SleeplessGurloes

•11d ago

"Just to save money" is a gross misunderstanding of how the process works. The White Sox, for all the ways they are cheap, tend to spend their full allotment of draft money. Presumably if they did NOT go Roch, they would underslot Emerson, Lackey, or Lombard, and use the savings to float a prep prospect down the board and lure them away from a collegiate commitment. This worked with the Tigers, who took Max Clark underslot and used that money to float Kevin McGonigle down overslot in the second round.

I do think Roch is still the clear 1-1 but if they don't pick him, I don't think the explanation is "they are cheap" or "they like Emerson more", it's more likely, they have a plan (whether or not it becomes a good plan is another story.)"

Thought this was a pretty good summary of how taking Lackey and not dealing with the Cholowsky/Emerson agency negotiating against each other at the top might actually work out to the Sox's advantage.

Edited May 24May 24 by caulfield12

3 hours ago, fathom said:

I’m just a strong believer in going after guys who continue to progress. If Roch improved on his numbers from last year, it would have been an easy decision.

Pretty tough numbers to improve upon, though.

25 minutes ago, SoxBlanco said:

Pretty tough numbers to improve upon, though.

Just comes down to personal preference.

If Cholowsky is Dansby Swanson, Lackey is a once in 20-25 year unicorn, a black catcher.

Except for Charles Johnson, all the best played in the 1920`s - 1960's and early 70s, Manny Sanguillen.

If everything else being equal, I'll side with the entertainment angle...as the lowest revenue producing team in mlb.

Not unlike Mune over Okamoto or Imai.

How many Cubs' fans/youngsters today go actively looking for Dansby Swanson jerseys in the sporting goods stores?

It's PCA or Hoerner, right?

This is interesting in my mind. If you can get solid savings you are also getting an elite and ascending college player. Really starting to lean towards Lackey over Roch. Roch is solid I just wish he had more elite physical traits (they just don’t jump off the page to me and I worry about that with wood bats). If he was Tulo I’d be down with that though.

Lackey has serious juice though - tools are awesome and he has legit juice.

8 hours ago, Chisoxfn said:

And I should say I’m fine with Cholosky too. But those are the 2 I would choose from. Lackey has some serious swag to him. I think I would have him play CF though if I drafted him.

I'm with this. The more everything goes on, the more I think I'd be fine with Lackey (at a discount) if they pick someone other than Roch.

But no one else, and I'm still leaning Cholowsky.

I'm going to a college basketball analogy.

I think the kids from the South like Beckham, Frank Thomas, AJ and Hawk originally were appreciate the commonalities with the Midwest compared to kids from other areas...especially the coasts, the Northeast, Texas, Cali, etc.

Thinking of guys like Giolito Ventura and Garland here. Not that everyone necessarily looks down as the middle of the country as flyover territory lol.

Just the friendliness/neighbors helping neighbors and more down to earth character.

I say this having lived in Georgia (Statesboro/Augusta), Iowa and Kansas City before leaving the US at around 35.

Another example, the 3 kids Iowa women's basketball has brought on from UGA and GaTech really appreciate the Midwest and being the bigger fish in the smaller pond...although Chicago is obviously not Iowa City, except for the friendliness and general kindness of MOST people.

But it might as well have been (a small insular club compared to Wrigley) in terms of media coverage...at least until Mune came on board. I'd even argue Iowa sports might even be more of a fish bowl lol...equivalent to Murakami's everyday international media coverage now.

Just as a pure cultural fit...someone who really wants to be a Chicago White Sox player, appreciates the organization, am seeing Lackey more as the one, and this is purely gut or intuition.

Maybe because Lackey's also a classic underdog (5'6" 156 six years ago) who neatly fits the ethos of the Southside, versus the kind of "prima donna" kid (not really his fault, same happened with Rodon or Gordon Beckham) who everyone praised as the best player and surefire #1 guy in NCAA's on the best team for going on two years now....although the draft list I had to start this thread originally had another GA Tech outfielder who will likely go in the middle of the first round.

Edited May 24May 24 by caulfield12

9 hours ago, SoxBlanco said:

Pretty tough numbers to improve upon, though.

