WEBVTT - 2026 MLB Draft Preview with Keith Law

0:00:12.960 --> 0:00:15.120
<v Speaker 1>Keith, thanks for joining the Sox Machine podcast again.

0:00:15.240 --> 0:00:18.919
<v Speaker 2>Mid season special edition usually have you on beforehand to

0:00:19.000 --> 0:00:21.560
<v Speaker 2>discuss prospects. But now we have number one overall pick,

0:00:22.160 --> 0:00:25.360
<v Speaker 2>and I'm thinking that so much has changed since the

0:00:25.360 --> 0:00:27.960
<v Speaker 2>White Sox won the draft lottery, mostly for the good.

0:00:28.720 --> 0:00:31.920
<v Speaker 2>I remember seeing you at the winter meetings and thinking like,

0:00:33.240 --> 0:00:35.120
<v Speaker 2>all right, we have something to hang the summer on,

0:00:35.240 --> 0:00:40.240
<v Speaker 2>some summer programming, some excitement. Rock Chulowski looks pretty close

0:00:40.280 --> 0:00:42.000
<v Speaker 2>to a lock for the number one overall pick, or

0:00:42.040 --> 0:00:43.280
<v Speaker 2>at least like a clear favorite.

0:00:44.120 --> 0:00:45.320
<v Speaker 1>The White Sox might.

0:00:45.159 --> 0:00:47.720
<v Speaker 2>Be another ninety loss season, if not one hundred lost season.

0:00:48.600 --> 0:00:51.919
<v Speaker 2>The system needs a sure thing. This is perfect and

0:00:51.960 --> 0:00:54.680
<v Speaker 2>now smash cut to July. The White Sox are in

0:00:54.720 --> 0:00:58.960
<v Speaker 2>first place. They have a lot of infielders now and

0:01:00.080 --> 0:01:02.960
<v Speaker 2>laws is you know, he's still up top. He's on

0:01:03.000 --> 0:01:05.800
<v Speaker 2>top of your list, but there's some murkiness up top

0:01:05.840 --> 0:01:07.360
<v Speaker 2>with directions the White Sox can go.

0:01:07.440 --> 0:01:09.279
<v Speaker 1>But ultimately this is a good thing, right.

0:01:10.560 --> 0:01:14.440
<v Speaker 3>Yes, I think they're in a good position. I just

0:01:14.600 --> 0:01:18.560
<v Speaker 3>published a new ranking day before we're recording this, and

0:01:18.840 --> 0:01:21.600
<v Speaker 3>I still had Schilawski at one. But I went back

0:01:21.600 --> 0:01:24.240
<v Speaker 3>and forth a lot between him and Von Lackey, and

0:01:24.319 --> 0:01:27.280
<v Speaker 3>I may still switch them before the draft. I think

0:01:27.360 --> 0:01:29.080
<v Speaker 3>Chilawski is a little bit more of a sure thing.

0:01:30.160 --> 0:01:34.200
<v Speaker 3>Lackey might actually be the higher upside pick. And what

0:01:34.240 --> 0:01:37.319
<v Speaker 3>I keep hearing is that Chilaski is in their mix,

0:01:37.400 --> 0:01:40.360
<v Speaker 3>but he is not their top choice. It's either Lackey

0:01:40.560 --> 0:01:44.160
<v Speaker 3>or high school shortstop Grady Emerson, and I think some

0:01:44.240 --> 0:01:48.040
<v Speaker 3>of that is just their preferences, them seeing players in

0:01:48.080 --> 0:01:50.560
<v Speaker 3>a different way now than they had previously because of

0:01:50.600 --> 0:01:52.840
<v Speaker 3>the work that Ryan Fuller and Paul Yannish and others

0:01:52.880 --> 0:01:55.120
<v Speaker 3>have done with a lot of their hitters. Right, they

0:01:55.160 --> 0:01:58.480
<v Speaker 3>saved Colson Montgomery and Jacob Gonzalz. I'd say they saved

0:01:58.520 --> 0:02:01.200
<v Speaker 3>both of those careers. Both guys were well on their

0:02:01.240 --> 0:02:04.400
<v Speaker 3>way to being first round busts and have now turned

0:02:04.440 --> 0:02:07.920
<v Speaker 3>into in the case of Montgomery, a big leaguer. There's

0:02:07.920 --> 0:02:09.640
<v Speaker 3>at least going to stick around in some role. And

0:02:09.680 --> 0:02:13.760
<v Speaker 3>I am really optimistic about Gonzales. So I think as

0:02:13.760 --> 0:02:15.640
<v Speaker 3>the White Sox sort of got into it and looked

0:02:15.680 --> 0:02:19.960
<v Speaker 3>at these three hitters in particular, they felt like maybe

0:02:20.160 --> 0:02:22.760
<v Speaker 3>Lackey and or emersoner guys, they are a better equipped

0:02:22.800 --> 0:02:25.040
<v Speaker 3>to help bet or equiped to work with than they

0:02:25.080 --> 0:02:26.079
<v Speaker 3>would be with chilhows Q.

