Top 30 Prospects: Chicago White Sox
Below is an analysis of the prospects in the farm system of the Chicago White Sox. Scouting reports are compiled with information provided by industry sources as well as from our own (both Eric Longenhagen’s and Kiley McDaniel’s) observations. For more information on the 20-80 scouting scale by which all of our prospect content is governed you can click here. For further explanation of the merits and drawbacks of Future Value, read this.
All of the numbered prospects here also appear on The Board, a new feature at the site that offers sortable scouting information for every organization. That can be found here.
Rk | Name | Age | Highest Level | Position | ETA | FV |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Eloy Jimenez | 22.3 | MLB | RF | 2019 | 60 |
2 | Michael Kopech | 22.9 | MLB | RHP | 2019 | 55 |
3 | Nick Madrigal | 22.0 | A+ | 2B | 2020 | 55 |
4 | Luis Robert | 21.7 | A+ | CF | 2020 | 55 |
5 | Dylan Cease | 23.3 | AA | RHP | 2019 | 50 |
6 | Dane Dunning | 24.3 | AA | RHP | 2021 | 50 |
7 | Micker Adolfo | 22.6 | A+ | RF | 2021 | 45 |
8 | Luis Alexander Basabe | 22.6 | AA | CF | 2019 | 45 |
9 | Blake Rutherford | 21.9 | A+ | LF | 2020 | 45 |
10 | Luis Gonzalez | 23.6 | A+ | RF | 2020 | 45 |
11 | Zack Collins | 24.2 | AA | 1B | 2019 | 45 |
12 | Jake Burger | 23.0 | A | 3B | 2021 | 40+ |
13 | Steele Walker | 22.7 | A | LF | 2022 | 40+ |
14 | Jimmy Lambert | 24.4 | AA | RHP | 2020 | 40 |
15 | Seby Zavala | 25.6 | AAA | C | 2019 | 40 |
16 | Tyler Johnson | 23.6 | A+ | RHP | 2020 | 40 |
17 | Gavin Sheets | 22.9 | A+ | 1B | 2020 | 40 |
18 | Jordan Stephens | 26.6 | AAA | RHP | 2019 | 40 |
19 | Konnor Pilkington | 21.6 | R | LHP | 2021 | 40 |
20 | Alec Hansen | 24.5 | AA | RHP | 2020 | 40 |
21 | Zack Burdi | 24.1 | AAA | RHP | 2019 | 40 |
22 | Luis Mieses | 18.8 | R | CF | 2022 | 40 |
23 | Codi Heuer | 22.7 | R | RHP | 2021 | 40 |
24 | Zach Thompson | 25.4 | AA | RHP | 2020 | 35+ |
25 | Bernardo Flores | 23.6 | AA | LHP | 2020 | 35+ |
26 | Danny Mendick | 25.5 | AAA | SS | 2019 | 35+ |
27 | Bryce Bush | 19.3 | R | RF | 2022 | 35+ |
28 | Lenyn Sosa | 19.2 | R | SS | 2022 | 35+ |
29 | Ryan Burr | 24.8 | MLB | RHP | 2019 | 35+ |
30 | Ian Hamilton | 23.8 | MLB | RHP | 2019 | 35+ |
Other Prospects of Note
Grouped by type and listed in order of preference within each category.
Youth with Some Helium
Amado Nunez, 2B
Cabera Weaver, OF
Anderson Comas, OF
Lency Delgado, 3B
Josue Guerrero, OF
This is the most important group of the Others because any of them might be on the main section of the list by mid-season. Nunez can hit but will be limited to second base and his body is maxed out. He’ll need to develop a 6 bat, but he has a shot to get there. Weaver is a skinny 19-year-old with speed. He needs to get stronger. Comas has a big frame, and good hand-eye and bat control, but his swing is disconcertingly long. Delgado is built like a fullback and has some pop and a shot to stay at third base. Guerrero’s body has gone backwards since his amateur days but he’s still very young and was an interesting $1 million power projection signee not long ago.
A Carrying Tool
Laz Rivera, SS
Jameson Fisher, 1B/LF
Corey Zangari, 1B
Some teams like Rivera at shortstop and he can really swing it, but he’s too aggressive and probably maxes out as a utility guy. Fisher has great feel to hit but the college injury that contributed to his moving out from behind the plate turned out to be significant. Zangari has huge power but hasn’t played much in two years due to Tommy John.
Just a Bunch of Pitchers
Kodi Medeiros, LHP
A.J. Puckett, RHP
Luis Ledo, RHP
Jason Bilous, RHP
Lincoln Henzman, RHP
Medeiros is a low slot lefty with a good slider. That may not be enough once new pitcher usage rules are implemented next year. Puckett has backend stuff but is 24 and had TJ this spring. Ledo has been into the mid-90s and flashes a plus split. Bilous would do that in college but has been more 90-92 as a pro. Henzman could have a 55 slider at maturity and pitch in a bullpen.
