22 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Sure, here's one by Keith Law that has them going with Emerson just two weeks ago (not that I agree with that!):

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7255697/2026/05/07/mlb-mock-draft-2026-grady-emerson-chicago-white-sox/

Additionally, if you follow the draft coverage it is pretty much unanimous that Roch has fallen back to the pack behind him (or they caught up to him, however you want to phrase it).

Do I think most would still call him the top prospect in the draft? Yes. Do I think he's a slam dunk #1, obviously not. As noted, I'd rather draft Lackey as his stock is trending up.

If we take Roch and he ends up having a Dansby Swanson career, but at 2B instead of SS, would you be happy with that?

I feel like I change my mind daily on this pick. I really want a superstar, and my gut is saying that's not Roch. But you also can't miss on this pick, and he's the least likely to be a "miss".

9 minutes ago, SoxBlanco said:

If we take Roch and he ends up having a Dansby Swanson career, but at 2B instead of SS, would you be happy with that?

I feel like I change my mind daily on this pick. I really want a superstar, and my gut is saying that's not Roch. But you also can't miss on this pick, and he's the least likely to be a "miss".

Dansby been worth 30 fWAR as a shortstop. Much of his value is derived from his defense with a 98 career wRC+. Let's call it 70/30 defense/offensive value. 21 to 9.

Short is 3 times more valuable than second.

Meaning dansby would be about a 16 career WAR 2nd baseman if nothing about his profile changed. If we say he's better at 2nd relatively speaking because of his skills at short, we could weigh his defense up 25% at 2nd and call it 19 WAR.

Either way, Dansby Swanson is a much less valuable player at 2nd base than he is at short.

7 hours ago, Buehrle>Wood said:

Greg said he cant access the site since they did the remodel of it. Im guessing that is true for quite a few posters. I know I can barely get on it. I wish there were a way to fix it.

I'm not sure what this means really. Do certain browsers not work well with it now?

1 minute ago, ron883 said:

I'm not sure what this means really. Do certain browsers not work well with it now?

I can only access the site from my home wifi.

1 minute ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

I can only access the site from my home wifi.

Same here. Either on my phone from home WiFi, or from work on my laptop connected to WiFi.

4 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Dansby been worth 30 fWAR as a shortstop. Much of his value is derived from his defense with a 98 career wRC+. Let's call it 70/30 defense/offensive value. 21 to 9.

Short is 3 times more valuable than second.

Meaning dansby would be about a 16 career WAR 2nd baseman if nothing about his profile changed. If we say he's better at 2nd relatively speaking because of his skills at short, we could weigh his defense up 25% at 2nd and call it 19 WAR.

Either way, Dansby Swanson is a much less valuable player at 2nd base than he is at short.

Good info. Thanks. So does having Colson at SS affect who you want in this draft? I know you want Lackey, but if we had Meidroth playing SS every day right now with no Bonemer or Carlson in the pipeline, would you want Roch?

3 minutes ago, Falstaff said:

I don't follow college or prep baseball like Future Sox, Sox Machine, and James Fox does but I thought they were saying Roch is the #1 pick.

What's the

15 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

I can only access the site from my home wifi.

Same. When on my phone's mobile connection it pulls up an old cached version of the site from before the season started.

14 minutes ago, ron883 said:

I'm not sure what this means really. Do certain browsers not work well with it now?

I don't think its browser I think its more of an ISP/DNS issue. My personal computer has no problem but my work computer (on same wifi) which uses VPN gets "Server IP address could not be found" since the update

20 minutes ago, SoxBlanco said:

Good info. Thanks. So does having Colson at SS affect who you want in this draft? I know you want Lackey, but if we had Meidroth playing SS every day right now with no Bonemer or Carlson in the pipeline, would you want Roch?

BPA for me, always... and especially with the first pick.

Drafting for need in baseball is a death sentence in the long run.

7 minutes ago, DoUEvenShift said:

I don't think its browser I think its more of an ISP/DNS issue. My personal computer has no problem but my work computer (on same wifi) which uses VPN gets "Server IP address could not be found" since the update

Yep, the issue with the site not loading appears to occur on Verizon networks and it seems to be a DNS issue on their end.

The site works fine from my home internet connection which is Xfinity Cable, but will not work from my phone data, which is Xfinity Wireless which runs on Verizon’s cellular network.

