Baseball America's SAL Top 20 Prospects List

by The Wizard on Oct 1, 2007 1:07 PM CDT in Minors

1. Desmond Jennings, of, Columbus (Devil Rays)
2. Hector Gomez, ss, Asheville (Rockies)
3. Fautino de los Santos, rhp, Kannapolis (White Sox)
4. Lars Anderson, 1b, Greenville (Red Sox)
5. Chris Marrero, of, Hagerstown (Nationals)
6. Jordan Schafer, of, Rome (Braves)
7. Henry Sosa, rhp, Augusta (Giants)
8. Jeremy Hellickson, rhp, Columbus (Devil Rays)
9. Ryan Royster, of, Columbus (Devil Rays)
10. Chris Carter, 1b, Kannapolis (White Sox)
11. Chris Coghlan, 2b, Greensboro (Marlins)
12. John Raynor, of, Greensboro (Marlins)
13. Adrian Cardenas, ss, Lakewood (Phillies)
14. Tommy Hanson, rhp, Rome (Braves)
15. Brandon Snyder, 1b, Delmarva (Orioles)
16. Jared Goedert, 3b, Lake County (Indians)
17. Daniel Mayora, ss, Asheville (Rockies)
18. Justin Maxwell, of, Hagerstown (Nationals)
19. Josh Reddick, of, Greenville (Red Sox)
20. Billy Rowell, 3b, Delmarva (Orioles)

Batting and pitching stats for the SAL league. Kannapolis stats.

And MiLB.com has an organizational review for the Sox. Here's the part on Chris Carter (pictured above):

Although Shelby had the second-highest batting average among full-season Chicago farmhands (Jason Bourgeois hit .306 at Triple-A Charlotte), Chris Carter did everything he was supposed to this season and gets the player of the year kudos from this party. The 20-year-old slugger hit .291 at Kannapolis, led the organization with 25 homers and tied teammate Brandon Allen for tops with 93 RBIs. What was more impressive was the fact that Carter began to show some of the plate discipline the team had hoped to see. He struck out every 3.4 at-bats in 2006, but saw that average improve to a whiff every 4.1 at-bats this year. Carter drew 67 walks and despite playing in a full-season environment for the first time, remained consistent in the second half of the year, hitting .276 after the break.

0 recs | Comment 81 comments

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

What were BA's comments on

de los Santos and Carter?

by ballyb on Oct 1, 2007 1:11 PM CDT 0 recs

Jebus

Colorado has some shortstops.

A toolsy one ranked ahead of DLS
Another older, less-toolsy, but more productive one in the same league.
Chris Nelson in high-A, who had perhaps the best second half of any prospect in baseball, somethign like 50 extra-base hits.

Oh and that Tulo kid was alright too.

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Oct 1, 2007 1:42 PM CDT 0 recs

And Tampa has some OF's

When does the Hot Stove League begin? October 2? Let's start dealing with the Rox/Rays! I think both need starting pitching. And I'm sure they'd LOVE MacD/Booook/Boooone/etc. in the pen.

Gentlemen, start your engines...

Wait until 2010!

by winningugly on Oct 1, 2007 1:48 PM CDT up 0 recs

maybe a certain ex-sox pitcher

will do well tonight and they'll want to invest in other ex-sox pitchers. in exchange for a SS, of course.

by larry on Oct 1, 2007 1:48 PM CDT up 0 recs

Problem is

I don't think you can even count on Nelson for the 90-loss '09 season. And the other two are a level behind him.

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Oct 1, 2007 2:08 PM CDT up 0 recs

well, cheat

i've now come to believe that we're not going to be competing until 2010. maybe. so perhaps KW will make at least one move to bolster our farm system? i know. fat chance.

by larry on Oct 1, 2007 2:11 PM CDT up 0 recs

I have to say

that you guys are extremely well adjusted adults. Looking to 2008 and 2009 and maybe also 2010 as debacles and not confident that our GM can make even marginal improvements and be able to take it so calmly. Very impressive. I'm jealous.

by ballyb on Oct 1, 2007 2:35 PM CDT up 0 recs

When you know that the team is going to suck

it makes it easier not to buy tickets. Now we have more time to be productive people too, well I guess we can find something to do with that time.

Theres alway 2010.

by omnipotent grab on Oct 1, 2007 2:40 PM CDT up 0 recs

lol

you're a witty guy, bally.

it's just a game. i worry about the things that actually have more than a marginal effect on my life.

by larry on Oct 1, 2007 2:43 PM CDT up 0 recs

A failure...

can be as interesting in its own way as a success.

