless idea that is in trying to assess the relative worth of prospects. And, really -- congratulations on spotting Webb, Lowe, and Wang in the minors and knowing they would make it when BA didn't. You should put out your own newsletter. Don't mind Rock. He goes crazy anytime you insinuate that Jack Egbert isn't a top two prospect in baseball or a top two arm. Jack's got a long way to go before he makes anything resembling a top ten list and I doubt he does much. He's certainly not a future two or three or ace or bullpen stud or whatever people seem to think he'll be.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Oct 11, 2007 -> 02:00 PM) So who's joining me @ Chavez Ravine? I actually might.

I'm not sure how big a loss is. Many indications are that he's still going to be very active. I mean, it's a big difference, but the organization is still going to be run in a John Schuerholz manner, so who knows what'll happen. I must say, this does sadden me and I will soon write an article for a baseball site I occasionally write for and I'll share it.

I was talking about Vladimir Putin.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Oct 11, 2007 -> 12:22 PM) How long is Pratt's term as President of Soxtalk? I think he's doing a fine job. By my account, elections are in December but I intend to stay on as Prime Minister, since I'm doing such a good job. -- I was hoping, praying, that Schuerholz would take the opportunity to go one more time. Frank Wren's a good baseball man, with much time under Schuerholz, so he should be alright, but damn this is surprising. John's still got a lot left in the tank.

Many, many leaks come from people telling their wives something or their best friend something or a golf buddy something and that someone telling his wife or a friend and pretty soon they've had a drink at a dinner party and are telling someone who tells a reporter who takes it to the paper and it leaks. Of course there are deliberate leaks, like Watergate or the leaks in the whole Valerie Plame mess, but that isn't how it often happens. It could be someone wanting to be a hero, but I doubt it was anyone in the intelligence services as they know better than that. A bureaucrat? Perhaps. It's all-too-possible that this Administration would want to publicize success, if not directly by the President's order then perhaps with the hope that it would make him happy to see on the news -- or bring him good coverage, even if he is unhappy. I look forward to the coming news.

I was under the impression that the family wasn't, say, spending all that money on their private schooling and were in fact almost entirely covered by scholarship?

Baseball has always had an ugly underbelly.

It was stupid to make him, or anyone, "The Captain" and I'll be embarrassed if the White Sox trade the man they'd annointed "The Captain." I don't think it'll really happen, though.

QUOTE(29andPoplar @ Oct 10, 2007 -> 05:30 PM) The quote was, cheaper than any alternative and then the 12 yr. old girl part. I assume GP was being facetious about the 12 yr. old girl statement because I've seen his posts here and he's much smarter than to believe that. As for the cheaper than any alternative, no, that is not true. As someone above alluded to, Owens was a cheaper alternative and Erstad was a cheaper alternative and Anderson in effect was a cheaper alternative too. Any of the three could have started in LF over Podsednik. From piecing everything together, it is somewhat as you say. Podsednik was in my opinion clearly a 2nd or maybe 3rd choice. They could have just cut the cord with him even after not getting far with Pierre or Dave Roberts or whoever else. In hindsight they should have cut the cord. However they took a calculated risk and thought he could stay reasonably healthy. He didn't obviously but it's not as if Podsednik doesn't work hard to get in shape. In fact many say he works too hard. But it didn't work out and was a bad decision. They could have gone totally cheap and stated the job is Owens' coming into spring. They didn't do that. I was being facetious about the twelve year old girl part but I definitely mean it when I say that fan support -- which in Podsednik's case is limited to twelve year old girls -- played a role.

I'm 99% sure it's limited no-trade protection and indications are that LA would be a team he'd go to, considering his family being relatively close-by and his past interest in going there.

Podsednik in 06 showed that he is done as anything resembling a good payroll.

QUOTE(fathom @ Oct 10, 2007 -> 04:24 PM) Didn't KW say that he was shocked by how much guys like Pierre and Roberts were getting offered, so he thought that Pods, at the price they could bring him back at, was the better baseball decision? I think the first part of what I said is indisputable, as the organization itself made it clear that the crazy contracts just weren't with it so we'd prefer Podsednik at his price than others at theirs. But as for my second contention, Podsednik is a cash cow at the ballpark and people love him at the yard. I think it's naive to think that had nothing to do with it, especially since Owens could've been Podsednik for very, very cheap.

You know, with our team, it's hard to coach third because everyone's so slow and we don't have a huge team of great hitters, so even as you start to go through the lineup, and you've got two outs, you've got to decide, Do you send the guy with concrete feet or hope that Juan Uribe can come through? It doesn't help that just about everybody on our team wears concrete shoes.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Oct 10, 2007 -> 12:36 PM) Nope, the laws of humanity to not apply to the New York Yankees. They have this 4 man rotation set for 10 years. I don't understand why you like Wang so much. He's good, but I don't think he's a genuine front-of-the-line starter. I'd take him as a two, though.