I don't know. He's playing in the Big 10 which isnt even a power baseball conference. I think it's less typical for a guy who had a worse junior than sophomore season to go #1. Not crazy rare but not a good indicator either.

Henry Davis being the last position player to do it.

13 hours ago, DirtySox said:

Lackey at like 9.5 to 9.75 million would be very fun for further picks.

8 hours ago, Chisoxfn said:

This is interesting in my mind. If you can get solid savings you are also getting an elite and ascending college player. Really starting to lean towards Lackey over Roch. Roch is solid I just wish he had more elite physical traits (they just don’t jump off the page to me and I worry about that with wood bats). If he was Tulo I’d be down with that though.

Lackey has serious juice though - tools are awesome and he has legit juice.

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.

19 minutes ago, Y2Jimmy0 said:

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.

Why would that be riskier?

Because of Teel being moved off that spot versus Montgomery at SS?

Are either of those players sure enough bets as of today you'd dare give them extensions?

Because easier to imagine Cholowsky at second or third than Lackey in CF?

Or because of the possibility he's not a surefire plus CFer like he seemingly is as a catcher?

But doesn't a tie go to the entertaining exciting dynamic player with the biggest personality?

Like Mune vs. Okamoto, who also easily could have played 1B for the Sox but wouldn't be selling even 15-20% of the jerseys?

16 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

Why would that be riskier?

Because of Teel being moved off that spot versus Montgomery at SS?

Are either of those players sure enough bets as of today you'd dare give them extensions?

Because easier to imagine Cholowsky at second or third than Lackey in CF?

Or because of the possibility he's not a surefire plus CFer like he seemingly is as a catcher?

But doesn't a tie go to the entertaining exciting dynamic player with the biggest personality?

Like Mune vs. Okamoto, who also easily could have played 1B for the Sox but wouldn't be selling even 15-20% of the jerseys?

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.

16 minutes ago, Y2Jimmy0 said:

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 guess the name itself when they won the lottery was the initial biggest draw because it sounded so Southsidery.

That said...if Getz articulated a scenario of spreading an additional $2+ plus to rounds 2/3 and what that money could actually buy in terms of improving depth and quality of the draft.

Let's say a prep pitcher on the fence about an SEC school and then Gasparino in the third round, for example.

si.com late 2024

“Biggest failure: Baltimore's injury-riddled lackluster second half opens a lot of possibilities for this slot. But we'll zero in on one aspect, which is the puzzling season on offense from Adley Rutschman. His defensive numbers remain strong, but Rutschman's third season has seen an across-the-board decline with the bat. Most puzzling has been a 4% dip in walk rate from a hitter who seemed almost preternaturally selective at the plate."

The crazy thing is two years of 5.6/5.7 fWAR halved to 2.7 and then just 2.7 total over the last 1 1/3 seasons.

Keeps dividing himself nearly in half statistically.

Edited May 24May 24 by caulfield12

12 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

I guess the name itself when they won the lottery was the initial biggest draw because it sounded so Southsidery.

That said...if Getz articulated a scenario of spreading an additional $2+ plus to rounds 2/3 and what that money could actually buy in terms of improving depth and quality of the draft.

Let's say a prep pitcher on the fence about an SEC school and then Gasparino in the third round, for example.

si.com late 2024

“Biggest failure: Baltimore's injury-riddled lackluster second half opens a lot of possibilities for this slot. But we'll zero in on one aspect, which is the puzzling season on offense from Adley Rutschman. His defensive numbers remain strong, but Rutschman's third season has seen an across-the-board decline with the bat. Most puzzling has been a 4% dip in walk rate from a hitter who seemed almost preternaturally selective at the plate."

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 don't like catchers early because they usually hit well "for a catcher."
But Lackey, at least statistically, hits at least as well as Roch. Plus his athleticism.
Tempting.

13 hours ago, caulfield12 said:

Just comes down to personal preference.

If Cholowsky is Dansby Swanson, Lackey is a once in 20-25 year unicorn, a black catcher.

Except for Charles Johnson, all the best played in the 1920`s - 1960's and early 70s, Manny Sanguillen.

If everything else being equal, I'll side with the entertainment angle...as the lowest revenue producing team in mlb.