Success is more fun, of course, but getting upset over failure doesn't make the failure go away.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Oct 1, 2007 2:46 PM CDT up 0 recs

it's all interesting to me

i said it in may when people were calling this team "boring." as you imply, you can learn about as much - if not more - from failure as you can from success.

by larry on Oct 1, 2007 2:50 PM CDT up 0 recs

I feel more fortunate than those of you

who buy tickets - I hate to pay for failure, even though it is a necessary step in the hierarchy of success.

It isn't IF you fail, it's how you recover from failure that tells what kind of a man you are, my son. And that, too, is very interesting.

Thus, it should be a very interesting off-season (that began today).

Wait until 2010!

by winningugly on Oct 1, 2007 3:41 PM CDT up 0 recs

I'm not ruling out

a respectable, or even winning season in '08.

The starting rotation (MB, JV, JonG, and two of the young guys) should be alright. They should get better production out of 3B, SS, LF, and CF next year.

They ranked 29th of 30 in OPS from their 3B
They ranked 23rd in OPS (29th in OBP) from their SS
They ranked 24th in OPS from their LFers
They ranked 30th by a wide margin in OPS from their CFers

Surely it can't be hard to improve on that...
Add in a rebound year for Pauly and JD and you've got yourself something good.

The problem is, I can't see the '09-'10 teams being any good with the old players brought in to fill those gaping holes, and the probable decline of the team's core.

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Oct 1, 2007 3:01 PM CDT up 0 recs

Yup.

I'd say things are shaping up to somewhere between 75-85 wins next year, with diminishing returns after that.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Oct 1, 2007 3:06 PM CDT up 0 recs

i'm not either

what i'm ruling out is a competitive season. 80-83 wins - about where i'd put this team based on what i know/think about it next year - isn't competitive in our division (at least how i define competitive).

by larry on Oct 1, 2007 3:07 PM CDT up 0 recs

Question:

You have decided that the immediate future isn't so bright, and you will now embark on a moderate-long-term rebuilding plan. How does that plan look different in terms of offseason transactions vs. a verbalized plan of "we're trying to win now with a keen eye toward our future well-being, as well."

by dantesox on Oct 1, 2007 4:16 PM CDT up 0 recs

well

i'd quit re-signing guys who are over 30 to start.

i'd dump salary in exchange for young players to replenish the system. i imagine the difference would be that i wouldn't be married to getting guys who can help the team in 2008 - i'd be willing to take guys a bit lower in the development chain (who, of course, would have a higher upside but more risk).

in addition to the salary dumping of the big contracts, i'd also avoid the pods/erstad/myers type contracts which look like low amounts of money with little long-term commitment but also take money away from player development, i.e. signing bonuses for picks and overseas signings/development. instead, use those roster spots for owens, gonzalez, and egbert (or equivalent cheap players). the production is probably not much worse but that's balanced by the savings.

by larry on Oct 1, 2007 4:26 PM CDT up 0 recs

That's not a bad answer...

but what does that mean in real life? Does going that route ensure future success? Might not that be even riskier than the verbalized way? Perhaps that long range rebuliding plan isn't the safest way to go UNTIL you have a more favorable outlook in the minor league system....and maybe that happens over the next 3 or so years....via upgraded scouting and development....is it possible KW has thought it through and decided the way he's doing it has the most favorable chance for both short and long term success?

by dantesox on Oct 1, 2007 4:35 PM CDT up 0 recs

P.S.

I am not in love with Kenny.

by dantesox on Oct 1, 2007 4:37 PM CDT up 0 recs

let me just preface this by saying

i don't think KW is an idiot who is out there willy-nilly doing something he hasn't thought through. i'm sure we don't know what his plans are and they won't become clear for a while. i'm also sure that he thinks what he is doing is the best for the franchise. and maybe he'll be vindicated on that. remember, he's the GM who built a championship team, not me.

no route ensures future success. that said, what this team is doing right now looks a lot like a plan which will saddle us with lots of old players on the downslopes of their careers. this will constrain spending, the ability to trade, and, very likely, block players who do deserve a major league shot from getting it. and, while KW has shown an acumen for finding major league ready talent and trading our minor league "talent" before it's clear they're pumpkins, at some point, you have to look at our scouting and development. it's produced very little of real note recently. and it's going to take more than words for me to believe things have changed. (of course, any changes enacted now will be difficult to gauge for another five years or more. so complaining about it is somewhat hard because what you're complaining about was a mess from years ago - and it can be difficult to have a firm grasp of what's happening now.)

by larry on Oct 1, 2007 4:50 PM CDT up 0 recs

I think

he's been pretty careful with the years and dollars to guys like Buehrle, AJ, dYE....ETC....I don't think he's handcuffed himself because he's been trying to avoid that....I think he beleives that, with specifically those three...his best bet was to extend them at moderate rates and years vs. getting back what he saw as not adequate retun(s). He believes they are worth more keeping....that's where a little bit of smarts plus loyalty, if you wanna call it that, come into play. Which one of those were you so adamantly opposed to? How do any of them really handcuff us so? I know we have to wait and see, but I don't see any of them as so risky......or, the more appropriate word would be stupid.