0:02:26.840 --> 0:02:28.760
<v Speaker 2>And how should you think like the success of this

0:02:28.840 --> 0:02:33.200
<v Speaker 2>season changes or should change the calculus up top in

0:02:33.320 --> 0:02:37.120
<v Speaker 2>terms of not needing a sure thing, perhaps being able

0:02:37.160 --> 0:02:39.400
<v Speaker 2>to take a pick with more upside and a pick

0:02:39.400 --> 0:02:42.040
<v Speaker 2>with a longer development track because they do have guys

0:02:42.080 --> 0:02:45.120
<v Speaker 2>who can play shortstop immediately and.

0:02:45.120 --> 0:02:46.840
<v Speaker 3>Just the way it typically works out in the draft,

0:02:46.880 --> 0:02:50.320
<v Speaker 3>if you're picking very high and just sitting aside the pitchers,

0:02:50.520 --> 0:02:52.400
<v Speaker 3>and this year doesn't really have a one to one

0:02:52.440 --> 0:02:55.959
<v Speaker 3>type pitcher anyway, you're going to be mostly looking at shortstops.

0:02:56.240 --> 0:02:59.640
<v Speaker 3>So regardless of whether you have a truly established shortstop.

0:03:00.080 --> 0:03:02.360
<v Speaker 3>You know, I look at Montgomery, what he's at a

0:03:02.560 --> 0:03:05.320
<v Speaker 3>really good year. If you had told me last April

0:03:05.320 --> 0:03:07.040
<v Speaker 3>he was going to turn to this, I would have laughed.

0:03:07.080 --> 0:03:09.000
<v Speaker 3>He striking out almost fifty percent of the time in

0:03:09.040 --> 0:03:14.600
<v Speaker 3>triple A. That said, you can do better. It's entirely possible.

0:03:14.680 --> 0:03:17.400
<v Speaker 3>Like if they take Rock Shaalowski, he ends up a

0:03:17.400 --> 0:03:20.280
<v Speaker 3>better option to churse up and pushes Montgomery to another position.

0:03:20.400 --> 0:03:22.360
<v Speaker 3>So I also don't think one. I just think you

0:03:22.400 --> 0:03:24.800
<v Speaker 3>take the best player, period, regardless of what else you have,

0:03:25.240 --> 0:03:29.560
<v Speaker 3>but also close to Montgomery is not no Bobby Wit

0:03:29.639 --> 0:03:31.960
<v Speaker 3>Junior where you're saying, oh, we're not going to get

0:03:31.960 --> 0:03:34.480
<v Speaker 3>any better than this, Yeah you might. Actually Montgomery is

0:03:34.520 --> 0:03:37.600
<v Speaker 3>still punching out at a pretty high rate, you know,

0:03:37.640 --> 0:03:40.400
<v Speaker 3>And this is still only about a year of the

0:03:40.520 --> 0:03:44.040
<v Speaker 3>sort of new version of Montgomery with your pros and cons. Again,

0:03:44.080 --> 0:03:45.800
<v Speaker 3>he is going to stick around as a big leaguer,

0:03:45.920 --> 0:03:48.320
<v Speaker 3>but he's not a superstar. And you pick first, you

0:03:48.360 --> 0:03:50.160
<v Speaker 3>want to try to get a superstar. And I don't

0:03:50.160 --> 0:03:54.240
<v Speaker 3>think this year's strong start to the season should really

0:03:54.320 --> 0:03:56.400
<v Speaker 3>change their philosophy. When you pick first, you got to

0:03:56.400 --> 0:03:58.240
<v Speaker 3>get the best guy. I think when teams try to

0:03:58.280 --> 0:04:00.880
<v Speaker 3>get too cute and try to play the money, try

0:04:00.880 --> 0:04:04.040
<v Speaker 3>to move things around. You can do that even starting

0:04:04.040 --> 0:04:05.920
<v Speaker 3>a pick too, but at pick one, I think you

0:04:05.960 --> 0:04:08.240
<v Speaker 3>got to go nail it. And you can just see

0:04:08.280 --> 0:04:10.480
<v Speaker 3>even just in the last couple of drafts, examples of

0:04:10.560 --> 0:04:13.760
<v Speaker 3>teams trying to get creative at one Pittsburgh with Henry Davis,

0:04:13.800 --> 0:04:16.720
<v Speaker 3>Cleveland with Travis Bizana and not getting the best player

0:04:16.720 --> 0:04:18.800
<v Speaker 3>in the draft when you had them all, they were

0:04:18.839 --> 0:04:21.120
<v Speaker 3>all right there in front of you, and he ended

0:04:21.200 --> 0:04:22.120
<v Speaker 3>up with the wrong guy.

