6 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

If Keith Law thinks Jacob Gonzalez is going to be an All Star, the infield is even more crowded than we’re thinking.

Yup.. Crazy comment cuz he still isn't in my (or likely anyones) future plans. He feels more like a fun story - hope its a long story.

1 hour ago, DirtySox said:

Noteworthy Lackey questions from today's chat.

That might be what Ray Ray is referencing?

Also here's a bonus fun one.

Sounds like Law has moved Lackey up to his #1 prospect as well based on the chat? Or maybe I'm misreading?

If there really is a million+ in savings, youd be nuts to pass on lackey.

Edited 2 hours ago2 hr by Look at Ray Ray Run

10 minutes ago, Squirmin' for Yermin said:

Yup.. Crazy comment cuz he still isn't in my (or likely anyones) future plans. He feels more like a fun story - hope its a long story.

If Gonzalez hits anywhere near how he hit at Charlotte they’ll find a place for him. He is a cromulent 2b. Meidroth is not good against rhp, they could platoon. Play a few positions and DH some. A lot of options, if he hits.

27 minutes ago, Chick Mercedes said:

IDK. Using the factor into a calculus that includes how long it takes to bring up a prospect doesn’t even enter my own calculus. Strict talent evaluation only for the 1-1. It gets murkier as the draft goes along. But at the very top, take the talent without compromising.

It will factor into their calculus. Lots of uneasiness internally about ownership transfer, when it'll happen and who is safe once it does. There's pressure to win.

24 minutes ago, Quin said:

Lackey + discount is beginning to feel more tempting to me than Roch, and I still really like Roch.

I'd heard like $10 million for Cholowsky and under $9 million for Lackey weeks ago. I don't see the justification for $10 million for Roch right now though.

17 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

This prospect fatigue thing is flat out gas lighting at this point. The guy had a worse year than the year before. He plays in a non-major conference, and his carrying tool is his defense.

This is just total nonsense. You just choose to place more emphasis on a single college season; which is your right I guess. Here's a blurb from Baseball America. I generally reside here:

Cholowsky finished his career as a .329/.448/.624 hitter with 52 home runs and 41 doubles. In the last three college seasons, he’s one of just 30 players to hit at least 45 home runs. His 11.7% strikeout rate over that same time is the best mark of any hitter on that list. It’s that hit/power combination while boasting a slam-dunk shortstop profile that separates Cholowsky from most college prospects, and it’s why he remains the favorite to be the first player off the board—even if both Emerson and Lackey have compelling cases of their own.

15 minutes ago, Chick Mercedes said:

To that I’d say, there’s been a lot of water that passed under the bridge since HS. A snapshot in time for Shirley. There’s next to zero chance that has any relevance in 2026 imo

Them being interested out of high school absolutely matters. There's a track record of interest. They know the player. They know the family. They know his representation. It's a significant factor.

8 minutes ago, Squirmin' for Yermin said:

Don't forget we are getting savings on Roch anyways. @Y2Jimmy0 What do you estimate the savings from Roch to Lackey being anyways? 500K?

My guess now would be Cholowsky for like $9.5-$9.7 millionish. Probably around $9 million for Lackey.

14 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Sounds like Law has moved Lackey up to his #1 prospect as well based on the chat? Or maybe I'm misreading?

If there really is a million+ in savings, youd be nuts to pass on lackey.

There will be $1 million plus in savings regardless of who they draft.

3 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

This prospect fatigue thing is flat out gas lighting at this point. The guy had a worse year than the year before. He plays in a non-major conference, and his carrying tool is his defense.

Gaslighting? I’m a massive NFL guy and one of the best predictors of success is break-out age. Guys who show they can succeed early on in college are far more likely to be legit NFL players. I’m just saying people tend to ignore early college contributions and focus entirely on their final pre-draft season. As such, a guy like Roch who was great as a sophomore but didn’t improve in his junior year will lose some status and I would argue more than they should.

And beyond defense, Roch has elite bat to ball skills, plus power, and a plus arm. You are vastly underplaying his skill-set for reasons I don’t quite get.

2 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Gaslighting? I’m a massive NFL guy and one of the best predictors of success is break-out age. Guys who show they can succeed early on in college are far more likely to be legit NFL players. I’m just saying people tend to ignore early college contributions and focus entirely on their final pre-draft season. As such, a guy like Roch who was great as a sophomore but didn’t improve in his junior year will lose some status and I would argue more than they should.

