Dick Allen

QUOTE (hi8is @ Jun 5, 2014 -> 11:41 AM) I've never been such a crack head about a draft - so it'll be interesting to watch the whole damned thing Can't wait. I will watch it tonight, but really MLB network doesn't keep things all that interesting to me. They will probably have Harold Reynolds on again, who I like during the major league games, but he knows less about these prospects than 90% of this board.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Jun 5, 2014 -> 11:36 AM) So I have not seen any of John's last 3 starts, is his fastball looking better or is he just keeping his slow stuff down and hitting his spots? He's keeping the ball down. I wasn't looking at the pitch speed the last couple on TV but his last start at USCF which Belli gave up 3 in the 9th, he was hitting 90-91 reguarly the first 5 or 6 innings.

2 predictions that are locks: Whoever the Sox select first, it will be the player they have been targeting all along, and they will be in disbelief that the player they select with their second choice slipped to them. And the one thing I will be skipping tonight when watching the draft is Bud announcing the Dodgers and Angels picks. His pronounciation of Los Angeleese is like fingernails on a chalkboard to me.

QUOTE (southside hitman @ Jun 5, 2014 -> 10:41 AM) I believe they ask his opinions as he has been around the game of baseball for 50 years, but I don't think he's a big influence. If anything, Steve Stone's brain would be the one to pick, as we are considering several different pitchers. This is what I don't understand. Stone is just as anti-saber as Hawk. He mentions wins when judging pitchers seasons. Yet it is totally ignored. I do agree he knows a bit about pitching, and when they had the TJ segment the other day, his part where he showed how the younger HS guys throw breaking balls incorrectly causing eventual problems was top notch. But Stone is just as anti-HS pitcher as Hawk.

QUOTE (southside hitman @ Jun 5, 2014 -> 10:17 AM) I view Hawk more as the senile grandfather of the organization. Is a dignified figure in theory, but in reality is kind of a embarrassment. Hawk is far more dialed in than you think. They still seek his opinions on players, and he talks to scouts all the time.

QUOTE (DirtySox @ Jun 5, 2014 -> 10:30 AM) I believe Keith Law has a new mock up this morning with the Sox taking Nola. Not an insider though, so can't verify. Didn't he say just a couple of days ago Kolek to the Sox was the biggest lock of the draft?

In 2004, the Sox had 6 picks in the first 69 selections and 7 picks in the first 89 selections. They signed them all, and so far the group has a cumulative 13.7 career WAR. 14.7 of that WAR is Gio Gonzalez for other teams. So that produced negative WAR for the Sox. It was poor drafting and /or development.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 4, 2014 -> 02:47 PM) The White Sox were dead last in all of baseball from 2007 to 2011 in draft spending. They spent $18 million over that time. To drive home how low that was, the Marlins were #29 and spent $21 million or about 15% more. But how does that absolve KW from misallocating funds. He had $4 million for 1 month of Manny after the draft. When he was busted and disgusted, he was able to get Peavy and Rios during the season and after the draft. They claimed at the time this was money they "found". Was it money earmarked for draft picks they decidided against? We won't know that unless they come out and say it, but obviously there were funds available to go overslot if they chose. They didn't choose. When Borchard was there they spent big. Maybe that left a bad taste, but $4 million for one month of Manny was pretty sad.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 4, 2014 -> 02:41 PM) That was just his initial assessment. No one really knew for sure where it would end up. Just go look at what the guesses were...they were all over the place. I understand that, but it does indicate even further Paddy isn't the reason Abrue is a White Sox.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jun 4, 2014 -> 02:31 PM) Jose Abreu was not a "diamond in the rough." We was the best, most developed, most mature, and most celebrated hitter on the island of Cuba. No one had to "find" him. And JR was the money man. If they stuck with KW's original 4 year $40 million, Abreu would be elsewhere.

QUOTE (TaylorStSox @ Jun 4, 2014 -> 02:31 PM) I would take a chance on Joe Borchard every time. Incredible talent. That's fair, but he was at the time, the most expensive draft choice in major league history. And remained so for several years. The White Sox paid slot in other years. The reason their system sucked as bad as it sucked was talent evaluation, not bonuses allocated.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 4, 2014 -> 02:25 PM) Well isn't Paddy basically Kenny's assistant? Since he named JR and Hahn and himself, I would imagine if the reason Jose Abreu is a White Sox is Paddy, KW might have at least mentioned him once. I suppose he could be not being straight, so your choice is a Ben Badler tweet or KW quotes. I'm going with the quotes.

QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Jun 4, 2014 -> 02:14 PM) His draft record is tied to him pushing the limits of the payroll every year and not having anything left over to spend on amateur talent and having to draft players that he could get at a discount. Borchard, Joe

KW might want to check with Laumann and Hahn. They both pretty much said the Sox were taking a pitcher.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Jun 3, 2014 -> 09:40 PM) Ben Badler ‏@BenBadler 2m Another home run for Jose Abreu. Not like this guy was a secret. Marco Paddy and the White Sox just flat out beat other teams on him. There are a few guys on this board who continue to say that Marco Paddy didn't bring in Abreu though...... Because he didn't http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/wh...-white-sox.html

QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Jun 4, 2014 -> 01:00 PM) That was great. Ventura #10 overall 1988 Thomas #7 overall 1989 Guillen - Intl FA Johnson acquired via trade from the Cardinals for Jose DeLeon who was received for the White Sox to return rule V pick Bobby Bonilla Cora - acquired via trade from Padres Kark - #14 overall 1982 McDowell - #5 overall 1987 Fernandez - #4 overall 1990 Alvarez - Intl FA Hernandez #16 overall 1986 It took a decade of sucking to build that core. They were bad from 86-89 Ventura-draft Thomas-draft Guillen-trade for Hoyt Johnson-trade for DeLeon Cora-trade w/SD the Sox also got the Deacon for a couple of minor league pitchers that amounted to 0 Karkovice-draft McDowell-draft Fernandez-draft Alvarez-traded Baines, for Alvarez, Fletcher and a certain Flinstones vitamins loving RF Hernandez-trade with the Angels for a minor leaguer who never made it. There were some genius moves here. Himes didn't draft Karkovice, or trade for Ozzie, and he didn't trade for Cora, but everything else was him, and he got fired because JR didn't like him. But he probably had the most impressive 3-3.5 year stint a GM could possibly have considering exactly where the team was when he took over, both on the major league level and minor league level. He also drafted Ray Durham . Himes didn't have a lot of draft picks do much in the majors, but the ones that did were not just run of the mill players. I'm fairly certain he also had the lowest payroll in baseball the years he was the GM of the White Sox. The White Sox total payroll for the 4 years Himes was GM was less $28 million. Less than $7 million per year.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jun 4, 2014 -> 12:31 PM) The '87-'90 drafts helped that a ton. There's drafting well and then there's flat out striking gold with everything you do for four straight drafts. But out of those 4 drafts, the White Sox only drafted 5 players that put up at least a 10 WAR for them. The 4 first rounders and Ray Durham who was drafted in 1990. Wickman they traded for Steve Sax. He was 1990, and James Baldwin was 9.2. Also a 1990 pick. Basically, Himes turned around an organization with a weak major league team, and weak farm system, by drafting one all star quality player a year for 3 years. 1990 came, and they actually drafted multiple players who turned out fine, but by the time that draft took place, the team was already on it's way to being a power. Adding Fernandez did help.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jun 4, 2014 -> 12:24 PM) by you. You just intimated that if the Sox kicked in more money, than a bigger prospect/player than Eaton could have been acquired. I think if you went back to that thread, you would see Marty's thinking isn't unique. Many figured the more money the Sox threw in, the better prospect coming back. They took all of Rios' money. IMO, I doubt they had a prospect $5 million or more better than Leury that they would have been willing to kick in if the Sox had agreed to pay part of the contract. Paying several million for someone maybe a tad better prospect than Leury seems like a waste to me. There were a lot of people who thought Rios was going to bring back a top prospect.

This core though to me is nowhere near the core they had in the early 90s with Thomas, Ventura, Guillen, One Dog, Raines, Cora, Karko, McDowell, Fernandez, Alvarez , Roberto Hernandez. Then they would sign rentals like Franco, DJ, Burks, even Tartabull was good his one season. Before he got ultra-conservate, even though that seemed to work out, Schueler did put up an impressive piece of work. Granted he started with a pretty nice core, but his additions, until he sent Black Jack packing, where usually really good.

QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Jun 4, 2014 -> 11:52 AM) There was no way to know what Abreu was going to sign for in October. The Sox got a deal on him, but he could have received something much closer to what Tanaka received and that would have kept the Sox out of the bidding. They cleared the payroll space that they needed to make a run at Tanaka and Abreu, and if not for some contractual shenanigans by the Yanks, I think they certainly could have pulled in both. If they would have, your rebuild is virtually over. You can't fault the plan, it didn't work, but they did every thing they could to get it to work. You don't see me complaining about trading Rios for basically utility player. I actually think Leury does bring some things to the table. But even if they had not traded Rios, unless he totally fell apart, they could have signed Abreu and Tanaka, and traded Rios afterward. The Sox were going to bid on Abreu. That is just a fact. If it got into 9 figures, whether they cleared even more payroll, they probably wouldn't have signed him, but the perfect storm of teams that jack up prices not having a need for a firstbaseman/ DH helped keep the price reasonable. I doubt they would have been willing to go where they were willing to go with Tanaka regarding Abreu, although at this moment, it seems it would have at least been close to reasonable. Being lucky isn't an insult. The Sox were lucky back in 2005 that Kaz Matsui was such a bust that they were able to sign Iguchi. Had Matsui been anywhere near what he was hyped, Iguchi probably doesn't fit into the budget and maybe the Sox don't win. He did have a very key HR in the first round of the playoffs. Not having the Yankees or Angels or Cubs going to crazy levels with Abreu when the Sox clearly had a need for this particular player was a break as well. It's not an insult. They got the players signed. Under different circumstances, they probably sign elsewhere and no one gives a second thought.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Jun 4, 2014 -> 11:36 AM) OK fine, they should have drafted better, nobody disagrees with that, but that doesn't change the reality that in July 2013, dumping Rios for Garcia was the best move because it allowed the Sox to get Abreu. I don't understand how this could be a conclusion. The Sox would have been in on Abreu regardless. I really don't care Rios is gone, and the return was meh, but that is what a guy with Rios' reputation and contract bring. Besides, if A. Garcia didn't get hurt, where would he play? But, the Sox offered real money to Tanaka. If Rios meant they couldn't sign anyone else, I don't know how they could have bid on him. There was always going to be money for Abreu.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jun 4, 2014 -> 09:23 AM) We didn't have those metrics around 15 years ago when Jose Valentin was SS, but he was always known for having great range (and the arm strength) despite some ugly error totals (2000 in particular, which led to the Clayton disaster from KW). At that time, the only thing we really had to go off, and it wasn't scientific in the least, was total chances...and we always had that running debate back and forth about how many balls Clayton didn't get to. He made the routine plays, sure, but his lack of range kept him from getting to a ton of balls that Valentin could get to, and a lot of baserunners reached because Clayton didn't have a gun like Valentin or Uribe and they would beat out a lot of throws as well. It would be interesting to revisit that debate again, with modern analytical tools available. How scientific is range using today's tools vs. back then? A couple inches here where you are positioned makes a big difference. A ball hit with 1 or 2 mph more or less velocity can make a big difference. The infield you play on makes a big difference. Total chances is kind of BS too. Wouldn't your pitchers have a lot to do with that? If you shouldn't judge pitchers by number of wins, you shouldn't judge range by total chances.

Are there any Illini fans here who think the Redskins name has to go but where pretty upset when they dumped the Chief? That was a controversy, but apparently the Chief offended some. My thing is if the Redskins name really does offend, and it does seem to do just that, just change it. What really is gained by keeping it? The Washington DC NFL team isn't going to be any less popular. I think the only problem is where do you draw the line? People will be offended by everything, especially if they know being offended will get some change. I think Redskins and Chief Wahoo are far enough on the wrong side of that line to go away. They are far more offensive IMO than Illinois' Chief or Marquette calling their teams Warriors.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jun 4, 2014 -> 08:15 AM) And there's now an "anti-Prince Fielder" bug catching in the Detroit media after the comments he's made, both after last season's disappointing playoffs and this year before the two teams (Rangers and Tigers) played recently and there was a possibility Prince might play at that time still. It's quite convenient to blame everything on a Fielder/Bonds/A-Rod type villain. Even more convenient when that player is no longer playing for the local team.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jun 4, 2014 -> 07:37 AM) Well, one writer with the Detroit Free Press is apparently blaming their playoff problems on two specific positions in the batting order...not pitching, not shaky bullpen or fielding issues. The Tigers are 27th in the majors in OPS (on base plus slugging percentage) from the fifth spot in the batting order. Their RBI production ranks 18th overall in the majors. They rank 28th in RBI production and OPS from the sixth spot. That’s the biggest problem with this team. That’s why they lost Tuesday. It’s why they’ve failed in the playoffs the past two years. As great as the Prince Fielder trade was for the Tigers in unloading a bad contract — as well as acquiring Ian Kinsler — it created another hole in a batting order that already was challenged at providing run production. Victor Martinez has performed at an All-Star level replacing Fielder in the cleanup spot behind Miguel Cabrera. But it created another hole in the lineup that Austin Jackson and others haven’t adequately filled. Blaming the bullpen for the Tigers’ recent inconsistencies might make the panicked feel a little better, but it doesn’t address the real issues facing this team if they’re indeed a serious championship contender. Drew Sharp (freep.com/sports) He is saying the failed in the playoffs because of the 5th and 6th spot in the order? Or is he saying the line up is too weak? Just looking at the stats from the ALCS where the Tigers were eliminated last year, Victor Martinez and Jhonny Peralta were batting in those spots. Victor put up an .841 OPS in the series, Peralta around .750.