0:04:24.120 --> 0:04:27.479
<v Speaker 2>The discussion around Schlawski and just having kind of a

0:04:27.480 --> 0:04:29.640
<v Speaker 2>an okay season by his standards and not making the

0:04:29.680 --> 0:04:31.480
<v Speaker 2>leap that maybe he was supposed to have his junior

0:04:31.560 --> 0:04:34.360
<v Speaker 2>year reminds me a little bit in terms of like

0:04:34.480 --> 0:04:37.800
<v Speaker 2>tenor based on White Sox experience of Carlos Redon in

0:04:37.960 --> 0:04:41.520
<v Speaker 2>twenty fourteen and how he didn't quite make the most

0:04:41.520 --> 0:04:44.440
<v Speaker 2>of his junior year and it allowed the Astros went

0:04:45.000 --> 0:04:48.120
<v Speaker 2>Brady aikin number one high school pitcher, Marlin's won a high.

0:04:48.000 --> 0:04:49.160
<v Speaker 1>School pitcher with Tyler Kollak.

0:04:49.560 --> 0:04:51.880
<v Speaker 2>Obviously, the Astro situation worked out because they didn't sign

0:04:51.920 --> 0:04:54.159
<v Speaker 2>Ach and they got Alex Bregman the following year with

0:04:54.160 --> 0:04:57.120
<v Speaker 2>that pick, so they were able to back.

0:04:56.920 --> 0:04:57.280
<v Speaker 1>Out of it.

0:04:57.320 --> 0:05:01.159
<v Speaker 2>But when it comes to prospect fatigue and maybe just

0:05:01.279 --> 0:05:04.040
<v Speaker 2>over analyzing somebody too much because they were on this

0:05:04.120 --> 0:05:08.200
<v Speaker 2>platform of being the expected number one pick before the season,

0:05:08.920 --> 0:05:11.800
<v Speaker 2>how much are the White Sox or White Sox people

0:05:11.800 --> 0:05:16.280
<v Speaker 2>watching the White Sox at risk of doing that to themselves.

0:05:17.520 --> 0:05:21.400
<v Speaker 3>That maybe happening with Julowski. I do think, Look, he

0:05:21.400 --> 0:05:23.520
<v Speaker 3>plays in the Big ten. It's not the SEC, it's

0:05:23.520 --> 0:05:25.880
<v Speaker 3>not the ACC, it's not even the Big twelve. This

0:05:26.000 --> 0:05:29.159
<v Speaker 3>is not a premium conference. He's not facing premium competition,

0:05:29.560 --> 0:05:33.000
<v Speaker 3>and so you can still be the best player in

0:05:33.040 --> 0:05:36.440
<v Speaker 3>the draft facing less than top tier competition, but you

0:05:36.480 --> 0:05:39.920
<v Speaker 3>got to destroy it. You got to absolutely destroy and

0:05:39.960 --> 0:05:42.000
<v Speaker 3>he didn't. He didn't. He had a very good year.

0:05:42.720 --> 0:05:45.200
<v Speaker 3>But if he is the hitter that he's supposed to be,

0:05:45.880 --> 0:05:47.880
<v Speaker 3>then yeah, he would have. He would have had a

0:05:47.920 --> 0:05:50.080
<v Speaker 3>better season, he would have produced better, and the underlying

0:05:50.120 --> 0:05:52.359
<v Speaker 3>data would have been better also, Right, it's not just

0:05:52.480 --> 0:05:54.800
<v Speaker 3>performance this kid. This has come up a couple of

0:05:54.800 --> 0:05:57.400
<v Speaker 3>times recently, people asking me about certain players who performed

0:05:57.440 --> 0:06:00.280
<v Speaker 3>really well or maybe didn't perform that well this year year.

0:06:00.880 --> 0:06:03.560
<v Speaker 3>But remember, teams are they're looking at performance, but they're

0:06:03.560 --> 0:06:05.640
<v Speaker 3>also looking under the hood for a hitter. They're looking

0:06:05.680 --> 0:06:10.000
<v Speaker 3>at things like the range of eximplocities, the launch angles,

0:06:10.080 --> 0:06:13.040
<v Speaker 3>the hard hit rates, the barrel rates, and so on

0:06:13.640 --> 0:06:18.360
<v Speaker 3>to give them confidence that that player will be able

0:06:18.400 --> 0:06:23.440
<v Speaker 3>to perform, whether it's improving or sustaining when they once

0:06:23.440 --> 0:06:25.680
<v Speaker 3>switched to wood bats. Still the hardest thing of all

0:06:25.720 --> 0:06:28.360
<v Speaker 3>of this, evaluating hitters. But then also by the time

0:06:28.400 --> 0:06:30.040
<v Speaker 3>you get to at least to double a you're facing

0:06:30.040 --> 0:06:32.120
<v Speaker 3>better pitching. If you go from the SEC to High A,

0:06:32.800 --> 0:06:35.360
<v Speaker 3>you ought to rake. It's not that much better. The

0:06:35.400 --> 0:06:37.719
<v Speaker 3>big difference between SEC and hias are playing six times

0:06:37.720 --> 0:06:39.440
<v Speaker 3>a week instead of three or four. But by the

0:06:39.480 --> 0:06:41.799
<v Speaker 3>time you get to double A, you are most nights

