Y2Jimmy0

They've been well represented at GT and ACC tourney. One reason I don't like catcher at 1:1 is that they don't play all the time.

I'm so glad they're out honestly. Done with the discourse. I wish this draft were in a week.

I'm sure it does. His swing will definitely look different in pro ball though.

My god we still have like 5 more weeks of this. How many times did he get hit by pitches on Fridays against a top starter though?

Would you take JJ Wetherholt at 1 if he were a plus defensive shortstop?

Right but why do we discard his sophomore season and place more emphasis on Roch's junior season? The discourse doesn't make sense. GT also has the best offense in the country and nobody has been able to avoid Lackey all season. I'm sure he has great makeup. I don't think that's an issue. I think the issue is spending the #1 pick on a player who should be a cornerstone but then playing him in like 120 games maximum in the big leagues. I just don't want a catcher.

The first thing I must point out is that many people are way too focused on outcomes in these tiny samples of regional games. The White Sox will factor in how guys play in the tournament but the play by play of Lackey looking better than Cholowsky isn't what the Sox are focused on and they should be removed from their jobs if they are. It's a cop out answer but the Sox need to take the best player. I'm guessing the 3 legitimate options are Cholowsky, Emerson and Lackey. The totality of their production matters. It will all be accounted for. They care a lot about makeup though and this is still a projection business. It's puzzling to me that people think any of these guys are finished products. Cholowsky is a swing and approach alteration away from looking like a guy with a much higher ceiling. He's also a great defender at shortstop and from all indications has everything the Sox look for from a makeup standpoint. Money matters too but when you have the top pick, you need to take your top guy. I love Grady Emerson. My issue with him is that he won't be much cheaper than Roch and you're basically hoping that he's as good or better than Cholowsky is in a few years. Both should be in the $9.5-$10 million range. Lackey will be cheaper than that because he has a different agent. The number I heard floated for him at #1 was $8.7 million. I've heard a lot of things though and it's tough to decipher what's true. I generally would prefer to take a shortstop and if that's Emerson, I'd be fine with it. They just better be right. I'm not that interested in taking Lackey at 1. I just don't like the idea of taking a catcher and I think taking him with the intention of moving him is dumb. I'm a coward and I'd probably still take Cholowsky but I understand why some are underwhelmed.

If the Sox drafted Lackey, I'd be shocked if they moved him. He's an awesome catcher. Moving him doesn't many any sense and I think the team agrees.

I don't understand. This isn's like an "either/or". Cholowsky has a really high ceiling and he'll get better in the player dev system too. I don't think he plateaued. There's still a huge ceiling to reach.

Okay that's not how I read it. Still though, for a club like the White Sox that has always factored in the previous season highly in evaluations, all of this will matter.

They just take forever sometimes with development and they don't play all the time due to the nature of the position. Take shortstops.

This is extremely disingenuous to say when Roch Cholowsky had the sophomore year that he had. Go look at Vahn Lackey's sophomore season. No s%*# he improved on it. What are we doing?

Again though, he had basically the same season as last year and he was the hunted this time.

They're going to save plenty of money regardless though. Even if they sign Cholowsky for $10 million; they'll save $1.3 million. Add the 5% overage and money from rounds 8-10 and it's basically $2.5 million in savings overall.

I think catcher is risky. There's just so much more to worry about. Game calling, defense etc. Also, development isn't linear and they often take forever. Adley Rutschman was a can't miss prospect. They also don't play that often and the league is leaning toward using multiple catchers. I'd be pushing for a Montgomery extension right now but I just don't really consider that when making this selection at 1. Take the best guy. I think the best guys are both shortstops and they'll both cost around the same so I'd take the college player in this case. I think Cholowsky is an entertaining and dynamic player. Why is Lackey more entertaining? I don't really get that. I do worry that the fanbase will be incredibly difficult on the player if it's anyone other than Cholowsky at this point. There's no way that Vahn Lackey is going to be more exciting to the majority of the fanbase than Roch Cholowsky would be; if that's a thing.

