royoung

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 29, 2014 -> 10:36 AM) Hawkins has potential to be in the top half of that list. I am really curious to see what the White Sox do with him this year. If you would of told me pre-2013 season that in 2014 the White Sox wold have three top 100 prospects and Hawkins wasn't one of them I would of laughed in your face. It's gut check time for him, I say spend another full season in Winston-Salem.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 29, 2014 -> 09:14 AM) 3 in the top 100, without Abreu being considered. Two of them White Sox draft picks. I like it. Also consider Semien being around some top 100 lists and Courtney Hawkins certainly having the potential to re-enter the top 100. Not bad.

I am encouraged he is bullish on Davidson, I've heard varying degrees of pessimism since the trade from scouts. In Keith Law speak, "should be an above average regular" is quite the compliment.

http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/...gaerts-more-mlb For those that don't have insider status at ESPN, Sox have three players in the top 100. Erik Johnson at #59, Matt Davidson at #88, and Tim Anderson at #98. His write ups are below Johnson built on a solid full-season debut in 2012 with an even better 2013 that saw him move from Double-A to Triple-A and reach the majors in September, racking up a full workload of 170 innings with just 51 walks across the three levels. His stuff was better most of the year than what you might have seen from him in September, but when he isn't overthrowing his slider, he gets more depth to the pitch and misses a lot of bats with it. The slider is new to Johnson since his college days at California, replacing the mid-70s curveball that had a sharp break but was less effective against better hitters. He sits best at 92-93 mph, able to throw harder but with less life and command. His main developmental need is to improve his changeup, which looks good out of his hand but has not been effective enough against left-handed hitters since he reached Double-A. He's built like a workhorse who can handle 220-plus innings in his peak years, with the fastball and swing-and-miss pitch to get him there if he can find a solution to get left-handed hitters out more consistently. Davidson has been on this list for four straight years and appears ready to take over as the White Sox's regular third baseman after they acquired him from Arizona in December. He has a sweet right-handed swing: very simple and repeatable, with moderate loft in his finish. He is more of a 35-doubles candidate than a plus-power guy; he'll likely hit 15-20 homers per season if he doesn't get too pull-conscious, which, given his swing and approach would hurt him too much in the batting average and contact departments. He's an adequate third baseman, having worked substantially on his reads and getting his feet moving more quickly; you'd like to see him be more aggressive on balls in front of him -- especially ones he should play with one hand -- but he'll make the plays he has to make to be a solid defender. He'll play at 23 years old in 2014 and still has a little development ahead of him -- mostly in pitch recognition -- but he should be an above-average regular at third base given a season or two there to continue to progress. Praise be the White Sox for finally being aggressive with their top draft picks; while it didn't work out for Courtney Hawkins in 2013, a raw high school kid who should have gone to low Class A rather than high A, pushing the 20-year-old Anderson to low A got him needed at-bats against better pitching. Anderson held his own there, striking out a little more than you'd like but showing off his gap power and speed without ever looking overmatched. He has a very quick but mostly flat swing, more from his hands than his hips or legs, so he can slap the ball all over but isn't well set up to drive it in any direction. He drifts a little on to his front foot, which, combined with the lack of hip rotation, makes it hard to get maximum force into any contact he makes. He's a plus runner, and questions about his defense while in junior college were less evident in pro ball as the White Sox helped clean up his arm stroke, and his footwork has already improved. He's a great athlete overall and does have the strength to surprise us down the road with 15-homer pop, but it's more likely he settles in as a slap-hitter/speed guy who plays above-average defense at short.

