http://m.whitesox.mlb.com/news/article/113...s-of-2014-draft

Had to change that link caulfield(it was broken), just giving you a heads up why it was edited

They really need to hit at #8 since we lost the other picks. I have faith that they will do so as well.

They really need to hit at #8 since we lost the other picks. I have faith that they will do so as well.

 

the right pick now, would really solidify the farm. pitching or hitting???? which to pick.

the right pick now, would really solidify the farm. pitching or hitting???? which to pick.

They can use some pitching, but always take the best player on your board, no matter what sport. See Trailblazers, Portland, Bowie, Sam.

Edited March 20, 201511 yr by Dick Allen

They can use some pitching, but always take the best player on your board, no matter what sport. See Trailblazers, Portland, Bowie, Sam.

 

 

i know you and i had a slight disagreement on that philosophy with the rebuilding of the team. but now, the main players are or may be off the board. so i still would draft for specific needs b/c this team is in a quasi state or almost being close.

 

one of the sox earlier GM said this and it has always been stated in different way, you can never go wrong with pitching.

 

but there are some really nice positional players that can or may help quicker than org thought.

For first pick, gotta be BPA.

 

As for later in the draft going for depth and/or roll-the-dice picks, the system is much stronger on pitching right now so that is less of a need. Need some catchers with starter ceiling/upside (even if high risk), and position players. But you don't start playing that game until later in the draft, like outside the top 10 usually.

 

Isn't it a little too early to declare the 2014 draft a success?? They have received all of zero major league innings played.

Isn't it a little too early to declare the 2014 draft a success?? They have received all of zero major league innings played.

 

good point, so for a rhetorical side, you only consider a draft yr a success based on results, meaning making the team.

 

i can see that, i would, for me, like to think a draft yr is a success, if it put viable prospects in the system that can develop in a everyday player.

For first pick, gotta be BPA.

 

As for later in the draft going for depth and/or roll-the-dice picks, the system is much stronger on pitching right now so that is less of a need. Need some catchers with starter ceiling/upside (even if high risk), and position players. But you don't start playing that game until later in the draft, like outside the top 10 usually.

 

you and many poster who have stated this, is correct. pls don not get me wrong, but if the system is fully stacked with prospects, then yes. but this system is not, so the best options, getting players who can make the majors quicker and who can help the parent team quickly, esp if that player is being drafted b/c of, let say, a position that is needed.

They can use some pitching, but always take the best player on your board, no matter what sport. See Trailblazers, Portland, Bowie, Sam.

 

 

Completely agree, that's how you build dynasties (And great farm systems).

you and many poster who have stated this, is correct. pls don not get me wrong, but if the system is fully stacked with prospects, then yes. but this system is not, so the best options, getting players who can make the majors quicker and who can help the parent team quickly, esp if that player is being drafted b/c of, let say, a position that is needed.

 

if you draft by need your system isn't getting better, and your window isn't opening any wider. But if your system is lacking talent (The Sox are still behind the curve when it comes to position players), you HAVE to draft the best player available. If you draft by need, your team actually being worst and your window closes even faster.

 

How different would the conversation around the Cubs be if they drafted Jon Gray over Kris Bryant? How different would the Sox be if they drafted Mike Trout over Jared Mitchell?

 

 

if you draft by need your system isn't getting better, and your window isn't opening any wider. But if your system is lacking talent (The Sox are still behind the curve when it comes to position players), you HAVE to draft the best player available. If you draft by need, your team actually being worst and your window closes even faster.

 

How different would the conversation around the Cubs be if they drafted Jon Gray over Kris Bryant? How different would the Sox be if they drafted Mike Trout over Jared Mitchell?

 

bpa, ok, i can see that, but when 2 players being equal, and 2 different position, it has to be graded on a different scale.

 

now with the sox at this time, the team is really closed with a couple of expiring contracts, esp at the SS position. Alexia contract is expiring when, a yr. we all are assuming Anderson is the next one. but it is still not guarantee. a couple of SS who are really good in college. the main pitchers are off the board, do the sox forgo the better player who may be a outfielder and draft a SS who is really good, a close 2nd to the outfielder.

 

or do the sox go the fa rt b/c they took the bpa.

Completely agree, that's how you build dynasties (And great farm systems).

 

they how can you address the parent team when you are trying to build the dynasty, unless you use those players in a trade for a needed position.

bpa, ok, i can see that, but when 2 players being equal, and 2 different position, it has to be graded on a different scale.

 

now with the sox at this time, the team is really closed with a couple of expiring contracts, esp at the SS position. Alexia contract is expiring when, a yr. we all are assuming Anderson is the next one. but it is still not guarantee. a couple of SS who are really good in college. the main pitchers are off the board, do the sox forgo the better player who may be a outfielder and draft a SS who is really good, a close 2nd to the outfielder.

 

or do the sox go the fa rt b/c they took the bpa.

 

You take BPA because you don't know what will happen within the ~3/4/5/6 years it takes the player to develop. A player that isn't thought of much in the organization can blow up, or a simple small FA signing can become extremely useful.

Just thinking out of the box here... if Brady Aiken is available at 8, and ends up having TJ surgery, do you draft him hoping to bring that arm in underslot?

Just thinking out of the box here... if Brady Aiken is available at 8, and ends up having TJ surgery, do you draft him hoping to bring that arm in underslot?

 

 

Absolutely. I posted this same thought in the 2015 Draft thread. I'd probably even give an injured Aiken slot at #8.

Depends on the likelihood of a repair actually taking...not quite like Giolito situation, or Hoffman.

Brady Aiken isn't hurt. He just has a small ligament.

Edited March 21, 201511 yr by Dick Allen

Brady Aiken isn't hurt. He just has a small ligament.

He was removed from his first start at Juco with arm tightness

Brady Aiken isn't hurt. He just has a small ligament.

 

 

But being pulled from a game is never a good sign.

 

http://www.baseballamerica.com/draft/brady...es-start-early/

 

http://www.baseballamerica.com/draft/back-...s-kolby-allard/

Allard out for 6-8 weeks, back.

 

 

 

 

Brady Aiken isn't hurt. He just has a small ligament.

 

That's what she said

Yeah you always take BPA over need. Drafting for need can get a team in trouble.

But being pulled from a game is never a good sign.

 

http://www.baseballamerica.com/draft/brady...es-start-early/

 

http://www.baseballamerica.com/draft/back-...s-kolby-allard/

Allard out for 6-8 weeks, back.

 

Certainly sounds like a torn ucl.

 

Rough, was certainly hoping this didn't happen because I still think it's ridiculous how the Astros treated the whole situation.

Certainly sounds like a torn ucl.

 

Rough, was certainly hoping this didn't happen because I still think it's ridiculous how the Astros treated the whole situation.

Was there an update on this? Supposedly he said his arm was tight. If it was a UCL, I would think he would have described it differently.