by dantesox on Oct 1, 2007 5:00 PM CDT up 0 recs

honestly

i'm not (and never was) adamantly opposed to any of them in isolation. none are stupid contracts (the dye NTC makes me a bit more critical of that one). they're just not really good contracts, either. collectively is where they become a problem because you've got a large percentage of your payroll tied up in a few players (MB, JD, jose, javy, PK, AJ, and, if he gets enough PAs next year, thome) who are all 30 or over and are more likely than not to be on the downside of their careers - and, if so, you're stuck paying too much for too little performance that it's too late to get rid of.

by larry on Oct 1, 2007 5:07 PM CDT up 0 recs

Agreed.

the team is going to be hurting in 2010. Either Ken Williams is delusional about how much those guys can help, or he recognizes that there's no help coming down the pipeline for the next three years or so, so he might as well just keep the World Series team together to try and keep butts in seats for the next couple of years.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Oct 1, 2007 5:15 PM CDT up 0 recs

You must be young

The first baseball season I ever really paid attention to as a kid was 1983. Game 4 of the ALCS taught me the very valuable lesson of not getting too upset about stuff you can't control. This lesson was reinforced by the ensuing 1984 season...and then the ensuing almost decade of futility-ball. Really, being Sox fan was much more worthwhile than following a team like the Yankees.

by hitlesswonder on Oct 1, 2007 5:03 PM CDT up 0 recs

I like this, hitless

Great commentary. Someone in the 1950's said rooting for the Yankees was like rooting for IBM. Chicagoans never expect victory so it's a really visceral experience when we actually do win something ('85 Bears and '05 Sox for me - I was in FL during the MJ era, so the Bulls' success doesn't count for me).

Wait until 2010!

by winningugly on Oct 1, 2007 6:35 PM CDT up 0 recs

They'll Be OK

Getting to see the Rockies for a few months, it's hard not to be impressed. They have a young, cheap, healthy core -- just the kind of high contact, line drive hitters you'd want in their ballpark (just four blocks from where I'm now sitting, by the way). They'll have some problems with Holliday and Hawpe reach the end of their arb years, and pitching is iffy, but if they sign the right key guys and trade some of their vast minor league positional depth for pitching, they could be really, really good until the middle of the next decade.

Garland would be interesting to them. On the one hand, the sinker and high GB rate look good. On the other, the low strikeout rate would be a big problem. Egbert and DLS would both fit really well. Gio not so much -- big curve guys get pounded in Coors.

by BridgeportJoe on Oct 1, 2007 3:46 PM CDT up 0 recs

If only he had a high GB rate these days

CHOO!! CHOO!!

by colintj on Oct 1, 2007 4:57 PM CDT up 0 recs

Chris Carter

power 'stache

by 3E8 on Oct 1, 2007 4:04 PM CDT 0 recs

interesting

sg:

Pierzynski said Sox chairman Jerry Reinsdorf initially brought up the extension in mid-August.

why is JR getting involved in contract extensions?

by The Wizard on Oct 1, 2007 5:13 PM CDT 0 recs

maybe because JR cuts the checks?

i wouldn't read too much into it. KW is in charge. i rather doubt JR forced him to re-sign a player he had no intention of re-signing.

by larry on Oct 1, 2007 5:16 PM CDT up 0 recs

scott hairston

"great pickup for san diego" "arizona let him go"

what the F they mean "let him go"?

by The Wizard on Oct 1, 2007 6:44 PM CDT 0 recs

they mean that he sprouted wings

and, instead of caging him, arizona let him spread those wings and fly to san diego.

by larry on Oct 1, 2007 6:47 PM CDT up 0 recs

I was unsure about what it took to get him

by The Wizard on Oct 1, 2007 6:51 PM CDT up 0 recs

sorry

i thought you were going through hawk and dj withdrawal and were ripping on the announcers.

by larry on Oct 1, 2007 6:52 PM CDT up 0 recs

hawk & dj withdrawal!

I wish they send 'em somewhere in the minors

by The Wizard on Oct 1, 2007 6:57 PM CDT up 0 recs

I see now

July 27, 2007: Traded from ARI to SD in exchange for Leo Rosales

by The Wizard on Oct 1, 2007 6:50 PM CDT up 0 recs

so, what would the white sox equivalent to leo

rosales be?

by The Wizard on Oct 1, 2007 7:46 PM CDT up 0 recs

Oneli?

