Ozzie Ball Posted January 28, 2010 Share Posted January 28, 2010 From Law's chat: bill (St. Louis) hudson's ceiling as a starter for Whitesox Klaw (1:11 PM) 4 or 5. Dan Hudson (Chicago) I need an explanation on why I didn't make your top 100. I dominated every league in existence last season! Klaw (1:12 PM) With average stuff at best. And I'm sorry, what a D1 college product did in A-ball - especially low-A - is just not that exciting. Unless he stunk, in which case, he's got one food in the discard pile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted January 28, 2010 Share Posted January 28, 2010 Is he aware that hudson moved past A ball? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiliIrishHammock24 Posted January 28, 2010 Share Posted January 28, 2010 QUOTE (Ozzie Ball @ Jan 28, 2010 -> 12:40 PM) From Law's chat: bill (St. Louis) hudson's ceiling as a starter for Whitesox Klaw (1:11 PM) 4 or 5. Dan Hudson (Chicago) I need an explanation on why I didn't make your top 100. I dominated every league in existence last season! Klaw (1:12 PM) With average stuff at best. And I'm sorry, what a D1 college product did in A-ball - especially low-A - is just not that exciting. Unless he stunk, in which case, he's got one food in the discard pile. So he does not like Hudson because Hudson only did well in A-ball, and not great, even though he did great in AA and decent in AAA?? I don't follow. Would he rather have had Hudson dominate A-ball and then suck as he moved up the ranks? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted January 28, 2010 Share Posted January 28, 2010 QUOTE (Ozzie Ball @ Jan 28, 2010 -> 09:04 AM) I'm not sure how you're defning valuable but a stats guy would argue that Vazquez was the better pitcher overall last year: 2.77 FIP to Wainwrights 3.11 2.82 xFIP to 3.36 3.62 tRA* to 3.82 6.6 WAR to 5.7 Perhaps you consider those stats "domination" stats, which would b a fair point to make. But then it gets down to preventing a player from winning the CY Young just because his team couldn't field, which some might say is unfair. I was mainly just using his raw ERA over the amount of innings. I'm not discounting Vazquez at all, and he was fantastic last season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scenario Posted January 28, 2010 Share Posted January 28, 2010 QUOTE (Ozzie Ball @ Jan 28, 2010 -> 12:40 PM) From Law's chat: bill (St. Louis) hudson's ceiling as a starter for Whitesox Klaw (1:11 PM) 4 or 5. Dan Hudson (Chicago) I need an explanation on why I didn't make your top 100. I dominated every league in existence last season! Klaw (1:12 PM) With average stuff at best. And I'm sorry, what a D1 college product did in A-ball - especially low-A - is just not that exciting. Unless he stunk, in which case, he's got one food in the discard pile. Absolutely classic. Hudson pitched a total of 22 innings in low-A ball last year. Meanwhile, he went 7-0 with a 1.60 ERA in the very talented Southern League (AA)... with a K/9 of 10.1 and BB/9 of 1.6... Before his promotion to AAA where he pitched more innings than he did in low-A. Geezus, Law... do a little research before you open your mouth and insert both feet in it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 28, 2010 Share Posted January 28, 2010 I don't know that I have seen anyone that low on Hudson. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
False Alarm Posted January 28, 2010 Share Posted January 28, 2010 (edited) QUOTE (Ozzie Ball @ Jan 28, 2010 -> 06:40 PM) Klaw (1:12 PM) With average stuff at best. And I'm sorry, what a D1 college product did in A-ball - especially low-A - is just not that exciting. Unless he stunk, in which case, he's got one food in the discard pile. Edited January 28, 2010 by False Alarm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quin Posted January 28, 2010 Share Posted January 28, 2010 QUOTE (Ozzie Ball @ Jan 28, 2010 -> 12:40 PM) Klaw (1:12 PM) With average stuff at best. And I'm sorry, what a D1 college product did in A-ball - especially low-A - is just not that exciting. Unless he stunk, in which case, he's got one food in the discard pile. Only Low-A counts. High-A, AA, AAA, and the MLB are irrelevant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted January 28, 2010 Share Posted January 28, 2010 QUOTE (danman31 @ Jan 27, 2010 -> 10:12 PM) Hagadone is a 24 yo (just turned 24) with TJS under his belt and 2 starts above low-A ball. He Ks guys, but he has walked 4.5/9 in his MiLB career. That's pretty harsh to put Hudson behind that resume. They messed up this list pretty good, imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danman31 Posted