System Overview
This system has dealt with an unusual number of severe injuries — with several TJs, including two to positions players, plus Burger’s Achilles and Luis Robert’s thumb injuries — but it’s hard not to note that most of the name prospects the Sox have acquired have fallen a little short of expectations. Most of them are still very young, but Moncada’s contact issues are concerning, Lucas Giolito’s stuff has been all over the place, Reynaldo Lopez has been erratic, and several of the pitchers are throwing a little less hard now than they were in prior years.
That reads like finger pointing at player dev, but Chris Getz has only been running that department since the fall of 2016 and if we don’t count the guys who have been hurt badly during his tenure, there are more stock up players during that span (Lambert for sure, plus Zavala, and we’d say Gonzalez though it seems like he was in some teams’ late first round mix and it’s possible we were just light on him as an amateur) than there are instances of frustration (Sheets would ideally have more lift, and spring looks at Pilkington indicate he may have backed up). With that in mind, the players to watch are the 2017 July 2 signees and the 2018 high schoolers (Mieses, Bush, Delgado, Cabrera, Comas), since it’s the first talent Getz and Co. will get to mold from such an age, as Chicago has been college-heavy in recent drafts.
This system is top-heavy, with potential stars leading the way and very little in the way of depth beyond those few names, though the group of recent high school selections in the 35+ FV tier and Others of Note should yield a gem or two. The third overall pick in the draft will help replace some of the clout lost when Eloy graduates, and it’s possible that some of the veterans on expiring deals (Jose Abreu, Ivan Nova, Yonder Alonso, Welington Castillo) could net something at the trade deadline.
blech.
It’s hard to fault the White Sox for what they did, and Jimenez, Cease, Kopech, and Dunning all look like winners (and maybe Reynaldo Lopez can turn the corner) but this looks like a pretty searing indictment of the find-power-and-hit-tool-will-come-later approach in their amateur acquisition. Robert, Adolfo, and Collins all came that way, and Moncada also fits that profile (although he came a different way). It’s interesting that they drafted Madrigal after all that, who is basically the opposite of those guys.
One other thing: I have pretty high standards for what counts as a #1 pitcher, a #2 pitcher, a #3 pitcher, etc, but Eric and Kiley’s definitions are just wack. I know we’ve been over this before, but do baseball organizations really define a a #1 as the top 1-3 starters in the league who post more than 7 wins regularly? And a #2 as a guy between 5 and 7 wins? And a #3 for a guy between 3.5 and 4.9 wins? I’m not sure there are any #1 starters right now based on this definition, since deGrom and Scherzer don’t exactly have histories of topping 7 wins, and Sale and Kluber didn’t last year.
It was a lot easier to be excited last year. A lot of serious injuries have really tempered enthusiasm and slowed down (at best) the rebuild. Big picture, they have a high draft pick this year and almost certainly will next year as well, so that’s two more chances at a star. Probably the year after that too. So there is still some hope.
I think the “find power and hope for hit tool” strategy is at least a step ahead of the previous “find athlete and hope they can learn to play baseball” strategy they were previously employing.
It sucks that “there is some hope” as you just defined it, means nine consecutive sub .500 seasons is in some way acceptable.
I use a fairly simple standard for putting a number on a pitcher (and I’m open to critiques of it):
#5 ~1 WAR
#4 ~2 WAR
#3 ~3 WAR
#2 ~4 WAR
#1 ~5 WAR
Basically just inverse numbers. Qualified pitchers from 2015-2018, WAR per 200 IP (165 pitchers):
#1 Kershaw/Sale/Scherzer/Syndergaard/deGrom/Kluber/Strasburg/Paxton/Verlander (9 total)
#2 Archer/Taillon/Snell/Darvish/Price/Gray/McCullers/Hill/Cole/Severino/Nola/Carrasco (12 total)
#3 Gray/Richards/Buchholz/Eovaldi up to Greinke/Quintana/Hendricks (38 total)
#4 Anibal Sanchez/Nolasco/Bundy/Hellickson up to Trevor Williams/Porcello/DeSclafani/Wainwright (58 total)
#5 Shields to Guerra (48 total)
#1 5.5%
#2 7.3%
#3 23%
#4 35.2%
#5 29.1%
I think you can nitpick over the names and arguing a guy at like 4.7 WAR should be a #1 not a #2, but I think that distribution is mostly fair
That’s literally my grading rubric as well, although I’m not sure I’m a little more stingy about prorating over innings and I prefer the projections instead of past performance. So under mine I’d say it goes something like this:
#1: Sale/Scherzer/deGrom/Kluber/Verlander
#2: Cole/Nola/Syndergaard/Severino/Paxton/Bauer/Snell/Carrasco
#3: Archer/Strasburg/Marquez/Corbin/Taillon/Buehler/Kershaw/Berrios/Price/Happ/Greinke/Keuchel
(I think that realistically, we’re likely to see Buehler, Corbin, and Marquez higher than this, but that’s how I’d classify them for now).