QUOTE (The Ultimate Champion @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 03:50 PM) ???? I'm saying to offer Santana a little bit better than what Kazmir got, similar to Nolasco or less, etc. Santana is a better pitcher with better stuff than all these 4s and 5s that signed this offseason, and if we can get him at a similar price then yes, do it, absolutely. Yes, you keep your vets until your youngsters prove they need to play in the Majors. It's called insurance, stability, etc. You're making these young guys prove they deserve to be there and not just tossing them into the fire. And you only trade 1 or 2 of Danks/Santana if/when the young guys push them out. You make the deal at that point because you feel you can replace that production within a year or so of MLB development time through a 6-year pre-arb player. You save money and get back talent in return. Net positive. Yes, you give up the 2nd round pick. What part of this are you missing? That 2nd rounder isn't nearly as likely to bring the Sox value in the same way a proven MLB starter with Santana's ability can. What don't you get? No, that's nothing like the Mariners. The Mariners??? Really? They relied on prospects forever, not mixing in vets, and then they went on a splurge after years of failure. I'm not sure how using Santana to plug a hole and then spinning him off for value later is somehow Mariners like or somehow detrimental to the long-term success of an organization or how it would in any way jeopardize a rebuilding effort. Unless you are confident in Santana or Jimenez magically pitching better then they ever have in careers during their mid 30's, we will not get back excess value for them. The point of free agency is to determine their market value which you are suggesting we set by giving them a long term contract. Almost assuredly, they will not exceed or even met their contract and they will be a liability, similar to the Rios situation. We basically had to salary dump Rios even though he was a capable player due to his bad contract. We would be lucky to simply get out from under their contract, let only get back something equal to or better than the #43 overall amateur player in the country.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 02:38 PM) How would you know this? Right now their value is suppressed being later in the offseason and some teams would have to forfeit a 1st round pick for them. If they pitched like they did in 2013, contending teams would certainly give value if you signed them to a 3 or 4 year contract. If nobody wants to gamble on the price, the years, and an amateur draft pick as the cost, why would they do so six months later for professional talent? It still doesn't make sense for them and the fact that we would be shopping them signals other teams that we want salary relief. It is extremely rare for players to be traded within a year of signing a long term deal because the team that does that (like the Marlins) looks like complete fools. And all that is assuming that they pitch well enough to EXCEED the value of the contract we paid them, which is very unlikely.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 01:47 PM) Yes greg, I am just dying to fill the lineup with Jeff Keppingers and Dylan Axelrods. ..or maybe, just maybe, I want to see what Erik Johnson, Erik Surkamp, Felipe Paulino, and Andre Rienzo are capable of and if they can be key cogs in the rotation or if the Sox should look for a new one next year. The team is probably going to win 78 games (at the most) next year. They are just as likely to lose 90 or more. The team is rebuilding its talent level and you need to see what they are capable of. You can't do that if you bring in Ubaldo Jimenez or Ervin Santana. Both Kendrys Morales and Nelson Cruz would probably be upgrades for the team somewhere in the lineup. Why isn't anyone suggesting the Sox sign them and then deal them away 2-3 years into the contract? I'd honestly rather see Nelson Cruz on this team than Jimenez or Santana if we could get some decent for Viciedo/De Aza