And beyond defense, Roch has elite bat to ball skills, plus power, and a plus arm. You are vastly underplaying his skill-set for reasons I don’t quite get.

Not sure how the two are related, but in my opinion baseball is about demonstrating progress and growth, and any signs of plateu are concerning.

Roch isn't a bad prospect obviously. But he's not some guy thet could only not be #1 because of prospect fatigue. If we're going by breakout age, then Burress > Roch.

32 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

What if he can?

Are you asking what the point of my question is?

If so, my point is that even though shortstops almost always give you more flexibility, that might not be the case when comparing Lackey and Cholowsky.

But I don’t know for sure. I’m just trying to get that discussion going. Do you think Cholowsky has more positional flexibility than Lackey?

And I do understand that Lackey will likely not be moved off of catcher. But Roch will likely not be moved off of SS either. We don’t know for sure for either player, so it doesn’t hurt to discuss the idea of positional flexibility when comparing them.

4 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Gaslighting? I’m a massive NFL guy and one of the best predictors of success is break-out age. Guys who show they can succeed early on in college are far more likely to be legit NFL players. I’m just saying people tend to ignore early college contributions and focus entirely on their final pre-draft season. As such, a guy like Roch who was great as a sophomore but didn’t improve in his junior year will lose some status and I would argue more than they should.

And beyond defense, Roch has elite bat to ball skills, plus power, and a plus arm. You are vastly underplaying his skill-set for reasons I don’t quite get.

When is the last time a player got drafted 1.1 who had a better sophomore year than junior year?

I don’t necessarily disagree with your point, but I’m curious about that.

Keith Law was a big Madigral pumper. If he was a better scout he'd be a GM by now, but he's not. Take anything he says with a big grain of salt as he also has a contrarian streak.

2 minutes ago, chitownsportsfan said:

Keith Law was a big Madigral pumper. If he was a better scout he'd be a GM by now, but he's not. Take anything he says with a big grain of salt as he also has a contrarian streak.

Keith Law hated Nick Madrigal. Was the biggest detractor of his profile in the entire industry.

Don't the Roch/Emerson camps both being repped by the same agency work more to Vaughn's favor?

Also, haven't seen even one suggestion Cholowsky could or should play CF...just 2B/3B.

4 minutes ago, Y2Jimmy0 said:

Keith Law hated Nick Madrigal. Was the biggest detractor of his profile in the entire industry.

Ah I was mistaken, it was the Fangraphs guy Goldstein who now works for the Twins. Strike one for law and strike against me.

FanGraphs Baseball

Nick Madrigal Is Good. Can He Be Great?

The second baseman’s lack of secondary skills creates unique challenges for a unique player.

14 minutes ago, SoxBlanco said:

Are you asking what the point of my question is?

If so, my point is that even though shortstops almost always give you more flexibility, that might not be the case when comparing Lackey and Cholowsky.

But I don’t know for sure. I’m just trying to get that discussion going. Do you think Cholowsky has more positional flexibility than Lackey?

And I do understand that Lackey will likely not be moved off of catcher. But Roch will likely not be moved off of SS either. We don’t know for sure for either player, so it doesn’t hurt to discuss the idea of positional flexibility when comparing them.

Specifics are different than generalities. If there are specifics that make them different, it changes the equation, and it might not mean they are tied. Personally, I am not taking the guy to move him off of catcher, but I also don't want a 120-130 games a season #1 pick either.

14 minutes ago, chitownsportsfan said:

Keith Law was a big Madigral pumper. If he was a better scout he'd be a GM by now, but he's not. Take anything he says with a big grain of salt as he also has a contrarian streak.

What. Law absolutely hated Madrigal.

1 minute ago, southsider2k5 said:

Specifics are different than generalities. If there are specifics that make them different, it changes the equation, and it might not mean they are tied. Personally, I am not taking the guy to move him off of catcher, but I also don't want a 120-130 games a season #1 pick either.

Yeah, it sounds like you and James are on the same page.

Curious what @Look at Ray Ray Run thinks about this specific point. Are you fine drafting a guy who only plays 120 games? Or are you playing him somewhere else on the days he’s not catching?

Yall need to start spelling "Vahn" correctly. I don't want any Andrew Vaughn bad juju in this thread.

Edited 1 hour ago1 hr by DirtySox

38 minutes ago, Y2Jimmy0 said:

It will factor into their calculus. Lots of uneasiness internally about ownership transfer, when it'll happen and who is safe once it does. There's pressure to win.