0:06:41.800 --> 0:06:43.920
<v Speaker 3>facing better pitching than what you were going to see

0:06:44.480 --> 0:06:48.520
<v Speaker 3>on the in the typical SEC game. And so to

0:06:48.640 --> 0:06:51.279
<v Speaker 3>me get just to take this back to Chilawski, though,

0:06:51.320 --> 0:06:55.240
<v Speaker 3>I think his issue is that everything just stayed steady

0:06:55.760 --> 0:06:58.040
<v Speaker 3>and that could have been good enough. But Von Lackey

0:06:58.080 --> 0:07:01.479
<v Speaker 3>had a real breakout season. And Emerson is a different

0:07:01.480 --> 0:07:03.039
<v Speaker 3>story because we don't have a ton of data and

0:07:03.080 --> 0:07:05.880
<v Speaker 3>he went to play for a tiny religious school. He

0:07:05.960 --> 0:07:07.960
<v Speaker 3>wanted to play for Rusty Greer as his head coach,

0:07:08.120 --> 0:07:10.080
<v Speaker 3>so the competition he faced the spring was just kind

0:07:10.080 --> 0:07:11.960
<v Speaker 3>of lousy. So I think a lot of this was

0:07:12.120 --> 0:07:13.960
<v Speaker 3>just after last summer. It's like, that is the best

0:07:14.040 --> 0:07:17.120
<v Speaker 3>high school hitter in the draft, great swing, hit well

0:07:17.160 --> 0:07:19.480
<v Speaker 3>against the best quality pitching. He was the guy when

0:07:19.480 --> 0:07:21.000
<v Speaker 3>no one else could hit. He was the guy who's

0:07:21.040 --> 0:07:23.960
<v Speaker 3>still hitting. He just sort of gets elevated to the top.

0:07:24.040 --> 0:07:26.720
<v Speaker 3>And if you believe he's got that sort of Kevin

0:07:26.800 --> 0:07:29.360
<v Speaker 3>McGonagall hit tool around him, then yeah, he should be

0:07:29.360 --> 0:07:30.600
<v Speaker 3>in consideration at one.

0:07:31.160 --> 0:07:31.320
<v Speaker 1>Yeah.

0:07:31.360 --> 0:07:34.000
<v Speaker 2>I was curious about Emerson just thinking about the last

0:07:34.000 --> 0:07:35.840
<v Speaker 2>time there was a preseason number one who kind of

0:07:35.840 --> 0:07:38.280
<v Speaker 2>went wired a wire with Atlie Rutchman.

0:07:38.400 --> 0:07:39.000
<v Speaker 3>Elie Rutchman.

0:07:39.080 --> 0:07:41.640
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, yeah, and then Bobby Wood Junior went number two.

0:07:41.680 --> 0:07:44.480
<v Speaker 2>And obviously what we know now about Bobby Wood Junior,

0:07:44.560 --> 0:07:45.400
<v Speaker 2>it's maybe.

0:07:45.320 --> 0:07:47.280
<v Speaker 1>Hard to unwind that and think back to his.

0:07:47.360 --> 0:07:50.320
<v Speaker 2>Pure prospect state of where he was. But in terms

0:07:50.320 --> 0:07:52.600
<v Speaker 2>of the gap from going from say, like you know,

0:07:52.800 --> 0:07:56.480
<v Speaker 2>obviously if the Orioles took wits number one and let

0:07:56.520 --> 0:07:59.360
<v Speaker 2>Rutchman go, there might have been some consternation at the time,

0:07:59.400 --> 0:08:02.400
<v Speaker 2>but probably would have proved them correct and.

0:08:02.360 --> 0:08:04.640
<v Speaker 1>They're fine either way. But in terms of like the

0:08:04.680 --> 0:08:05.560
<v Speaker 1>gap between.

0:08:05.280 --> 0:08:10.160
<v Speaker 2>Chilawski and Emerson and such like, where is Emerson based

0:08:10.200 --> 0:08:14.040
<v Speaker 2>on what you can tell against competition he's faced against Chilawski,

0:08:14.040 --> 0:08:18.440
<v Speaker 2>against Lackey in that conversation, given just the the less information.

0:08:18.680 --> 0:08:21.680
<v Speaker 3>I have him below those guys I actually have below

0:08:21.720 --> 0:08:24.200
<v Speaker 3>Tyler Bell too from Kentucky where I'm the high guy.

0:08:24.360 --> 0:08:26.160
<v Speaker 3>But I look at Bell and I mean that guy

0:08:26.160 --> 0:08:28.680
<v Speaker 3>played the whole year with one shoulder and still in

0:08:28.680 --> 0:08:31.040
<v Speaker 3>an unbelievable season. He did do it in the SEC

0:08:31.200 --> 0:08:34.800
<v Speaker 3>facing the best competition. He's not in consideration at once.