2 minutes ago, WhiteSox2023 said:

Yep, the issue with the site not loading appears to occur on Verizon networks and it seems to be a DNS issue on their end.

The site works fine from my home internet connection which is Xfinity Cable, but will not work from my phone data, which is Xfinity Wireless which runs on Verizon’s cellular network.

this guy is living the same life as me! although I don't have a fathead of PCA on my ceiling so we have some minor differences!

1 minute ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

this guy is living the same life as me! although I don't have a fathead of PCA on my ceiling so we have some minor differences!

I actually turned the fathead of PCA into a mask and I pose in front of the mirror like Buffalo Bill to the song “Goodbye Horses”.

1 hour ago, WhiteSox2023 said:

Yep, the issue with the site not loading appears to occur on Verizon networks and it seems to be a DNS issue on their end.

The site works fine from my home internet connection which is Xfinity Cable, but will not work from my phone data, which is Xfinity Wireless which runs on Verizon’s cellular network.

It's not a verizon issue, I'm on ATT and occasionally when I open a thread, I get a "Site error" message, and then it automatically tries to refresh the page and then it loads correctly after that. It happens on Chrome, Opera, and Brave on Android

I don't have this problem on my desktop browsers

17 minutes ago, joejoesox said:

It's not a verizon issue, I'm on ATT and occasionally when I open a thread, I get a "Site error" message, and then it automatically tries to refresh the page and then it loads correctly after that. It happens on Chrome, Opera, and Brave on Android

I don't have this problem on my desktop browsers

I can tell you that on Xfinity Wireless data, which uses the Verizon cellular network, the site literally won’t load at all on any browser. ATT and Verizon have different cellular networks, so your issue could be different.

Edited 11 hours ago11 hr by WhiteSox2023

22 minutes ago, joejoesox said:

It's not a verizon issue, I'm on ATT and occasionally when I open a thread, I get a "Site error" message, and then it automatically tries to refresh the page and then it loads correctly after that. It happens on Chrome, Opera, and Brave on Android

I don't have this problem on my desktop browsers

Verizon is 100% an issue. I can use any wifi to get on, and I can use my Xfinity hardwire internet. Verizon open air literally never works.

Have we tried asking this guy for help?

2 hours ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

I can only access the site from my home wifi.

Have you tried clearing you device cache and your mobile browser cache?

2 hours ago, SoxBlanco said:

Same here. Either on my phone from home WiFi, or from work on my laptop connected to WiFi.

Try clearing your device cache and mobile browser cache

2 hours ago, WhiteSox2023 said:

Yep, the issue with the site not loading appears to occur on Verizon networks and it seems to be a DNS issue on their end.

The site works fine from my home internet connection which is Xfinity Cable, but will not work from my phone data, which is Xfinity Wireless which runs on Verizon’s cellular network.

That doesn’t make sense because if the servers were changed ( which I haven’t heard happened ) then the dns has changed and would be propagated by now without a doubt.

47 minutes ago, joejoesox said:

It's not a verizon issue, I'm on ATT and occasionally when I open a thread, I get a "Site error" message, and then it automatically tries to refresh the page and then it loads correctly after that. It happens on Chrome, Opera, and Brave on Android

I don't have this problem on my desktop browsers

Sounds like a device cache issue

A's White Sox and Royals/Witt basically rejected by Griffin family

"We had teams all the way to about No. 20 that told us if Konner made it to them, they were going to take him and we already knew what dollar amount that they were willing to go above their slot,” Kevin says. “So, we weren’t stressed about it a whole lot. We did have to convince Konnor that turning down the fourth (A's), fifth (White Sox, Hagen Smith) or sixth pick (Caglianone, KC) in the draft was not a bad thing. It just came down to fit and where we felt he could thrive. We kind of slow played it and held out a little bit until Pittsburgh came along.”

The Griffins waited through eight picks. Kevin says two of the eight teams called with offers “to go like $2 million under slot.” Kevin told them, “Don’t pick him. He’ll go to LSU if you do.”

Four of the first eight teams signed players for less than slot money: the Guardians at No. 1 (Travis Bazzana), the Reds at No. 2 (Chase Burns), the Athletics at No. 4 (Nick Kurtz) and the Angels at No. 8 (Christian Moore). Teams enter each draft with a designated pool of money to sign picks. Sometimes they select a player in the first round knowing they can sign that player at below slot money and funnel the savings toward a later pick. The Pirates used the coupon-clipping strategy with the first pick of the 2021 draft when they took catcher Henry Davis. They signed him for less money than four of the next five picks (Jack Leiter, Jackson Jobe, Marcelo Mayer and Jordan Lawler).

