6 minutes ago, T R U said:

.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.

He wants to see him hitting .355 / .480 / 1.205 with less strike outs than last year. 🤣

Roch not improving is a bit concerning.
.666 OPS summer with wooden bats, but then not returning to the Cape to improve or to show that it was a fluke is also a question to me.
I'd say Swanson offense - career .730 OPS; .318 OBP - would be a big downer for any first round pick. (Swanson's rep, imo, is a product of the WAR factory; Sandy Alcantra is another one; A couple of years of Lux and Eaton as well).

Not saying don't draft Roch. Just glad they are looking and scouting hard.

17 minutes ago, 35thstreetswarm said:

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.

I also think the fact that it's been Roch vs. LeBron, Roch vs. Emerson, Roch vs. Lackey, Roch vs. etc. all year instead of the field against each other is indicative of his status.

32 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.

And IIRC, the draft day video of Griffin showed he was surprised the Sox didn’t take him. I think they’re more referring to he rejected taking a discount from those teams more than refusing to play for them.

13 minutes ago, 35thstreetswarm said:

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.

1. I posted the Athletic (NY Times) most recent mock draft in this very thread where Emerson is the first pick, so not sure what your source/consensus was from there.

2. I agreed he is still the #1 prospect for most in my post. The statement is the field has come to him.

3. If a long time is 6 years... maybe?

Bryce Harper and Strasburg back to back years were guys with no doubt, and Id put Gerrit Cole on that list two years later, who was a first round pick out of high school who went to college and dominated.

3 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

1. I posted the Athletic (NY Times) most recent mock draft in this very thread where Emerson is the first pick, so not sure what your source/consensus was from there.

2. I agreed he is still the #1 prospect for most in my post. The statement is the field has come to him.

3. If a long time is 6 years... maybe?

Bryce Harper and Strasburg back to back years were guys with no doubt, and Id put Gerrit Cole on that list two years later, who was a first round pick out of high school who went to college and dominated.

It's not their most recent one. It was their first one. The last two have had Roch #1. Honestly, it would probably for clicks.

3 hours ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

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

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

Oh, I completely agree, especially when you’re dealing with shortstops.

Law has Emerson ranked 5th.
The pitcher Flora looks really good. Way better than Hagen Smith looked on paper (innings/start, walk rate), but not Paul Skenes good.

25 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

It's not their most recent one. It was their first one. The last two have had Roch #1. Honestly, it would probably for clicks.

Huh? Keith Law hasn't posted any updated mocks since that one.

Agreed GreenSox, he is still Laws #1 Prospect. If Lackey continues to terrorize, if Law has any ying to the yang left in him he'll bump him up and go against consensus!

4 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Huh? Keith Law hasn't posted any updated mocks since that one.

Agreed GreenSox, he is still Laws #1 Prospect. If Lackey continues to terrorize, if Law has any ying to the yang left in him he'll bump him up and go against consensus!

He literally just ranked him #1.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7271408/2026/05/14/mlb-draft-2026-top-100-prospects-roch-cholowsky/

1 minute ago, southsider2k5 said:

He literally just ranked him #1.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7271408/2026/05/14/mlb-draft-2026-top-100-prospects-roch-cholowsky/

Ray Ray is right. It's the mock vs. the Big Board. He has the Sox passing on Roch in the mock, but has him as his #1 player.

1 minute ago, southsider2k5 said:

He literally just ranked him #1.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7271408/2026/05/14/mlb-draft-2026-top-100-prospects-roch-cholowsky/

Struggling with reading comprehension over there?

"I posted the Athletic (NY Times) most recent mock draft in this very thread where Emerson is the first pick, so not sure what your source/consensus was from there."

"he is still Laws #1 Prospect"

☠️

3 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Struggling with reading comprehension over there?

"I posted the Athletic (NY Times) most recent mock draft in this very thread where Emerson is the first pick, so not sure what your source/consensus was from there."

"he is still Laws #1 Prospect"

☠️

But he isn't saying he's number one, just that was a mock draft pick. That's worse, not better.

3 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

But he isn't saying he's number one, just that was a mock draft pick. That's worse, not better.