0:08:34.840 --> 0:08:36.840
<v Speaker 3>It's not worth spending much time talking about him. But

0:08:36.880 --> 0:08:40.040
<v Speaker 3>to me, the difference is I don't have the degree

0:08:40.040 --> 0:08:43.360
<v Speaker 3>of confidence that Emerson is the next Kevin McGonagall. And

0:08:43.360 --> 0:08:45.640
<v Speaker 3>by the way, I saw Kevin McGonagall in high school,

0:08:45.679 --> 0:08:47.880
<v Speaker 3>he played about forty minutes for me. They actually came down.

0:08:47.920 --> 0:08:50.360
<v Speaker 3>He played about ten minutes for me, and I thought

0:08:50.400 --> 0:08:52.400
<v Speaker 3>he's a good player. He's definitely a first rounder. And

0:08:52.440 --> 0:08:54.560
<v Speaker 3>I think I had him like twenty to twenty five

0:08:54.600 --> 0:08:56.720
<v Speaker 3>on my board, So I didn't know at the time

0:08:56.880 --> 0:09:00.280
<v Speaker 3>he was this good. And I saw Emerson in the

0:09:00.320 --> 0:09:04.920
<v Speaker 3>spring and I thought maybe. I guess it's really hard

0:09:04.920 --> 0:09:06.959
<v Speaker 3>to tell what the level of competition he was facing.

0:09:07.120 --> 0:09:11.160
<v Speaker 3>He wasn't quite as successful on the showcases as McGonagall.

0:09:11.320 --> 0:09:15.160
<v Speaker 3>Was not so much a criticism of Emerson as it

0:09:15.200 --> 0:09:18.080
<v Speaker 3>is just McGonagle that good at the time. But then

0:09:18.120 --> 0:09:20.520
<v Speaker 3>I also look, you know, if everything goes well for

0:09:20.559 --> 0:09:24.440
<v Speaker 3>Emerson three years from now, is he rock Shallowski? Is

0:09:24.440 --> 0:09:28.760
<v Speaker 3>he better than Rock Shallowski? It's possible, but I would

0:09:28.840 --> 0:09:31.240
<v Speaker 3>not bet a substantial amount of money on it, say

0:09:31.400 --> 0:09:34.160
<v Speaker 3>the eleven million dollars of the first pick, right, could

0:09:34.200 --> 0:09:36.040
<v Speaker 3>I do? I think Emerson ends up three years from

0:09:36.040 --> 0:09:38.880
<v Speaker 3>now better than Chelawski or Lackey. I feel a lot

0:09:38.920 --> 0:09:42.040
<v Speaker 3>more confident knowing what those college players are. This is

0:09:42.120 --> 0:09:45.080
<v Speaker 3>one of those situations where going to the college route

0:09:45.400 --> 0:09:49.240
<v Speaker 3>means certainty probability. I understand college guys fail, but we

0:09:49.320 --> 0:09:51.440
<v Speaker 3>know a lot more about them, and we're not waiting

0:09:51.480 --> 0:09:54.920
<v Speaker 3>so much on physical or emotional development that I've ever heard,

0:09:55.040 --> 0:09:57.640
<v Speaker 3>never heard a bad word about Emerson's character, making more

0:09:57.679 --> 0:10:00.320
<v Speaker 3>of a broad statement a twenty one year old versus

0:10:00.320 --> 0:10:01.120
<v Speaker 3>an eighteen year old.

0:10:01.800 --> 0:10:03.800
<v Speaker 2>It's funny though, with the White Sox, just how much

0:10:03.840 --> 0:10:06.440
<v Speaker 2>has changed. And that's we're talking about the White Sox

0:10:06.480 --> 0:10:08.800
<v Speaker 2>maybe drafting a position player and you're saying, yeah, do

0:10:08.880 --> 0:10:12.720
<v Speaker 2>it just because Colson Montgomery, because of Caleb Bonnomer making

0:10:12.800 --> 0:10:15.600
<v Speaker 2>huge rides. And every time Bonnomer has like a cold week,

0:10:15.600 --> 0:10:17.760
<v Speaker 2>he realized, well, he is twenty, he's in double.

0:10:17.520 --> 0:10:19.920
<v Speaker 3>As, he's really young and from Michigan. Right, this guy

0:10:19.920 --> 0:10:23.800
<v Speaker 3>didn't come from Alabama or Florida, or Georgia or California,

0:10:23.840 --> 0:10:26.800
<v Speaker 3>where he was facing much better competition on a regular basis.

0:10:26.960 --> 0:10:29.079
<v Speaker 3>It was Michigan where I don't know if he was

0:10:29.120 --> 0:10:30.839
<v Speaker 3>in one of those leagues. There's leagues in Michigan where

0:10:30.840 --> 0:10:33.600
<v Speaker 3>they play three balls and two strikes, so it is

0:10:33.679 --> 0:10:37.959
<v Speaker 3>not the same thing. Howard, my husband fell at a

0:10:38.000 --> 0:10:40.439
<v Speaker 3>construction site. I knew it wasn't safe.

0:10:40.679 --> 0:10:41.360
<v Speaker 1>It ain't in law.

0:10:41.440 --> 0:10:44.160
<v Speaker 3>We're one of the largest filers of workers' compensation claims

0:10:44.160 --> 0:10:44.640
<v Speaker 3>in the state.

