19 minutes ago, fathom said:

I'm thinking the more decorated people want Singer to fill pitching gaps quicker caused by Giolito and Fulmer busting

Isn’t that reactive stance something we are trying to get away from...?

1 hour ago, Eminor3rd said:

There are way too many good reasons to take a hitter, given our position in this rebuild. And since we're all but guaranteed that one of Bohm or Madrigal is available at 4, choosing Singer will be extremely disappointing.

This x 1,000,000,000,000,000.

Madrigal on ESPNU soon. 

https://mobile.twitter.com/jeffMLBdraft/status/1002722121217396736

12 minutes ago, fathom said:

https://mobile.twitter.com/jeffMLBdraft/status/1002722121217396736

Hope that’s a fourth round pick

1 minute ago, bmags said:

Hope that’s a fourth round pick

After Spillane 3rd pick

3 hours ago, hi8is said:

Pick one...

Singer + Jackson

or

Madrigal + Beer

What about Singer and Eierman

Watching the Oregon State game tonight, Madrigal makes it look like he's hitting off of 14 year olds in terms of contact.

All he's doing is getting hits tonight

22 minutes ago, Heads22 said:

All he's doing is getting hits tonight

That's my guy. Really feel like Singer is going to be the selection though.

Singer would be a disappointing pick on many levels.
Please don't do it.

Pitchforks out if it’s Singer...

Is everyone sour on Singer at #4 because of his (apparent) lack of potential as a front line starter, or because Madrigal represents the best available positional player (assuming Bart and Bohm are gone)? 

I understand the concern with Singer's projectability; he just doesn't jump out as that frontline starter, like Mize. What is tantalizing about him isn't the overall polish, or how quickly he may be pitching in the majors, but that he's essentially succeeding on TWO plus pitches. If he develops his changeup more OR even a halfway decent curveball, he's Nola. That's what I see when I watch Singer. 

Madrigal is an equally special talent with his own questions: will he develop ANY power? Does he stay at 2B?  Defensively he's GG caliber and a good bet to consistently hit .300 with limited strikeouts. I honestly don't care much about his height, especially since he has already produced consistently at a high, collegiate level. 

It's a tough decision, and either player is a quality choice. It's unfortunately a much tougher choice than the consensus top three. If the White Sox selected Singer, I'd probably feel more confident in their abilities to harness his potential. Although that alone shouldn't be a deciding reason for drafting him. Overall, I'd pick Madrigal but IF they do go with Singwr I won't join the lynch mob

Edited June 2, 20187 yr by Flash Tizzle

5 hours ago, bmags said:

Hope that’s a fourth round pick

Sox do adore their Louisville pipeline.

3 hours ago, Flash Tizzle said:

Is everyone sour on Singer at #4 because of his (apparent) lack of potential as a front line starter, or because Madrigal represents the best available positional player (assuming Bart and Bohm are gone)? 

I understand the concern with Singer's projectability; he just doesn't jump out as that frontline starter, like Mize. What is tantalizing about him isn't the overall polish, or how quickly he may be pitching in the majors, but that he's essentially succeeding on TWO plus pitches. If he develops his changeup more OR even a halfway decent curveball, he's Nola. That's what I see when I watch Singer. 

Madrigal is an equally special talent with his own questions: will he develop ANY power? Does he stay at 2B?  Defensively he's GG caliber and a good bet to consistently hit .300 with limited strikeouts. I honestly don't care much about his height, especially since he has already produced consistently at a high, collegiate level. 

It's a tough decision, and either player is a quality choice. It's unfortunately a much tougher choice than the consensus top three. If the White Sox selected Singer, I'd probably feel more confident in their abilities to harness his potential. Although that alone shouldn't be a deciding reason for drafting him. Overall, I'd pick Madrigal but IF they do go with Singwr I won't join the lynch mob

I wouldn’t be that upset if it’s Singer, but I just can’t shake this feeling that he gets here, loses MPH off of his fastball as he moves to pro workload and is suddenly this 89-91 mph pitcher we hope works.

Longenhagen now has them taking singer. I don't think that is bad and singer could also add 2-3 mph and become really good but I think that madrigal and mize are now pretty clearly the two best choices.