January 29, 2010 Share Posted January 29, 2010 Fanhouse puts Sox at 23. Probably more realistic than dead last. Again, not that these things matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiliIrishHammock24 Posted January 29, 2010 Share Posted January 29, 2010 QUOTE (danman31 @ Jan 28, 2010 -> 06:08 PM) Fanhouse puts Sox at 23. Probably more realistic than dead last. Again, not that these things matter. And SI as #26 i think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danman31 Posted January 29, 2010 Share Posted January 29, 2010 QUOTE (JoeCoolMan24 @ Jan 28, 2010 -> 07:55 PM) And SI as #26 i think. The Sox were in the 16-25 range. They didn't rank each team. They ranked the top 5, bottom 5 and separated the remaining 20 into 2 tiers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 29, 2010 Share Posted January 29, 2010 Here's at least an interesting rejoinder from the Sox. You think the White Sox are worried? Hardly. They point to a .546 winning percentage for their six minor-league teams -- third best among major-league teams -- and their happiness with drafts in 2008 (Beckham, Daniel Hudson, Jordan Danks, Brent Morel and Charlie Leesman) and 2009 (Jared Mitchell, Josh Phegley, David Holmberg, Trayce Thompson and Kyle Bellamy) as reasons for optimism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted January 29, 2010 Share Posted January 29, 2010 Well, its clearly a difference from 2 years ago, where our best prospects could be marginal players. Now we have 5-6 that could be starters and maybe a topline starter. The depth will take some time to build. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 (edited) QUOTE (scenario @ Jan 28, 2010 -> 07:42 AM) If SD had the same impression about the Sox prospects as Keith Law, there would have pretty much been zero chance Jake Peavy would have ever become a White Sox. Not true. They wanted financial relief. Gonzalez makes $5 million a year the next 2 seasons. They want premium prospects. There's no question in my mind Law has some grudge against KW and/or the White Sox organization in some way, and despite his Harvard education, and his baseball acumen, at least the acumen he professes to own, there's probably several good reasons why he's writing a blog instead of running a team. What I do find troubling, however, is many other scouts seem to share his opinion on guys like Viciedo and Jordan Danks. It really means crap just like a scout calling them future HOFers means crap at this time. It just makes you wonder, and you do know one thing, if Big Papi is struggling, the Red Sox are going to go hard after Gonzalez, and the SD GM knows their system very well. If it comes down to a prospect bidding war for his services, chances are the wrong color Sox will win. Edited January 31, 2010 by Dick Allen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 31, 2010 -> 11:33 AM) Not true. They wanted financial relief. Gonzalez makes $5 million a year the next 2 seasons. They want premium prospects. There's no question in my mind Law has some grudge against KW and/or the White Sox organization in some way, and despite his Harvard education, and his baseball acumen, at least the acumen he professes to own, there's probably several good reasons why he's writing a blog instead of running a team. What I do find troubling, however, is many other scouts seem to share his opinion on guys like Viciedo and Jordan Danks. It really means crap just like a scout calling them future HOFers means crap at this time. It just makes you wonder, and you do know one thing, if Big Papi is struggling, the Red Sox are going to go hard after Gonzalez, and the SD GM knows their system very well. If it comes down to a prospect bidding war for his services, chances are the wrong color Sox will win. If it comes down to a bidding war between the Sox and Red Sox, the Sox have no chance. If Williams is to make a move like that, he would need to make his move very early in the season before Boston even gets a chance, and even then Hoyer may give Boston a chance to top it anyways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 31, 2010 -> 12:46 PM) If it comes down to a bidding war between the Sox and Red Sox, the Sox have no chance. If Williams is to make a move like that, he would need to make his move very early in the season before Boston even gets a chance, and even then Hoyer may give Boston a chance to top it anyways. The one caveat to all this is that I would be willing to bet Hoyer would either 1) rather avoid trading Gonzalez to the Red Sox; or 2) ask for more in return from the Red Sox than another potential suitor. He knows if he deals AGon to the Red