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Oct 1, 2007 7:50 PM CDT up 0 recs

bases loaded, nobody out against peavy

if they get this, the rockies may have just won the game here.

by larry on Oct 1, 2007 6:53 PM CDT 0 recs

they got a couple runs...

by The Wizard on Oct 1, 2007 7:01 PM CDT up 0 recs

if the rox get 5

the padres are done. they can't score that many, even against fogg. peavy doesn't look like the best pitcher in baseball.

by larry on Oct 1, 2007 7:03 PM CDT up 0 recs

the friars are in some trouble now

peavy won't last 5 at this rate and the padres bullpen, while being good, has been worked pretty hard recently. not good.

by larry on Oct 1, 2007 7:12 PM CDT up 0 recs

all right

now we've got a game.

by larry on Oct 1, 2007 7:24 PM CDT up 0 recs

Failure only ...

makes me want to review everyone's performance, effort, skills and determine what needs to be done to correct the situation and make a realistic run next year. With salary caps, already held contracts, people no one else wants all these just make it more difficult but I have faith KW will step up big this offseason. He did well getting us Thome for 2006 and 2007 just had more problems than solutions. If he faces the fact that those players we have all discussed need to be moved or let go , perhaps, 2008 will be better than we have hoped.

by Florida Jim on Oct 1, 2007 7:05 PM CDT 0 recs

Hey look

Josh Fogg showed up

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Oct 1, 2007 7:26 PM CDT 0 recs

Rox got 5

Are Pads done? Reminds me of when Oswalt gave up 5 against us in '05 and still kept 'stros in the game.

Peavy is a horse.

PS Don't forget the Blum magic.

Wait until 2010!

by winningugly on Oct 1, 2007 8:23 PM CDT 0 recs

better game than i thought it'd be

always nice to be surprised like that.

by larry on Oct 1, 2007 8:24 PM CDT up 0 recs

When you have actual skin in the game,

anything can happen.

Must be nice.

Wait until 2010!

by winningugly on Oct 1, 2007 8:27 PM CDT up 0 recs

clint hurdle

doing his impresssion of ozzie. over/under on the number of pitchers used in 9 innings? i'll say 8.5 and take the over.

by larry on Oct 1, 2007 8:31 PM CDT up 0 recs

Well, this is actually a meaningful game

sozI'd cut him some slack. Electric. Stupid question - have the Rox ever been in the playoffs before. 'cause this looks like virgin terrtiory for a lot of the players/fans to me.

Wait until 2010!

by winningugly on Oct 1, 2007 8:33 PM CDT up 0 recs

95 i think

by larry on Oct 1, 2007 8:33 PM CDT up 0 recs

Good call. Google?

Wait until 2010!

by winningugly on Oct 1, 2007 8:43 PM CDT up 0 recs

memory

i would have been more authoritative if i looked it up.

by larry on Oct 1, 2007 8:44 PM CDT up 0 recs

laggle!

by The Wizard on Oct 1, 2007 8:45 PM CDT up 0 recs

PS Remember when someone earlier

this year postulated a Garland-or-Javy trade for Khalil Greene? Not so far-fetched now, is it? He had a monster year for him.

Wait until 2010!

by winningugly on Oct 1, 2007 8:35 PM CDT 0 recs

Seth Smith, Lisa Dergan is on the phone

Wait until 2010!

by winningugly on Oct 1, 2007 8:36 PM CDT 0 recs

that's some mackowiakesque work in center

i guess it is infectious.

by larry on Oct 1, 2007 8:40 PM CDT 0 recs

mack strikes again!

by proxy

by The Wizard on Oct 1, 2007 8:42 PM CDT up 0 recs

Is Pods playing CF for the Pads?

2 triples and a pus-armed throw home = Rox lead.

Wait until 2010!

by winningugly on Oct 1, 2007 8:40 PM CDT 0 recs

i like this quote

from the sheehan chat going on right now at BP:

"This game is really NL baseball in a nutshell: entertaining, competitive, and really not very good."

by larry on Oct 1, 2007 8:49 PM CDT 0 recs

That's a good quote

and fairly acurate, though the last part is unnecessary. If it's competitive and entertaining, it's good. Who needs nuance? Raw emotion wins every time.

Wait until 2010!

by winningugly on Oct 1, 2007 8:53 PM CDT up 0 recs

seems necessary to me

he means not very good technically.

by larry on Oct 1, 2007 8:55 PM CDT up 0 recs

I get it

I just don't think the technical part is necessary. I'm a purist, too, but I'll stay glued to a sloppy barnburner every time. This is a "great" game though not technically an "artful" one.

BTW, Peavy tonight, Glavine yesterday. WTF? Can't these guys close?

Wait until 2010!

by winningugly on Oct 1, 2007 9:02 PM CDT up 0 recs