They’re already winning..

40 minutes ago, Y2Jimmy0 said:

Them being interested out of high school absolutely matters. There's a track record of interest. They know the player. They know the family. They know his representation. It's a significant factor.

.

This is like saying they already did their homework, but the assignment has changed, and they’re submitting the homework anyway. That’s not going to work in 2026. All the options are different now. Including Roch.

38 minutes ago, SoxBlanco said:

When is the last time a player got drafted 1.1 who had a better sophomore year than junior year?

I don’t necessarily disagree with your point, but I’m curious about that.

Good question and I don’t have an answer for that of the top of my head. I would use Carlos Rodon as a great example of prospect fatigue and he should have been the 1.01 overall pick Aiken and the kid the Marlins took.

20 minutes ago, Y2Jimmy0 said:

It will factor into their calculus. Lots of uneasiness internally about ownership transfer, when it'll happen and who is safe once it does. There's pressure to win.

I'd heard like $10 million for Cholowsky and under $9 million for Lackey weeks ago. I don't see the justification for $10 million for Roch right now though.

This is just total nonsense. You just choose to place more emphasis on a single college season; which is your right I guess. Here's a blurb from Baseball America. I generally reside here:

Cholowsky finished his career as a .329/.448/.624 hitter with 52 home runs and 41 doubles. In the last three college seasons, he’s one of just 30 players to hit at least 45 home runs. His 11.7% strikeout rate over that same time is the best mark of any hitter on that list. It’s that hit/power combination while boasting a slam-dunk shortstop profile that separates Cholowsky from most college prospects, and it’s why he remains the favorite to be the first player off the board—even if both Emerson and Lackey have compelling cases of their own.

Them being interested out of high school absolutely matters. There's a track record of interest. They know the player. They know the family. They know his representation. It's a significant factor.

My guess now would be Cholowsky for like $9.5-$9.7 millionish. Probably around $9 million for Lackey.

Roch doesn't have the best numbers over the last three years of the guys projected to go in the top 10, so I'm not really sure how meaningful those numbers are for the point being made.

The Lackey narrative being pushed is that this has been somehow one year of production, which I don't think is true. In the last two years, Lackey has slashed 371/472/634 (1106 OPS) 75/76 BB/K, while Roch has slashed 337/503/674 (1177 OPS) 81/66. And while Roch has been better, if you normalize their HBP (Lackey has 18 and Roch 46!) since that's an offensive strategy reserved for Antonacci mania, and apply Roch expected stats to those AB's, then he's slashing 337/467/678 (1145 OPS). I think Lackey showed enough increase in raw and game power in 2026 to believe that the one area he was lagging behind, in slug, is closer than the two year outcome.

56 minutes ago, Y2Jimmy0 said:

There will be $1 million plus in savings regardless of who they draft.

Meant the difference between Roch and Lackey.

47 minutes ago, SoxBlanco said:

When is the last time a player got drafted 1.1 who had a better sophomore year than junior year?

I don’t necessarily disagree with your point, but I’m curious about that.

I looked this up in general and the last one was Henry Davis. I think you could have argued Gerritt Cole was the one prior to that and that worked out OK after a while!

46 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Not sure how the two are related, but in my opinion baseball is about demonstrating progress and growth, and any signs of plateu are concerning.

Roch isn't a bad prospect obviously. But he's not some guy thet could only not be #1 because of prospect fatigue. If we're going by breakout age, then Burress > Roch.

To be clear, I’m not suggesting break-out age is the end-all be-all. Maybe it matters much less in the MLB than the NFL, but I do think it’s something to consider and it does play into prospect fatigue. I mean, we’re talking about a kid who is now a Golden Spikes finalist for two years in a row…his baseline production was among the best the sport. Even with some fall-off, he’s still amongst the best in the sport with four really impressive tools. I’m 100% open to arguments that Lackey is better prospect or who we should take at 1.01, but I think the way you have framed up Roch is biased due to him having an awesome sophomore season and not fully replicating as Junior.

18 minutes ago, Chick Mercedes said:

This is like saying they already did their homework, but the assignment has changed, and they’re submitting the homework anyway. That’s not going to work in 2026. All the options are different now. Including Roch.

I find these arguments the same as the "veterans don't make a difference on a team" ones. The evidence is usually just, "Well, I don't think they do."

The established relationship wouldn't matter if Roch fundamentally changed as a draftable prospect over the last 2-3 years. He's only gotten better.