Sox, the deal will be even more closely inspected than will already be the case (because he is trading his young superstar). He knows there would be more pressure on him to guess right on the Boston prospects because of his history there. He also will obviously not wish to be accused of playing favorites or of collusion should he deal with Boston. My guess is he would rather take a package of our youngsters over a package of Boston's, unless the Boston package was significantly richer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 I don't think he's going to care much about the politics of dealing Gonzalez so much as he cares about the prospects he gets back. From everything I've heard, Westmoreland and Kelly are basically can't miss prospects (we really only have one player who could turn into a can't miss prospect at this point in Mitchell), and I've heard good things about Reddick and Anderson as well, and they could honestly deal Buccholz is they really wanted to as well. The one advantage the Sox might have is their two tradeable prospects up the middle in Flowers and Danks, especially Flowers. It's not easy to find a catcher with that type of offensive ability, so he is very, very valuable. From what docsox mentioned in a post somewhere, the Sox apparently have an offer on the table for Gonzalez of Flowers, Danks, and Hudson, but they don't want to do it. I imagine it's because the Sox are in absolute love with Flowers, and with Pierzynski's contract expiring this year, it makes some sense that they'll probably put Flowers into the catcher's role in 2011. I also imagine there's quite a bit of love for Hudson too, but I don't think Williams is afraid to trade a pitcher. I read an article in a Baseball Prospectus book that pitching prospects flameout about 67% of the time, while hitting prospects are generally around 40-50% of the time. I see that, and then look to Brandon McCarthy, who had a similar progression during the 2004 season though not nearly as dominant as Hudson's was, and how he looked great when he came up in 2005. I'm rambling now, but the point is that, from what I gather, Flowers is the main piece in the entire deal and could be the difference between Gonzalez joining the White Sox, the Red Sox, or staying in San Diego, and that I really don't think it's anyone else in the entire system (other than Beckham, who's obviously not going anywhere). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quin Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 31, 2010 -> 01:42 PM) I don't think he's going to care much about the politics of dealing Gonzalez so much as he cares about the prospects he gets back. From everything I've heard, Westmoreland and Kelly are basically can't miss prospects (we really only have one player who could turn into a can't miss prospect at this point in Mitchell) Can't we PTBNL Mitchell at this point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Jan 31, 2010 -> 02:08 PM) Can't we PTBNL Mitchell at this point? I believe so. THey can be traded a year after the draft, and a PTBNL has to be names within six months IIRC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quin Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 31, 2010 -> 04:15 PM) I believe so. THey can be traded a year after the draft, and a PTBNL has to be names within six months IIRC. I like Mitchell, but let's PTBNL him. I could see Flowers, Hudson, Mitchell, Viciedo + other (Torres and Santos?) working. And it would let you retain D2, Morel, Retherford, and Phegley. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted February 1, 2010 Share Posted February 1, 2010 Maybe I'm just overrating him, but unless it's a move that keeps me competitive for 3+ years and is just too good to turn down, I don't deal Flowers at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stocking Posted February 1, 2010 Share Posted February 1, 2010 Ben (Lincoln, NE) Was Jordan Danks anywhere near your top 100? Or is he not as viable an OF option as I was led to believe? Klaw (1:49 PM) I'm not a fan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted February 1, 2010 Share Posted February 1, 2010 QUOTE (Stocking @ Jan 31, 2010 -> 08:39 PM) Ben (Lincoln, NE) Was Jordan Danks anywhere near your top 100? Or is he not as viable an OF option as I was led to believe? Klaw (1:49 PM) I'm not a fan. Sweet response Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quin Posted February 1, 2010 Share Posted February 1, 2010 Keith Law, what's your opinion of Gordon Beckham? Klaw: He didn't win the College World Series. He won't translate to the majors Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.