Not unlike Mune over Okamoto or Imai.

How many Cubs' fans/youngsters today go actively looking for Dansby Swanson jerseys in the sporting goods stores?

It's PCA or Hoerner, right?

Imagine pushing “first black catcher in years” as a consideration with the 1.01 pick. We have officially jumped the shark here.

IMO, you really got to go the college route with the 1.01 and it really comes down to Roch as BPA or Lackey as best value for the overall draft (depending on how cheap he would be). Either way, there should be plenty of bonus to add some high ceiling preps in rounds 2 & 3. I get Emerson is a really strong talent, but can’t really see the argument for him over Roch. I don’t think anyone else is really an option as Lombard is way too risky for the 1.01. Regardless, I have full confidence in Shirley to come out of this draft with the most talent possible.

1 hour ago, Chicago White Sox said:

IMO, you really got to go the college route with the 1.01 and it really comes down to Roch as BPA or Lackey as best value for the overall draft (depending on how cheap he would be). Either way, there should be plenty of bonus to add some high ceiling preps in rounds 2 & 3. I get Emerson is a really strong talent, but can’t really see the argument for him over Roch. I don’t think anyone else is really an option as Lombard is way too risky for the 1.01. Regardless, I have full confidence in Shirley to come out of this draft with the most talent possible.

The question is how much cheaper can you get Lackey for, and is the player you get for that savings making the overall package good enough to pass on Roch and the fact is is about as certain of a major league starter as exists in the draft.

3 hours ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Imagine pushing “first black catcher in years” as a consideration with the 1.01 pick. We have officially jumped the shark here.

It's a core part of the franchise fabric, though.

Not only in terms of players going back to Minnie Minoso, Larry Doby, Aparicio, Dick Allen, Baines, Frank Thomas, but front office executives as well.

Edited May 24May 24 by caulfield12

Can't wait to be done with this dumb narrative.

24 minutes ago, Autumn Dreamin said:

Can't wait to be done with this dumb narrative.

Isn't Bob supposed to be JR's media spin doctor?

13 hours ago, Y2Jimmy0 said:

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.

In what way do you see catcher riskier than other positions?

Edited May 25May 25 by GreenSox

Look at how Mauer and Posey cratered the second half of their careers. Starting to see it with Will Smith, too.

Only Yadier Molina and Sal Perez held up well into 30s.

Sox fans also witnessed it firsthand with Grandal’s decline his final two seasons.

Added to that recently is the Adley Rutschman Decline Enigma.

Of course…Sox would greatly benefit from those 6-7 prime years while Lackey was still in his 20s.

Edited May 25May 25 by caulfield12

8 hours ago, caulfield12 said:

Look at how Mauer and Posey cratered the second half of their careers. Starting to see it with Will Smith, too.

Only Yadier Molina and Sal Perez held up well into 30s.

Sox fans also witnessed it firsthand with Grandal’s decline his final two seasons.

Added to that recently is the Adley Rutschman Decline Enigma.

Of course…Sox would greatly benefit from those 6-7 prime years while Lackey was still in his 20s.

Not sure why you keep implying buster posey or joe Mauer would somehow be a bad outcome. Buster didn't crater anything, his last year he had a 5.3 WAR. He retired because of the girls he adopted were requiring a lot of medical care and attention and he wanted to give them everything they needed.

I don't know why anyone cares how catchers age. The Sox are unlikely to be the team that gives whoever they draft their second contract. Sox are drafting for the first 6 years. I'm a Roch man myself. I don't trust guys who pop up with a previously uncharacteristic offensive performance during their draft year. Lackey was a glove-first guy coming into this year, while Roch has a track record of performance. But I think a catcher, especially one who can play other positions, isn't a bad bet in and of itself.

9 hours ago, GreenSox said:

In what way do you see catcher riskier than other positions?

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

3 hours ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Not sure why you keep implying buster posey or joe Mauer would somehow be a bad outcome. Buster didn't crater anything, his last year he had a 5.3 WAR. He retired because of the girls he adopted were requiring a lot of medical care and attention and he wanted to give them everything they needed.

but he averaged just 2.35 fWAR the two previous seasons combined