Says Keith Law. While Keith Law certainly isn't a big White Sox fan, I find it hard to argue against this one. Even the Astros have jumped ahead of them. Here's hoping for a decent 2010 draft class.

 

http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/insider/col...%26id%3d4861174

 

30. Chicago White Sox

They don't spend money in the draft, they don't spend much in Latin America except for Cuban free agents who might be closer to the big leagues, they've been quick to trade prospects for major league value when they were contending, and their first overall pick from 2008, future star Gordon Beckham, is already ineligible for this list (one of only two first-rounders from 2008 to do so).

 

They did take on a little more risk than usual with their first draft pick in 2009, outfielder Jared Mitchell, a high-ceiling, two-sport college player, who is probably their best shot at getting an impact player from anyone in their system right now.

Yawn.

 

Two words discredited the entire analysis for me...

 

Keith. Law.

 

 

Sox system has fallen back a bit in the past year, so I'd say they are no longer top half. But #30 is a joke, and its Keith Law, so take it with a gigantic grain of salt.

 

One thing I think I disagree with, is about pitching depth. I think the higher levels seriously lack in that, other than Hudson. But look at what we saw in A- and A+ last year, and how good those pitching staffs were - I think there is a lot of talent there, and a few of them will break out in 2010 in A+ and AA. That's my read.

 

Check out this FS piece about the 2009 Kanny pitching staff, to see what I mean.

 

Sox system has fallen back a bit in the past year, so I'd say they are no longer top half. But #30 is a joke, and its Keith Law, so take it with a gigantic grain of salt.

 

 

^^^^

 

Thank you.

 

It gags me how far Law has his nose buried up Mark Shapiro's a**. Law slobbers all over Carlos Santana of the Tribe, and basically discounts Tyler Flowers as a potential impact player. Flowers is only 3 months older than Santana... has major league offensive tools... was named top defensive catcher in the Southern League last year... AND had a better season while playing in a pitcher's ballpark in 2009.

 

And the fact that Law had nothing good to say about the prospects we traded when we had them makes his comments about trading away all of our talent and depth disingenuous at best.

 

 

 

Rankings beyond a certain point are subjective. Can anyone really say it's anything other than personal opinion when separating the #18 farm team with the 25th ranked team? At that level, it may be the difference in one or two A level players.

 

However, if two years go pass from here and we can only look at Gordon Beckham as a contributing player, then something drastic needs to happen. Not with the top, but the people doing the actual scouting. If you can't find contributing players with a safe or high risk/high reward philosophy, then what good are you?

 

There should already be an overall in our Latin American scouting, but I'm tired of debating that. It's obvious we're paying those people to be on vacation. No one has done anything of note in ten years. May as well scrap the entire operation and put it towards the major league draft.

Edited January 27, 201016 yr by Flash Tizzle

However, if two years go pass from here and we can only look at Gordon Beckham as a contributing player, then something drastic needs to happen. Not with the top, but the people doing the actual scouting. If you can't find contributing players with a safe or high risk/high reward philosophy, then what good are you?

What happens if they're traded?

Sox system has fallen back a bit in the past year, so I'd say they are no longer top half. But #30 is a joke, and its Keith Law, so take it with a gigantic grain of salt.

 

One thing I think I disagree with, is about pitching depth. I think the higher levels seriously lack in that, other than Hudson. But look at what we saw in A- and A+ last year, and how good those pitching staffs were - I think there is a lot of talent there, and a few of them will break out in 2010 in A+ and AA. That's my read.

 

Check out this FS piece about the 2009 Kanny pitching staff, to see what I mean.

 

Wait, you thought the Sox system was top half a year ago?

 

At this point, while the Sox do have some talent in the system, besides Beckham it really hasn't amounted to anything. I think people don't realize how much talent there is in other systems.

Edited January 27, 201016 yr by chunk23

There should already be an overall in our Latin American scouting, but I'm tired of debating that. It's obvious we're paying those people to be on vacation. No one has done anything of note in ten years. May as well scrap the entire operation and put it towards the major league draft.

 

That was one of the topics at SoxFest.

 

The Sox announced new strategies, etc., for Latin America... which has basically been on hold since the Wilder fiasco.

 

 

I think people don't realize how much talent there is in other systems.

 

Indeed. This is key. I don't think I can name more than 3 or 4 teams I wouldn't trade systems with.