My qualitative interpretation of this is that this is the type of rotation you want if you want to make a deep playoff run. An ace to get through a possible play-in game, and a top 3 that is strong enough to make a huge dent during a short series (and a pretty strong one in a longer series). Your #4 is a guy you only want starting once in a 7-game series if you can help it, and ideally your #5 has stuff that will play up out of the bullpen.
But overall, I can’t imagine that teams are actually using a more stringent definition of this than I am. I’m used to people yelling at me because I think there aren’t 25-30 #1’s in the league, so I’m not used to being on this side of the debate.
I don’t love the inning proration either but the variance of year-to-year is a bit too choppy. And of course I don’t think an “ace” is a one-year thing. It takes several seasons of dominance to reach that.
Maybe it’s just me, but I think there should be an “Ace” spot ahead of the #1’s.
When Nick Hostetler was hired as White Sox’s scouting director in 2015, he switched the team’s draft approach from toolsy gym heroes to hit-tool guys like Jake Burger in 2017. That’s sensible, we’ll see if the team can develop position players as well as they’ve developed pitchers over the years.
The team’s problem over the last decade has been having very little Latin American scouting and thus only selecting Micker Adolfo and Fernando Tatis (ouch!) in the J2 draft. They have made some big splashes in Cuba with Jose Abreu and Luis Robert, but these were the most famous amateur players at the time and required little scouting.
They also may be behind the curve on Major League scouting since they took Moncada, Giolito, and Blake Rutherford as trade headliners instead of Benintendi, Robles, and Miguel Andujar. Though through 4 games, Moncada looks really good so far this year.
It’s disappointing that this is all they have 2.5 years into a rebuild.
Honestly, I’m not sure Benintendi and Robles were available. Maybe not Andujar either. I think they did about as well as they could with the Quintana trade, pretty well with the Sale trade, and not so well with the Eaton trade (the mega-reliever trade could have gone better too).
You might be right. I know at the time the White Sox preferences seemed to align with MLBPipeline’s prospect rankings. As a fan, I liked them taking the highest-ranked guy each time, though Dave Cameron’s warning of these as risky prospects has proved prophetic. Maybe Moncada breaks through this year and Giolito becomes league-average and we’re feeling better about the trades.
I think the White Sox have had bad luck on 1st Rd picks as well with Carson Fulmer, Jake Burger, Zach Burdi, and Zach Collins not being very impressive so far.
I guess we needed a total-gut rebuild to not work out to balance the Astros & Cubs. I think as MikeS says that it can still work with a couple more top-5 picks and Moncada, Jimenez, Kopech, Giolito, and Cease reaching their potential. This was the only choice the White Sox had since their farm system couldn’t provide players to join the nucleus of Sale, Quintana, Eaton, and Abreu.
The big issue seems to be more on the amateur acquisition side than the trades. For whatever reason, as you state, the international signings have not yielded much of anything, and the lower-level picks don’t seem to have done much either.
That said, looking back on it, I’m not so sure Collins and Fulmer were that bad in terms of picks. The guys taken directly after each of them haven’t turned into anything either, it’s not entirely fair to say “they shouldn’t have taken Fulmer at #8, they should have taken Buehler” when Buehler was taken #24 (OTOH, I do think you can drag them for picking him over Tyler Stepehenson at #11 or Ian Happ at #9, but that’s not as dramatic). For Collins, he was taken at #11 and you have to go to #15 (Alex Kirilloff) to get a guy clearly better than him, although at that point you’re looking at Kirilloff, Thaiss, Forrest Whitley, Justin Dunn, and Gavin Lux in short succession. And neither the Madrigal nor Rodon pick looked terribly crazy at the time. Yes, they could have done better, but those were kind of lousy drafts among the sorts of prospects considered in that range.
Zack Burdi was actually probably the most unfortunate pick of the bunch, since Carter Kieboom, Dane Dunning, Cole Ragans, and Anthony Kay all were picked right after him.
I agree with you: they’ve had an absence of good luck than systematically making poor picks. There’s still time on Collins, Burdi, and Burger, so maybe they’ll be decent big-leaguers.
The trades are also a question of volume. Could they have got just Robles? Quite possibly. But I think they ended up with 4 of the Nationals top 10 prospects from that trade so it seemed like they were getting quality and quantity. And even though the trade hasn’t yielded much value, it isn’t like keeping Eaton would have been any better.
I agree that the trade headliners – outside of Kopech – for Sale and Eaton are questionable and I think the Sox leadership sucks – but I have to believe they asked for Benintendi. They supposedly were going to take him before Boston drafted him. Also, as I recall, Moncada was the consensus #1 guy at the time and is still young. I do recall questions about Giolito and throwing in Tatis for Shields is a fire-able offense.
The farm depth seems pretty solid, but skepticism reigns until something good starts to happen.
It’s pure hindsight bias to suggest that Chicago did badly to get Moncada. He was indeed a consensus top 2 or 3 prospect in the entire league. This is just the risk with prospects. Sometimes they don’t pan out.
And strikeouts aside, there are a lot of teams who would kill to have their guys who “don’t pan out” putting up 2-win seasons as 23-year-old everyday players.