0:10:45.000 --> 0:10:46.440
<v Speaker 1>If you've been hurt on the job.

0:10:46.400 --> 0:10:49.000
<v Speaker 3>In a car accident or suffered a medical mistake, call

0:10:49.120 --> 0:10:50.800
<v Speaker 3>three one, two six million.

0:10:51.440 --> 0:10:53.480
<v Speaker 1>Interesting. Yeah, I don't think he played.

0:10:53.600 --> 0:10:55.440
<v Speaker 2>At least he did enough showcase the whey that didn't

0:10:55.440 --> 0:10:58.599
<v Speaker 2>come up as a criticism like, oh, we don't know

0:10:58.600 --> 0:11:02.120
<v Speaker 2>how he works counts he has ever to them. And

0:11:02.200 --> 0:11:04.280
<v Speaker 2>when it comes to like the you know, beyond the

0:11:04.320 --> 0:11:06.679
<v Speaker 2>first pick, you mentioned that, you know, there's no points

0:11:06.720 --> 0:11:09.839
<v Speaker 2>in getting cute with the money and trying to save

0:11:09.960 --> 0:11:12.320
<v Speaker 2>money or disperse it for picks down the line. But

0:11:12.360 --> 0:11:16.360
<v Speaker 2>in terms of like going from second round on, where

0:11:16.400 --> 0:11:18.840
<v Speaker 2>is the depth, where do you think the White Sox

0:11:18.920 --> 0:11:21.080
<v Speaker 2>can maybe go especially early on since they do have

0:11:21.080 --> 0:11:22.920
<v Speaker 2>the first pick of every round after that.

0:11:24.040 --> 0:11:27.040
<v Speaker 3>So the depth of this draft is actually in high

0:11:27.040 --> 0:11:29.680
<v Speaker 3>school pitching, which of course my least favorite category, but

0:11:30.040 --> 0:11:31.719
<v Speaker 3>I will say so the White Sox second pick is

0:11:31.760 --> 0:11:34.120
<v Speaker 3>forty one. At that point take the high school picture

0:11:34.200 --> 0:11:36.520
<v Speaker 3>where not the risk at that point has been mitigated.

0:11:36.600 --> 0:11:38.679
<v Speaker 3>The point of not taking high school pictures high is

0:11:39.000 --> 0:11:41.520
<v Speaker 3>don't take them in the top twenty five thirty because

0:11:41.800 --> 0:11:44.640
<v Speaker 3>in almost every draft there will be better options on

0:11:44.679 --> 0:11:48.000
<v Speaker 3>the board once you consider the higher risk involved in

0:11:48.200 --> 0:11:51.200
<v Speaker 3>taking the best high school pictures. Because the best high

0:11:51.200 --> 0:11:54.400
<v Speaker 3>school pictures often the guys who throw super hard, they

0:11:54.480 --> 0:11:57.280
<v Speaker 3>don't work out as often as the other categories, either

0:11:57.320 --> 0:11:59.560
<v Speaker 3>because they simply don't progress or because they get hurt

0:12:00.040 --> 0:12:02.280
<v Speaker 3>by the time you get to forty one. If you

0:12:02.320 --> 0:12:04.719
<v Speaker 3>think the best guy's high school pitcher, absolutely take him.

0:12:04.720 --> 0:12:07.240
<v Speaker 3>That may very well be the route that they go,

0:12:07.400 --> 0:12:11.760
<v Speaker 3>particularly given their history. They've tended to like taking project pitchers,

0:12:12.480 --> 0:12:14.600
<v Speaker 3>particularly if there's a lefty out there with a low slot,

0:12:14.640 --> 0:12:16.120
<v Speaker 3>and I feel like a lot of guys are going

0:12:16.160 --> 0:12:19.360
<v Speaker 3>to that low slot, low release height, get a high

0:12:19.400 --> 0:12:21.880
<v Speaker 3>vert on your fastball. That's kind of on trend right now.

0:12:22.440 --> 0:12:24.480
<v Speaker 3>They could also go to the high school position player route.

0:12:24.480 --> 0:12:27.400
<v Speaker 3>They've been tied a bunch to landin Toomai for obvious reasons,

0:12:28.000 --> 0:12:29.480
<v Speaker 3>not the least which is a local kid, and they

0:12:29.480 --> 0:12:32.160
<v Speaker 3>took Janfowski off the same high school team last year.

0:12:32.400 --> 0:12:34.560
<v Speaker 3>I actually don't know if Tommy gets to forty one,

0:12:35.000 --> 0:12:37.200
<v Speaker 3>but if he were still on the board at that point,

0:12:37.280 --> 0:12:38.880
<v Speaker 3>wouldn't surprise me at all and it would be a

0:12:38.920 --> 0:12:42.720
<v Speaker 3>valid selection. This would not be a NEPO pick. Yeah, yeah, No,

0:12:42.840 --> 0:12:44.840
<v Speaker 3>I think he actually does deserve to go there, And

0:12:45.080 --> 0:12:47.600
<v Speaker 3>by all accounts, he made a lot of strides in

0:12:47.600 --> 0:12:50.160
<v Speaker 3>the last twelve months, worked a lot, he got stronger,

0:12:50.520 --> 0:12:54.000
<v Speaker 3>he's driving the ball better. He just looks a lot different.