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 12:16 PM) As I stated, you wouldn't be burning bridges, because signing these guys for multiyears with draft pick compensation is doing them a solid at this point. The White Sox aren't in danger of becoming the Marlins, but if you want to be ultra conservative, like is being suggested on this board, being the Marlins might be the best case scenerio for what you will become. I have never seen a group of fans so opposed to increasing the talent level of their team. Yep, the Sox and us are acting ultra conservative, making aggressive trades that free up cash and make the team younger. Basically the exact opposite of what you are purposing. Davidson, Garcia, Abreu, Sale, Q, Johnson, Eaton, are all controlled by the White Sox for the next 5-6 years. Even a high upside HS draft pick can contribute near the end of that window of contention. Worst case scenario, they create a new young core for beyond.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 10:10 AM) With Peavy, if you knew the Sox would not contend in 2013 and lose close to 100 games, Hahn would have been torched for signing Peavy. That is the point. The reason given for not signing a pitcher now is the Sox realistically won't contend, and give guys like Rienzo a shot. Well, they didn't contend in 2013, but signing a FA pitcher paid of with a prospect. Peavy wanted to be here and frankly gave us a pretty fair deal because he thought we were going to contend. Peavy is a superior pitcher to Santana or Jimenez and we signed him for comparable annual salary and less years.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 08:49 AM) Absolutely. I look for at least 4 years in the minors. Rookies generally don't help you win that much. Trace Thompson was a second round high school pick in 2009. Hasn't been declared a bust yet, nor should he. Danish is best case scenerio and even then, you don't know what is going to happen between now and 2016 or 2017. I think if you take a HS player with the pick expected him to be a decent contributor to your major league team before 2020 is nonsense. It may happen, but probably not. For every Mike Trout, there are thousands of Trace Thompsons. Hawkins was drafted 2 years ago in round 1. Do you really think he's 2 years away from helping the White Sox win? The whole premise that this is a 99 loss team so the White Sox shouldn't sign pitchers is nonsense. If you knew how bad they were going to be, would you have thought it was a mistake to sign Peavy? Why would you need a "wrong side of 30" pitcher with a history of injury eating payroll? Because they signed Peavy they now have A. Garcia. That is the point of signing pitchers. The Sox don't have too much pitching. Guys are going to get injured. Guys are going to suck. The more you have, the better you will be. If at the end of the day, you luck out and do have too much pitching, it is very easy to get rid of . It's a difficult situation for scouts around draft time I am sure. Let's say we are looking at two players, one is more polished and has a perfect world ETA of 2016, and a very good chance of getting a cup of coffee, a decent chance of being an average major league regular. The other player is less polished, has a ETA of 2018, but has a chance of being an all-star caliber player, but a higher bust risk. Who do you pick? It's a franchise philosophy, the White Sox took the low ceiling guys for years and years and we all complained bitterly. Now the Sox are swinging for the fences and we aren't willing to be patient? Bulls***. Draft picks are lottery tickets, you draft them, stash them, and hope you scout well enough to hit on enough to keep your ball club competitive and cheap. Refusing to play isn't the answer. I keep hearing the Peavy comparisons and they make no sense. He didn't cost us a pick and the Sox were coming off a season where we finished three games behind Detroit. Three games is a gap that can be made up by a free agent acquisition. We finished THIRTY games behind Detroit last year. If your plan is to just sign a starter to flip him, the odds of Santana or Jimenez exceeding the value of a contract in six months to a year that literally no other club in baseball is willing to give them right now is very low. Even less likely that they will exceed the contract so much so that any team would be willing to give us anything close to be as valuable as the #43 overall pick. And that is ignoring the shortsighted financial and roster implications as well.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jan 26, 2014 -> 10:22 PM) I don't understand why Hahn is stopping right now. I'm thinking in the offseason, Keppinger and Gillaspie sound like very good players and Flowers/Phegs doesn't sound so bad and our pitching staff seems just fine. But that's wishful thinking, fool's gold. To all of you "rebuilding people" please please answer this. My assertion is if we added a real catcher, another starter and preferably a real second baseman we "could" win the division. It's doable to add all three. So tell me ... do you agree with my assertion we are THAT CLOSE to contending now? If the answer as I expect, is yes, then why not go for it? I'd hate to be out of the race in May when we are this close NOW. Not that close sadly. Our rotation is decent but the offense looks pathetic. Eaton, Abreu, Garcia, Davidson, and Phegley/Nieto will most likely make up more than half our lineup and none of them have played a full season in the major leagues. I am bullish on all those players future contributions, but it will take some time and I am OK with that. It's a youth movement, everyone sees it except for the guys arguing for an aging free agent starter. These guys are going to go through slumps and take some knocks but it will make us a better ball club for the future.

Stop feeding the troll. The logic behind this thread has been refuted wonderfully several times over. More importantly, Hahn said he's not giving up a draft pick.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 25, 2014 -> 12:02 PM) The addition of a SP would allow you to deal one from depth next year. The idea is Johnson shows enough in the rotation in 2014 to take Quintana's place in 2015 if need be and they can deal Quintana. Or if Danks has a bounce back year he can be dealt. You are conveniently ignoring the fact that if the Sox sign Santana or Jimenez to a multi year deal and attempt to deal them at the deadline or next year they will have to pitch well enough to EXCEED the value of the deal we just handed them. A deal that NO OTHER team in the major leagues was willing to give them this off-season. If you are advocating trading Q instead, you are effectively replacing a young, cheap, excellent starter for an expensive, older, and less effective starter and trying to pass it off as us improving the ball club. If Q would get us a return that could help the ball club in other areas, it's basically just trading one problem for another. Then we would have an issue of rotation depth and you would complain that we don't have any depth in the minors which is because we forfeited a pick. It makes zero baseball sense.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 25, 2014 -> 11:37 AM) Why? The Sox need talent on the Major League level as desperately as they need it in the minors. If the Sox can't outspend the big spenders (as shown by the Tanaka pursuit) they are going to have to go after guys like this. Would you rather give up a 2nd round pick this year than give up a 1st rounder when they are in the middle of the pack? Jimenez or Santana is going to cost us 10 plus million a year, while our 2nd rounder is going to cost us a fraction of that and could possibly be in our organization for the next 8-10 years. I honestly would rather not give a draft pick for mediocre, aging free agent fodder at all. It's not that Hahn isn't participating in free agency, he just is being selective about who to pursue.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 25, 2014 -> 11:27 AM) Dunn is symbolic of a failed strategy. This franchise would be better off without him even if he hits 30 homers. So you don't want a guy who is going to hit 30 homers even though our offense is most likely going to be pathetic because he's "symbolic of a failed strategy?"