 

If madrigal is available they should take him. However if madrigal is gone I don't have a problem taking singer over bats like bohm, India, kelenic, Gorman and swaggerty because I think they are not that special either.

I think BPA is 

 

1. Mize

2. Madrigal 

.

.

.

And then singer and the bats are pretty much pretty similar considering ceiling and floor. So I would be disappointed if they leave madrigal  (or even mize) on the board but if they are gone it is pretty much a wash who they take. Others like Gorman or carter steward have a higher ceiling but also higher bust potential.

13 hours ago, Dick Allen said:

Maybe as to how they are projected, but I bet many players from this draft have better careers than the worst of the top 4. The Sox have to find these guys. 

 

Obviously, while still the biggest crapshoot draft in sports, projections have seemingly improve a great deal, I was reading an article on the Tigers 1976 draft. They picked second and selected a bust, but still drafted several contributors to their WS championship team, including  two HOfers in Morris and Trammell. They also drafted another HOFer that year in Ozzie Smith, but couldn’t sign him.  It would be nice if the Sox got a player or 2 in the middle rounds that turned out a steal. It seems to have been a while.

I'm sure there will be guys having a  better career even than madrigal and mize but you have to consider ceiling and floor. A guy like carter stewart has A higher ceiling than probably anyone of the top 4 but he could also bust. The draft is not about finding the best player but about getting the best result if you would repeat the same  draft x times.  If you had to draft 10 times at 4 it would be better to get 6 3 war players , one 4 war, one 1 war and two busts then one 7 war, one 3 war, two 1 war and 6 busts. Hindsight best player is not a good way to evaluate players in hindsight taking Stephen Strasburg over mike trout was still the right decision even if it turned out differently.

http://amp.sacbee.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/hometown-report/article212010339.html

Blueprint of a Baseball Player:  Nick Madrigal

There’s no doubt in my mind if you look at all his intangibles, work/practice ethic, leadership, baseball IQ....he’s the pick of the “new direction” of White Sox scouting/talent evaluation.

Just because they haven’t turned the corner with Giolito and Fulmer doesn’t naturally make Singer the better choice...any more than they shouldn’t have picked SInger if Fulmer were duplicating their August/September numbers from last year.

One thing that worries me about Hostetler is he’s super big into intangibles.  If you listen to him in interviews, he mentions the great lengths his team goes to to better understand each player’s character, drive, etc.  He specifically mentioned in I believe the Garfien podcast that there wasn’t much separating his top seven and it could come down to intangibles.  And I’ve watched that Singer rain delay video a couple times now and I’m like “I bet Hostetler is all over this kid”.  Just seems like the type of kid Hostetler would value above the traditional tools.

20 hours ago, raBBit said:

Kelenic/Liberatore are out. 

Why you gotta do this to me raBBit?

7 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

One thing that worries me about Hostetler is he’s super big into intangibles.  If you listen to him in interviews, he mentions the great lengths his team goes to to better understand each player’s character, drive, etc.  He specifically mentioned in I believe the Garfien podcast that there wasn’t much separating his top seven and it could come down to intangibles.  And I’ve watched that Singer rain delay video a couple times now and I’m like “I bet Hostetler is all over this kid”.  Just seems like the type of kid Hostetler would value above the traditional tools.

You’re saying Singer for that reason....I’ll choose to go with Madrigal, who is the ultimate “gym rat” if there was such a thing for the sport of baseball.

Maybe...just maybe they could view Singer as the more impactful players.

The idea that if they draft the player you want it’s for the right philosophy but if they draft the player you don’t its because they are trying to draft for need is silly.

9 hours ago, Heads22 said:

Watching the Oregon State game tonight, Madrigal makes it look like he's hitting off of 14 year olds in terms of contact.

Here's my concern though, at least from the first hit I saw....it was very soft and not the type of swing that impresses.  There's no doubt his hand-eye coordination is incredible.

9 minutes ago, bmags said:

Maybe...just maybe they could view Singer as the more impactful players.

The idea that if they draft the player you want it’s for the right philosophy but if they draft the player you don’t its because they are trying to draft for need is silly.

Singer has become severely underrated on this site.

11 minutes ago, fathom said:

Singer has become severely underrated on this site.

Seriously, it's getting ridiculous.