Indeed. This is key. I don't think I can name more than 3 or 4 teams I wouldn't trade systems with.

John Manuel of BA put us in the 16-25 range and said it's splitting hairs where you put people there.

What happens if they're traded?

If they're traded for quality major league players, like Clayton Richard was for Peavy, then I'm fine with it.

 

And I know where this is going, with us acquiring Garcia, Floyd, Vazquez, Swisher with highly regarded prospects who have yet to amount to anything.

 

Personally, I'm more of the opinion of developing the best talent for the purpose of building within. So, instead of having to trick some GM into taking our crap, and then paying 8+ million for the veteran in return, we can fill a position for league minimum. I'm sure no one enters the draft room thinking they're going to draft someone that one day will be traded for a backup catcher, but not devoting enough money to the draft, religiously following slot recommendations, avoiding players with certain clients, or failing to sign a highly regarded prospect because they're off on 100,000 needs to end. There is a reason teams like the Yankees and Red Sox are rarely below #10 in overall rankings. Even if their prospects are hyped (which they are), and ultimately fail (as many of ours do), they still put the effort into it. No, we're never going to have the funds they have; but there should be NO reason teams like Minnesota continue to run circles around us. And it's been like this for a long time. Something is obviously wrong with our personnel.

Edited January 27, 201016 yr by Flash Tizzle

If they're traded for quality major league players, like Clayton Richard was for Peavy, then I'm fine with it.

And I know where this is going, with us acquiring Garcia, Floyd, Vazquez, Swisher with highly regarded prospects who have yet to amount to anything.

 

Personally, I'm more of the opinion of developing the best talent for the purpose of building within. So, instead of having to trick some GM into taking our crap, and then paying 8+ million for the veteran in return, we can fill a position for league minimum. I'm sure no one enters the draft room thinking they're going to draft someone that one day will be traded for a backup catcher, but not devoting enough money to the draft, religiously following slot recommendations, avoiding players with certain clients, or failing to sign a highly regarded prospect because they're off on 100,000 needs to end. There is a reason teams like the Yankees and Red Sox are always among the top of the list on any prospect rankings. Even if they're prospects are hyped (which they are), and ultimately fail (as many of ours do), they still put the effort into it. No, we're never going to have the funds they have; but there should be NO reason teams like Minnesota continue to run circles around us. And it's been like this for a long time. Something is obviously wrong with our personnel.

 

This where I am at. To me, even if we aren't getting production out of minor leagues directly, if we are getting major league players from them, it makes it passable for me.

If they're traded for quality major league players, like Clayton Richard was for Peavy, then I'm fine with it.

 

And I know where this is going, with us acquiring Garcia, Floyd, Vazquez, Swisher with highly regarded prospects who have yet to amount to anything.

 

Personally, I'm more of the opinion of developing the best talent for the purpose of building within. So, instead of having to trick some GM into taking our crap, and then paying 8+ million for the veteran in return, we can fill a position for league minimum. I'm sure no one enters the draft room thinking they're going to draft someone that one day will be traded for a backup catcher, but not devoting enough money to the draft, religiously following slot recommendations, avoiding players with certain clients, or failing to sign a highly regarded prospect because they're off on 100,000 needs to end. There is a reason teams like the Yankees and Red Sox are rarely below #10 in overall rankings. Even if their prospects are hyped (which they are), and ultimately fail (as many of ours do), they still put the effort into it. No, we're never going to have the funds they have; but there should be NO reason teams like Minnesota continue to run circles around us. And it's been like this for a long time. Something is obviously wrong with our personnel.

Agreed.

 

I strongly believe that if you spend and extra 3-5 million a year in the draft your farm system will be so much stronger, and your flexibility in terms of trading is that much greater. I look at it that if you dont sign a Juan Uribe or some similar player for your bench than you can devote that money towards the draft and produce atleast one more big time prospect that you either trade or keep on to depending on your needs. And if your investing that much more you tend to have alot more than one extra prospect each draft, many times you can steal 3-5 if your motivated in buying prospects.

I still can't believe we got Peavy for 0 A-list prospects. Perhaps Poreda was closest but not after it seemed obvious he was a reliever with one plus pitch.

^^^^

 

Thank you.

 

It gags me how far Law has his nose buried up Mark Shapiro's a**. Law slobbers all over Carlos Santana of the Tribe, and basically discounts Tyler Flowers as a potential impact player. Flowers is only 3 months older than Santana... has major league offensive tools... was named top defensive catcher in the Southern League last year... AND had a better season while playing in a pitcher's ballpark in 2009.