0:12:54.080 --> 0:12:56.560
<v Speaker 3>Year ago, he looked like he'll be a good college player.

0:12:56.600 --> 0:12:59.400
<v Speaker 3>He's nowhere near as physically developed as he is now

0:12:59.559 --> 0:13:01.200
<v Speaker 3>where you feel like you could send him out to

0:13:01.360 --> 0:13:03.160
<v Speaker 3>pro ball and he'll be able to handle that.

0:13:04.400 --> 0:13:05.680
<v Speaker 2>Then, when it comes to the top pick, in the

0:13:05.679 --> 0:13:07.839
<v Speaker 2>discussion around it is you're talking to the White Sox

0:13:07.880 --> 0:13:09.559
<v Speaker 2>as you're talking to other teams, trying to figure out

0:13:09.559 --> 0:13:12.640
<v Speaker 2>the White Sox are going to do, how or what

0:13:12.760 --> 0:13:15.840
<v Speaker 2>is the level of certainty or uncertainty like compared to

0:13:15.880 --> 0:13:19.080
<v Speaker 2>other years. Is it a normal level of chatter and

0:13:19.160 --> 0:13:24.679
<v Speaker 2>possibilities or is it teams really concerned about like needing

0:13:24.679 --> 0:13:25.640
<v Speaker 2>all routes available.

0:13:26.120 --> 0:13:29.640
<v Speaker 3>So I feel like last year the Nats were at

0:13:29.760 --> 0:13:32.640
<v Speaker 3>least in rumors, still looking at more guys. Now, of course,

0:13:32.640 --> 0:13:35.360
<v Speaker 3>the Nats had just fired their GM slash president a

0:13:35.360 --> 0:13:37.679
<v Speaker 3>week earlier, so that complicated thing.

0:13:37.800 --> 0:13:38.839
<v Speaker 1>Chris Gott seems safe.

0:13:39.240 --> 0:13:41.080
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, I think he's okay. Yeah, I think he's okay.

0:13:41.120 --> 0:13:45.000
<v Speaker 3>I think he's more than okay. So last year there

0:13:45.040 --> 0:13:48.960
<v Speaker 3>was definitely more uncertainty, and I knew all along will

0:13:48.960 --> 0:13:52.240
<v Speaker 3>It's was a possibility, but I didn't know he was

0:13:52.280 --> 0:13:55.080
<v Speaker 3>going to be the pick until really when it was made.

0:13:55.920 --> 0:13:59.480
<v Speaker 3>The year earlier was Cleveland was first, and it was

0:13:59.679 --> 0:14:04.160
<v Speaker 3>four names and Bisign it seemed likely but again not

0:14:04.240 --> 0:14:06.040
<v Speaker 3>a lock. And I feel like that's kind of where

0:14:06.080 --> 0:14:08.120
<v Speaker 3>we are now. It's I think it's three names. I

0:14:08.160 --> 0:14:09.760
<v Speaker 3>don't think there's another name in there. I think it's

0:14:09.800 --> 0:14:12.640
<v Speaker 3>Emerson Lackey Chilawski. It's not Jackson Flora the picture at

0:14:12.640 --> 0:14:15.640
<v Speaker 3>Santa Barbara. It's not Jacob Lombard, which was a rumor

0:14:15.679 --> 0:14:17.600
<v Speaker 3>at one point, and I think they toyed around with

0:14:17.640 --> 0:14:20.920
<v Speaker 3>the idea he is way too raw as a hitter,

0:14:21.240 --> 0:14:23.320
<v Speaker 3>you just you can't take that risk at the first

0:14:23.360 --> 0:14:26.280
<v Speaker 3>overall pick. There's a spot for that, it's just not first.

0:14:26.880 --> 0:14:30.520
<v Speaker 3>So for us to be nine days out and they've

0:14:30.560 --> 0:14:34.320
<v Speaker 3>got three names, and I feel some degree of confidence

0:14:34.560 --> 0:14:37.840
<v Speaker 3>that I think, I actually think Chilawski is thirtieth of

0:14:37.960 --> 0:14:41.640
<v Speaker 3>three on that list. But that's probably a little more

0:14:41.880 --> 0:14:43.920
<v Speaker 3>info than I would typically have on the first pick

0:14:43.960 --> 0:14:46.480
<v Speaker 3>at this juncture, just based on the last couple of

0:14:46.560 --> 0:14:49.680
<v Speaker 3>years where it often wasn't clear at all until draft

0:14:49.760 --> 0:14:51.400
<v Speaker 3>day or even until the pick was me.

