18 minutes ago, michelangelosmonkey said:

So are you ready to say RH = genius?   

Now you are just being a trouble maker.?

22 minutes ago, Dominikk85 said:

The Phillies also had a much worse starting situation because they didn't have several cost controlled players in their prime to trade.

Phillies really tried to ride the core of the 08/09 team till the end and were left with a bunch of expensive washed up guys that couldn't be traded. Kinda like the tigers too now.

Tigers are drafting much better IMO 

Using the tool in the article illustrates the Sox lack of on-field success since the Black Sox scandal.

• The White Sox' best finish is the #219th ranked team, with only the expansion Tampa, Arizona and Colorado lower. Absolutely pathetic.
• 19 of the other 29 teams have at least one Top 50 finish.
• There is a strong correlation between the top teams and success within the next several seasons.

Top Prospect WAR rankings by team:

• AL East: Toronto (#11 1990 WS 1992 1993); Boston (#12 1972 AL 1975); New York (#33 1995 WS 1996 1998 1999 2000 AL 2001 2003); Baltimore (#46 1965 WS 1966 1970 AL 1969 1971); Tampa (#273 2008 AL 2008).
• AL Central: Cleveland (#4 1992 AL 1995 1997); Detroit (#27 1977 WS 1984); Minnesota (#62 1998); Kansas City (#68 1973 AL 1980); Chicago (#219 1990 ?? 1994).
• AL West: Texas (#1 1989); Houston (#15 1991); Kansas City Athletics (#18 1967 WS 1972 1972 1974); Seattle (#22 1995); Los Angeles (#131 2005).
• NL East: New York (#2 1967 WS 1969 & NL 1973); Atlanta (#16 1994 WS 1995 & NL 1996 1999); Philadelphia (#28 1964); Montreal (#56 1988 ?? 1994); Florida (#164 2000 WS 2003).
• NL Central: Saint Louis (#6 1941 WS 1942 1944 1946 & NL 1943); Chicago (#17 1986); Pittsburgh (#54 1967 WS 1971); Cincinnati (#82 2008); Milwaukee (#109 2006). 
• NL West: Los Angeles (#3 1969 NL 1974 1977 1978); San Francisco (#45 1971); San Diego (#88 1986); Arizona (#230 2007); Colorado (#354 2007).

https://www.thebaseballgauge.com/history.php?first=min&last=max&tab=prospects&pos=All&lgID=All&division=All&bats=All&throws=All&results=500&sort=tot_a&page=1#metric

Top Five prospect WAR teams in White Sox History

All Time Rank / Year / General Manager / WAR / Top Three Players (D = Draft; T = Trade; FA = Free Agent)

• #219 1990 Larry Himes (Fired after season) 197.6 (Frank Thomas 73.9 (1989 D); Robin Ventura 56.1 (1988 D); Wilson Alvarez 24.8 (1989 T)).
• #302 & #327 1995 & 1994 Ron Schueler 182.7 & 177.2 (Mike Cameron 46.7 (1991 D); Magglio Ordonez 38.7 (1991 FA); Ray Durham 33.8 (1990 D)).
• #414 1972 Stuart Holcomb 161.6 (Brian Downing 51.5 (1969 FA); Rich Gossage 41.2 (1970 D); Terry Forster 20.4 (1970 D)).
• #458 1999 Ron Schueler 156.0 (Mark Buehrle 59.2 (1998 D); Carlos Lee 28.3 (1994 FA); Jon Garland 22.4 (1998 T)).

Edited December 6, 20205 yr by South Side Hit Men

Maybe the Phillies' prospects weren't top end, but they plenty of  talent on the field.  Looks to me that it's as simple as pitching: their rotation is thin and the bullpen is bad.

And as an aside, how would our pen have looked if the two rookies hadn't come out gangbusters?   You can't go all-vet on a bullpen; those guys are too undependable.    Sox aren't replete in pitching depth either, so don't mess with what we have.

Edited December 6, 20205 yr by GreenSox

2 minutes ago, GreenSox said:

Maybe the Phillies' prospects weren't top end, but they plenty of  talent on the field.  Looks to me that it's as simple as pitching: their rotation is thin and the bullpen is bad.

And as an aside, how would our pen have looked if the two rookies hadn't come out gangbusters?   You can't go all-vet on a bullpen; those guys are too undependable.    Sox aren't replete in pitching depth either, so don't mess with what we have.

We have the building blocks for a lockdown pen.  Spending some money on two pen pieces would be high on my list.

5 hours ago, GreenSox said:

Maybe the Phillies' prospects weren't top end, but they plenty of  talent on the field.  Looks to me that it's as simple as pitching: their rotation is thin and the bullpen is bad.

And as an aside, how would our pen have looked if the two rookies hadn't come out gangbusters?   You can't go all-vet on a bullpen; those guys are too undependable.    Sox aren't replete in pitching depth either, so don't mess with what we have.

This is quite literally the point. If you can't create them, you have to buy them. So far the Sox are creating them. As much as pitching churns, if you aren't replacing them internally then you have to try to buy them. The Phillies traded the wrong guys, didn't have replacements coming, and tried to buy their way out of it.

4 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

This is quite literally the point. If you can't create them, you have to buy them. So far the Sox are creating them. As much as pitching churns, if you aren't replacing them internally then you have to try to buy them. The Phillies traded the wrong guys, didn't have replacements coming, and tried to buy their way out of it.

I agree. In theory the develope hitting and buy pitching approach that the cubs or red sox used is good because hitting prospects are the safer thing but that approach really got expensive and one or two injuries can make it blow up.

It still worked for the red sox the last 15 years but it needed an insane amount of money and really one big pitching injury and the season was gone.

12 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

This is quite literally the point. If you can't create them, you have to buy them. So far the Sox are creating them. As much as pitching churns, if you aren't replacing them internally then you have to try to buy them. 

The point is that you can't buy all you need (too inconsistent and many age quickly)  - you have to create them....if you don't, you will fail, as the Phillies and others have  showed.
 

Edited December 6, 20205 yr by GreenSox

On 12/5/2020 at 12:22 PM, Jack Parkman said:

Sox Scouting has to be better there than everyone else because Jerry has a limit on how much he spends on 16 year olds......it's like he doesn't understand that they're one of the highest ROIs in baseball. They'll sign a bunch of guys in the 800k-1.5M range but no more than that. I think Adolfo was the most expensive 16 year old he signed since the Wilder fiasco and given how that has (not) worked, I doubt he'd be willing to go into 7 figures again. 

Did you forget about the 52 million it cost to  get Robert?

3 minutes ago, BamaDoc said:

Did you forget about the 52 million it cost to  get Robert?

Robert was 20 years old. That's a huge difference to Jerry. 

Yeah, and they had to take on $31.5M to trade for Moncada as well. 

Jerry is more risk averse than most in his tax bracket. He's very calculated, which is part of the reason he's a billionaire. 

Edited December 6, 20205 yr by Jack Parkman

Just now, Jack Parkman said:

Robert was 20 years old. That's a huge difference to Jerry. 

Gotcha.  My bad, I missed you were speaking about the kids and not international overall.  Crazy that they are now even skewing to 15 and younger.

2 hours ago, BamaDoc said:

Gotcha.  My bad, I missed you were speaking about the kids and not international overall.  Crazy that they are now even skewing to 15 and younger.

The Sox spend more of their money and time going for Cuban talent that is older and basically playing at an AA level. They think it's a safer investment than 13-14 year olds. I understand their strategy completely, but if they have a chance to sign a guy at 16 they shouldn't just pass it up. 

Edited December 6, 20205 yr by Jack Parkman