 

And the fact that Law had nothing good to say about the prospects we traded when we had them makes his comments about trading away all of our talent and depth disingenuous at best.

Law thinks higher of Flowers than just about any other publication out there from what i've seen

I still can't believe we got Peavy for 0 A-list prospects. Perhaps Poreda was closest but not after it seemed obvious he was a reliever with one plus pitch.

Yeah. I loved the deal then, still love it now.

Law thinks higher of Flowers than just about any other publication out there from what i've seen

Sickels really digs him too, and Bill James' projecting system is in love with the kid.

Maybe Flowers is better than Napoli. Maybe a better comparison is Mickey Tettleton. Not that Tettleton produced right away (he didn't have a good full season till the age of 28 and wasn't a great player until he hit 30), but the numbers are very good.

Wait, you thought the Sox system was top half a year ago?

 

At this point, while the Sox do have some talent in the system, besides Beckham it really hasn't amounted to anything. I think people don't realize how much talent there is in other systems.

I think at one point, I'd have said 10-15, yeah. I'm more inclined to go 20-ish now. And I don't claim to be a huge expert, its obviously some guess work on my part, from what little I know.

 

 

Law thinks higher of Flowers than just about any other publication out there from what i've seen

 

Yet says that Mitchell is the only potential impact player in the Sox organization...

 

 

 

I lost respect for Keith Law when he suggested that for Halloween that someone just put a black shirt on and swing a bat around aimlessly, and that was Alexei Ramirez. And he said this Oct of 2008, when Alexei was hitting about .300 and contending for R.O.Y.

 

Here it is...

 

"Bobby (Detroit): You should be Alexei Ramirez for Halloween

 

SportsNation Keith Law: (1:35 PM ET ) Too easy. Walk around in a black shirt, swinging a baseball bat around but never hitting anything."

Edited January 27, 201016 yr by JoeCoolMan24

I think at one point, I'd have said 10-15, yeah. I'm more inclined to go 20-ish now. And I don't claim to be a huge expert, its obviously some guess work on my part, from what little I know.

 

The Sox have had a pretty poor system for a while now, mostly due to terrible terrible drafting. It had a tandem of cheap signings and poor scouting. KW has been lucky that he's been able to trade most of the crap for actual talent, but honestly, it looks like a few of the spects will pan out (Sweeney, Gonzalez[terrible era but really strong periphs], Cortes to name a few). I felt that the farm last year was the exact same as this year; one or two very good prospects and then not much of anything. As I said, there's certainly some talent, but most teams have a lot more depth to their systems. The Sox need to keep going for upside and take more risks to build a sustainable team. That also includes not trading every single prospect. If the Sox need a bat at the deadline, the system will likely again be barren.

Edited January 27, 201016 yr by chunk23

half the time, prospects dont amount to what theyre expected to anyways(such as all the busts the sox have had, alex gordon,delmon young,etc). u do need young talent (such as beckham)but theyre there to be traded to help your team too. if we didnt get garcia then we dont win the w.s. and what did those 3 prospects we traded turn out to be? busts.

Edited January 27, 201016 yr by Melissa1334

half the time, prospects dont amount to what theyre expected to anyways(such as all the busts the sox have had, alex gordon,delmon young,etc). u do need young talent (such as beckham)but theyre there to be traded to help your team too. if we didnt get garcia then we dont win the w.s. and what did those 3 prospects we traded turn out to be? busts.

 

Miguel Olivo's been a pretty decent catcher throughout his career, and Mike Morse wasn't anything more than a throw-in. Jeremy Reed has been a monumental bust though. For a guy who I once saw compared to Tony Gwynn and then later a simple Mark Kotsay type player, he has been pretty horrendous.

Miguel Olivo's been a pretty decent catcher throughout his career, and Mike Morse wasn't anything more than a throw-in. Jeremy Reed has been a monumental bust though. For a guy who I once saw compared to Tony Gwynn and then later a simple Mark Kotsay type player, he has been pretty horrendous.

thats my point, if you have a chance to get a really good player you should. like if we could get gonzalez even for hudson, flowers and danks2 and maybe someone else, i wouldnt mind too much because although they all seem like very , very legit prospects, you just never know what can happen. ive seen too many busts