0:14:52.680 --> 0:14:55.680
<v Speaker 2>So to wrap this up, the question that's on everybody's

0:14:55.760 --> 0:14:58.840
<v Speaker 2>mind given that how often it could change the snapshot

0:14:58.920 --> 0:15:01.160
<v Speaker 2>this window. We're talking right now now, who do you

0:15:01.200 --> 0:15:04.360
<v Speaker 2>have number one? And what's the level of certainty you

0:15:04.440 --> 0:15:07.120
<v Speaker 2>place in terms of percentage on that pick.

0:15:07.600 --> 0:15:10.040
<v Speaker 3>If I were producing a mock right now, and I'll

0:15:10.040 --> 0:15:13.080
<v Speaker 3>do another one on Monday, but I haven't started it yet,

0:15:13.160 --> 0:15:15.840
<v Speaker 3>so this is just as talking for now, I would

0:15:15.840 --> 0:15:23.040
<v Speaker 3>go Emerson forty five percent, trying to make sure of

0:15:23.040 --> 0:15:27.120
<v Speaker 3>my math works out on this, Lackey thirty five percent,

0:15:27.240 --> 0:15:30.040
<v Speaker 3>Rock twenty percent. I believe that gets me to one hundred. Yes,

0:15:30.240 --> 0:15:33.560
<v Speaker 3>I don't think it's anybody else. And I don't think

0:15:33.600 --> 0:15:35.920
<v Speaker 3>any of those guys is a giant discount either. So

0:15:35.920 --> 0:15:37.600
<v Speaker 3>if White Sox fans are worried, oh, they're going to

0:15:37.680 --> 0:15:39.560
<v Speaker 3>go cheap, I don't think that would be a realistic

0:15:39.720 --> 0:15:41.480
<v Speaker 3>thing anyway, that the White Sex have done that in

0:15:41.480 --> 0:15:43.400
<v Speaker 3>the past. But I think these are all going to

0:15:43.400 --> 0:15:46.480
<v Speaker 3>be guys who'll signed for slightly underslot at one, which

0:15:46.520 --> 0:15:48.680
<v Speaker 3>seems to be the norm and gives them a little

0:15:48.760 --> 0:15:51.960
<v Speaker 3>room to play around at subsequent picks. But they are not.

0:15:52.800 --> 0:15:55.360
<v Speaker 3>This isn't going about going for a discount. I very

0:15:55.480 --> 0:15:57.720
<v Speaker 3>much believe they are trying to decide who they think

0:15:57.760 --> 0:16:00.520
<v Speaker 3>is actually the best player. You can make a good

0:16:00.560 --> 0:16:01.720
<v Speaker 3>argument for all three of those guys.

0:16:02.720 --> 0:16:05.360
<v Speaker 2>And the fun thing is you're given your reputation for

0:16:05.360 --> 0:16:08.160
<v Speaker 2>hating every single team with the White Sox picking number one.

0:16:08.160 --> 0:16:11.120
<v Speaker 2>It's really hard to say between those three guys that

0:16:11.200 --> 0:16:13.520
<v Speaker 2>Keith Law hates any of them, because you said they're

0:16:13.520 --> 0:16:15.680
<v Speaker 2>all valid, and they're all there, like when you're on

0:16:15.760 --> 0:16:17.880
<v Speaker 2>record saying that they could go in any direction and

0:16:17.920 --> 0:16:18.600
<v Speaker 2>it would be fine.

0:16:18.880 --> 0:16:21.080
<v Speaker 3>So I tried, I tried to hate it. I just can't.

0:16:21.080 --> 0:16:22.240
<v Speaker 3>I can't get there, man, yeah.

0:16:22.160 --> 0:16:24.960
<v Speaker 2>Bring yourself to do it. And like you've turned around

0:16:24.960 --> 0:16:25.800
<v Speaker 2>on Jacob Gonzalez.

0:16:25.840 --> 0:16:26.920
<v Speaker 1>And then as soon as you.

0:16:26.920 --> 0:16:28.960
<v Speaker 2>Wrote that article on Jacob Gonzalez, he goes over twenty

0:16:28.960 --> 0:16:32.000
<v Speaker 2>eight right. I thought like this is uh, you know,

0:16:32.040 --> 0:16:33.800
<v Speaker 2>Keithlaw hates the White Sox. Now the White Sox hate

0:16:33.840 --> 0:16:34.880
<v Speaker 2>Keith Laws.

0:16:34.920 --> 0:16:35.480
<v Speaker 1>Full circle.

0:16:35.840 --> 0:16:38.560
<v Speaker 3>Yes, yeah, it was so nice to talk to. Now

0:16:38.600 --> 0:16:41.200
<v Speaker 3>I'm like, God, they put the whammy on him.

0:16:42.280 --> 0:16:43.760
<v Speaker 1>I think he puts the whammy on himself.

0:16:44.160 --> 0:16:45.200
<v Speaker 3>That's might be true.

0:16:45.720 --> 0:16:48.640
<v Speaker 2>All right, Well, I always appreciate your time and look

0:16:48.680 --> 0:16:52.080
<v Speaker 2>forward to, uh seeing how it unfolds my pleasure