You're killing me smalls. I was responding to this comment:

"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"

Also, it's not crazy for teams to not take the perceived #1 player in baseball if they are not clearly above the pack. That's been my entire point here. Roch hasn't separated himself; so much so that there are people that are creating mocks with him not going #1. I wouldn't be shocked if Lackey closes really strong and Roch stays where he's at, if we don't see some evaluators sprinkle some Lackey in there.

2 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

You're killing me smalls. I was responding to this comment:

"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"

Also, it's not crazy for teams to not take the perceived #1 player in baseball if they are not clearly above the pack. That's been my entire point here. Roch hasn't separated himself; so much so that there are people that are creating mocks with him not going #1. I wouldn't be shocked if Lackey closes really strong and Roch stays where he's at, if we don't see some evaluators sprinkle some Lackey in there.

So the one mock doesn't even though the evaluator does... That's a pretty big stretch to make up a controversy for me. Besides, Law has been known to say some outrageous things for attention, so I can hardly take it seriously at this stage.

3 hours 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.

SI whole article linked in Diamond Notes

2 hours ago, fathom said:

And IIRC, the draft day video of Griffin showed he was surprised the Sox didn’t take him. I think they’re more referring to he rejected taking a discount from those teams more than refusing to play for them.

It didn't name the two teams trying to undercut him by $2 million...the White Sox weren't one of the four underslots like Angels on C.Moore or Guardians on Bazzana.

Just the fact that they somehow "encouraged" the 4/5/6 picks not to go with him....obviously Kurtz has turned out great for the A's, Cags so so for KC.

KC had Witt Jr. as their cornerstone, can't exactly recall where Jacob Wilson and Colson were at that exact point in 2024 as prospects, I think Colson was already struggling, though.

Obviously they had established that strong relationship with the Pirates' scout Mazeroski from the very beginning and were most comfortable with him, almost like an SEC basketball or football recruiting situation.

Many stories out there like this...similar to Preller having 5-6 international guys all over Tatis Jr back in day that he'd brought over from the Texas Rangers.

Whereas White Sox had only 1-2 assigned to Griffin...not unlike two big name/long time Sox scouts being cut from mlb advance scouting (2021-2024 with Covid cost cutting rationalization), leaving only Hostetler to cover job of three in 2024-2025.

Edited 5 hours ago5 hr by caulfield12

This fixed it for me on android. IPhone instructions included too.

6 hours ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

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.

2025 Golden Spikes Season: .353/.480/.710, 23 homers, 14% walk rate, 9% strikeout rate.

2026: In 12 less games, .330/.475/.684, 21 homers, 13% walk rate, 13% strikeout rate, 34K/34BB/23HBP. Chase rates improved, exit velocities stayed same basically.

Higher strikeout rate, slightly worse walk rate while being avoided for a good majority of the season.

The difference is miniscule and it's all such a small sample.

20 minutes ago, Y2Jimmy0 said:

2025 Golden Spikes Season: .353/.480/.710, 23 homers, 14% walk rate, 9% strikeout rate.

2026: In 12 less games, .330/.475/.684, 21 homers, 13% walk rate, 13% strikeout rate, 34K/34BB/23HBP. Chase rates improved, exit velocities stayed same basically.

Higher strikeout rate, slightly worse walk rate while being avoided for a good majority of the season.

The difference is miniscule and it's all such a small sample.

Thanks for chiming in, James. Easy decision if you were making it? Or would you consider Emerson/Lackey?

31 minutes ago, SoxBlanco said:

Thanks for chiming in, James. Easy decision if you were making it? Or would you consider Emerson/Lackey?

Easy decision for me. I could be talked into Emerson for a discount but I think he'll cost around the same as Cholowsky.

If he’s basically going to be Robin Ventura, well, fine. People were getting themselves up for more. But, sure.

27 minutes ago, Chick Mercedes said:

If he’s basically going to be Robin Ventura, well, fine. People were getting themselves up for more. But, sure.

Robin Ventura had a better career than some guys in the Hall of Fame. That kind of turnout would be fantastic.

I wouldn’t hate it