The ninth pick of the 2024 draft became a statement and philosophical pivot by the Pirates. Griffin was highly recommended by their area scout, Darren Mazeroski, son of the late Hall of Fame second baseman. After the Angels passed on Griffin, a Pirates official called Kevin and said, “We’re taking Konnor. We want the player. We’ll worry about the money later. We’re just not going to pass him up.”

www.si.com

Edited 11 hours ago11 hr by caulfield12

3 hours ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Sure, here's one by Keith Law that has them going with Emerson just two weeks ago (not that I agree with that!):

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7255697/2026/05/07/mlb-mock-draft-2026-grady-emerson-chicago-white-sox/

Additionally, if you follow the draft coverage it is pretty much unanimous that Roch has fallen back to the pack behind him (or they caught up to him, however you want to phrase it).

Do I think most would still call him the top prospect in the draft? Yes. Do I think he's a slam dunk #1, obviously not. As noted, I'd rather draft Lackey as his stock is trending up.

9 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

A's White Sox and Royals/Witt basically rejected by Griffin family

"We had teams all the way to about No. 20 that told us if Konner made it to them, they were going to take him and we already knew what dollar amount that they were willing to go above their slot,” Kevin says. “So, we weren’t stressed about it a whole lot. We did have to convince Konnor that turning down the fourth (A's), fifth (White Sox, Hagen Smith) or sixth pick (Caglianone, KC) in the draft was not a bad thing. It just came down to fit and where we felt he could thrive. We kind of slow played it and held out a little bit until Pittsburgh came along.”

The Griffins waited through eight picks. Kevin says two of the eight teams called with offers “to go like $2 million under slot.” Kevin told them, “Don’t pick him. He’ll go to LSU if you do.”

Four of the first eight teams signed players for less than slot money: the Guardians at No. 1 (Travis Bazzana), the Reds at No. 2 (Chase Burns), the Athletics at No. 4 (Nick Kurtz) and the Angels at No. 8 (Christian Moore). Teams enter each draft with a designated pool of money to sign picks. Sometimes they select a player in the first round knowing they can sign that player at below slot money and funnel the savings toward a later pick. The Pirates used the coupon-clipping strategy with the first pick of the 2021 draft when they took catcher Henry Davis. They signed him for less money than four of the next five picks (Jack Leiter, Jackson Jobe, Marcelo Mayer and Jordan Lawler).

The ninth pick of the 2024 draft became a statement and philosophical pivot by the Pirates. Griffin was highly recommended by their area scout, Darren Mazeroski, son of the late Hall of Fame second baseman. After the Angels passed on Griffin, a Pirates official called Kevin and said, “We’re taking Konnor. We want the player. We’ll worry about the money later. We’re just not going to pass him up.”

www.si.com

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.

7 minutes ago, Y2Jimmy0 said:

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.

I dont know what essentially means here. It's doing some heavy lifting though. He's been roughly 10% worse relative to college peoduction vs last year (155 wRC+ vs 164 last year). He's struck out more and walked less.

5 hours ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

You keep saying this, and I just don't get it. The problem with Roch is he's been worse this year than last year. That's concerning for a prospect.

This idea that the kid is some slam dunk 1-1 is only something I read at Soxtalk.

I just did a little survey, and every single mock draft/draft prospect ranking I could find (ESPN, NY Times, Bleacher Report, MLB.com, Sports Illustrated, Baseball America, Perfect Game, Bleacher Nation, and several others) had Cholowsky as their #1. It's not a Soxtalk phenomenon. Now maybe a "slam dunk 1-1" has to mean "nobody has entertained any doubts about his status whatsoever," (in which case I don't think any such prospect exists), but I don't remember a much stronger consensus building behind any #1 in recent memory.

5 hours ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

You keep saying this, and I just don't get it. The problem with Roch is he's been worse this year than last year. That's concerning for a prospect.

This idea that the kid is some slam dunk 1-1 is only something I read at Soxtalk.

.330 / .465 / 1.149 with 21 HR's and still more games to play. There is no problem with Roch, and while by definition that's currently "worse" than he did last year, its not as negative as you keep pushing. Im not sure I see the concerns you do.