I think Lackey would be cheaper than that. Possibly under $9 million depending on when he's expected to go. He's also the only non Wasserman option so that's a factor. If they took Lackey though, it's clearly as the cut option to spend money elsewhere in the draft and taking him 1.1 and then moving him off catcher would be crazy. He's the most athletic catcher in the draft in a long time and just because he could move, doesn't mean he should. I think calling Roch just solid is missing things though. Him being a plus-plus defensive shortstop is a major factor in the profile. He has pretty significant offensive upside with a floor of definite big leaguer and he's the most likely guy of the group to reach his ceiling in my opinion. The Sox will factor in the NCAA tourney, private workouts, player interviews and make a decision. I think they'll lean college because of their core and the inherit pressure that an ownership change could bring basically at any time. It could be Emerson but I just don't get the sense that they want to wait for him to develop. I think taking a catcher at 1.1 would be really risky and they'll ultimately take Cholowsky but I do think it'll end up being between those two players now. I didn't think this a week ago and I might change my mind again.

Congrats

I think that we start hearing Vahn Lackey more. From what I've heard, it's a potential discount option for the White Sox at 1. Lackey is awesome. If I had the third pick, I'd be debating Lackey and Lombard pretty heavily. I'm just not a big fan of taking a catcher that high.

Something funny about Roch Cholowsky. He hit .125 last week. I've heard some use that as a negative. He also had a .500 OBP. The .125 was basically 1-8 lol with a bunch of walks and HBP. The microanalysis of this dude is nuts.

The same pitching can be found in rounds 11-20 in most cases and those players usually get paid more than guys in 7-10. Nobody is reaching. High School players cost money though and the money has to come from somewhere. Especially if you spend slot value in the first round. Look at last year specifically, slot for Carlson at 1 and they went significantly overslot in rounds 2, 4 and 5. Saved money in 6-10. They went over for Boughton in the 11th and drafted pitchers like Max Banks who are similar to anyone they would've gotten in 6-10 anyway. It's all about how many players you can land with your pool space and the looking at the totality of the draft class.

Tim Elko was one of those punted picks. It's just the wrong way to look at the draft. I always put the players in order by signing bonus. Many players taken in rounds 11-20 are more highly regarded than guys in 7-10. If you want a player that is signing for $50K, it makes sense to do it rounds 7-10 and re-allocate that bonus pool space. Everyone in rounds 11-20 can get $150K without penalty. It's just important to understand how the draft and bonus pools work. Roch Cholowsky has an incredibly high ceiling too. Perennial All Star SS with plus defense is his ceiling. The reason why the floor argument comes into play is that he's a definite big leaguer but I also believe that he's the most likely guy to reach his high ceiling. Jacob Lombard has a higher ceiling. He also has a way more difficult path to actually reaching that immense ceiling. Taking Roch Cholowsky is a no brainer for me.

Easy decision for me. I could be talked into Emerson for a discount but I think he'll cost around the same as Cholowsky.

2025 Golden Spikes Season: .353/.480/.710, 23 homers, 14% walk rate, 9% strikeout rate. 2026: In 12 less games, .330/.475/.684, 21 homers, 13% walk rate, 13% strikeout rate, 34K/34BB/23HBP. Chase rates improved, exit velocities stayed same basically. Higher strikeout rate, slightly worse walk rate while being avoided for a good majority of the season. The difference is miniscule and it's all such a small sample.

Roch Cholowsky has essentially had the same season as last year when he won Golden Spikes. Where is that article from, Caulfield? I was pretty certain that the White Sox were going to take Griffin and I'd been in contact with the Griffin pre-draft. It would be interesting to find out that he didn't want to play for White Sox.

Berroa was throwing in Arizona for months. The next part of the rehab was pitching in games. What should they have done instead? Austin Hays is always injured. It's why he was so cheap. I'm guessing he'll be injured again too.