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Jan 25, 2014 -> 11:17 AM) Dunn is frustrating as hell to watch, but given our lack of offense and left-handed bats, he definitely has value to us against RHP regardless of what the common Sox fan may think. That said, I don't want to see him in a White Sox uniform after 2014 under any circumstance. Dunn hasn't exactly delivered on his contract, but he has hit 41 and 34 home runs over the past two seasons. Not exactly dragging down our offense out there.

QUOTE (ScottyDo @ Jan 25, 2014 -> 09:46 AM) Hahn on 670: "At this point in time, we're not going to do anything that costs us a draft pick." Exactly the right way to go in this situation. Say what you'd like about the odds of a 2nd rounder amounting to anything, but a team coming off a 99 loss season shouldn't be signing 30 something starters that cost a pick.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 24, 2014 -> 03:22 PM) How long do you think it will take the Sox farm system to start producing the talent needed to contend? My guess 3-5 years. If you are specifically talking about the rotation I believe that the rotation we currently have is capable of contending. If you are talking about the roster as a whole I would guess 1-2 years with Garcia, Davidson, Eaton, Abreu, adjusting to the major leagues. My point is the rotation isn't the thing holding the Sox from contending and spending 13 million to improve it slightly isn't a smart way to allocate resources when there are other areas of need.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 24, 2014 -> 03:10 PM) You're not taking away from Quintana's value if you sign a mid-rotation starter. Would you rather have Jimenez or Santana and say Jason Castro going forward or Quintana? You misunderstand me completely. It's an allocation of scarce resources. Q is a solid #2-3 starter for less than a million dollars a year. That's amazing value and let's you spend elsewhere to improve your ball club. We don't have a gaping hole in the middle of our rotation where we NEED to spend 13 million a year on an aging starter. Good clubs don't have to dip into the free agent market much because they can develop their own talent or acquire it cheaply.

QUOTE (TheFutureIsNear @ Jan 24, 2014 -> 01:44 PM) Explain to me how adding a talented player at a reasonable price hurts any team in any situation. I'd love to hear how signing Ervin Santana is going cause a screeching stop to our entire rebuilding process. You could apple the same logic to what the Yankees do. With their seemingly unlimited payroll, nearly every talented free agent has a "reasonable price." The White Sox have a hard and fixed payroll limit, every dollar you spend takes away from another potential deal. This is why Chris Sale's contract is so damn valuable, we are getting an ace for the price of a back of the rotation starter. I don't want to pay a 31 year old inconsistent starter 13 million a year to do what Danks can do for the same price or Q can do for a fraction of it. We can (and should) spend that money elsewhere to make a better complete team.

QUOTE (thxfrthmmrs @ Jan 23, 2014 -> 05:09 PM) This just in, Keith Law thinks Tanaka will be an elite pitcher from day one. Actually in his chat he said he doesn't write his headlines and he specified he thought Tanaka will be around a top 20-25 starter. Which is very good, but not elite. Scott (Boston) I'm surprised that you would label a top 20-25 pitcher as "elite." Or did someone else write the headline? Klaw (1:22 PM) Writers don't write their own headlines. I am no exception.

QUOTE (ScottyDo @ Jan 24, 2014 -> 10:57 AM) Woah. Lots of same point. It was a slam dunk rebuttal haha.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 24, 2014 -> 10:49 AM) Frankly, I don't know if Garcia will pan out, but I would rather acquire him at his development stage than the unknown in the second round. I'm not saying I would rush out and sign Santana or Jimenez, but picking up a veteran pitcher at this stage makes a lot of sense. Increase the inventory. Money aside, banking your future on future 2nd round picks is a bigger longshot than banking on Santana or Jimenez being All Stars. This speeds up the rebuild. You want to play it close to the vest, you wind up like the Cubs who are now saying to their fans their rebuild might not be complete until next decade. It's funny you bring up the Cubs rebuild, because they did almost exactly what you are recommending with Edwin Jackson. How is that working out for them?

QUOTE (ScottyDo @ Jan 24, 2014 -> 08:05 AM) So you get rid of a 2nd round pick in the hopes that an expensive guy with a questionable background performs so that you can trade him for a prospect. So much win