All right, if we're talking potential products to drive an Industrial Revolution, here's my thoughts on a few items which for various reasons are or not really suitable. Some of these items have already been mentioned in the thread, others have not.
Coal/iron/steel - yes, since they were so in OTL.
For textiles, I've ranked the fibres in terms of suitability:
Cotton - very much yes, since it was one of the major drivers in OTL. What made it especially useful was that machine-made cotton textiles encouraged people to buy cotton textiles to replace other fibres (wool/linen)
Wool - yes, as it was a contributor in OTL; the British textile export industry consisted of about one-third woolen textiles during the early stages of the Industrial Revolution. Wool didn't have quite the same "replace existing textiles" advantage as cotton, but was nevertheless quite profitable and capable of driving investment
Silk -
maybe. There were some interesting examples of potential silk mechanisation in OTL, notably around the French silk industry in Lyon. The problems are several. Silk is very much more of a luxury fibre, so it's a much smaller market than cotton or woolen textiles. With silk more of the cost is in the raw fibre than the weaving, so mechanisation doesn't reduce the price by as much as cotton or wool. Most troubling of all, some research I've seen suggests that for silk, the price elasticity of demand is around 1 - or in non-economists' speak, dropping the price only increased demand by about enough to make the producers' total prices the same. That's not enough to drive the virtuous circle needed for an industrial revolution. On the other hand, silk was an important part of what drove early Japanese industrialisation, so maybe there's some scope there for the right region.
Linen -
even more maybe. Linen is an ancient fibre which has been used for many textiles. However, it was harder to weave or mechanise than other fibres, and was generally considered less comfortable to wear. This makes it more fiddly to get a mechanisation process going. The even bigger problem, though, is competition with textiles being produced elsewhere. If one region is proto-industrialising the production of linen textiles, then they may find it hard to sell against competition from handwoven textiles of wool or cotton, which limits the size of the market. There may be a niche somewhere that mechanical linen textiles become cheaper and others are harder to obtain for some reason, but it's not going to be anywhere near as effective a product as cotton textiles.
Sugar - in the right circumstances it could be
part of the answer, but not a complete one. As
@Socrates noted, with sugar in the New World it relied on an abundance of cheap forced slave labour, and in most cases this meant that anyone who had spare capital piled that into buying more slaves and/or more land to grow more sugar, not on investing in mechanisation to make the sugar production more efficient. However, this wasn't always the case in all places and all times. Sugar was grown in regions without slave labour at times (eg Java), and there's also the intriguing example of how when the slave trade was cut off, British planters started to make sugar production much more efficient, since they couldn't rely on cheap imported slave labour any more. So maybe there may be scope for sugar to drive industrialisation in a world where the international slave trade is cut off earlier, or where there are limited supplies of slaves for some reason (probably linked to some changes within Africa).
If sugar is going to be part of an industrial revolution, then there's a few factors to consider. Sugar production would really benefit from development of the steam engine; sugar refineries would be much more efficient with steam power, and have fuel on hand from waste sugar cane. However, I don't think that this is part of a development path that leads to the steam engine; the steam engine would have to be developed in another part of the *Industrial Revolution and applied to sugar production. Sugar does produce a lot of capital, which in the right circumstances can be reinvested into mechanisation and other improvements. A good example would be what happened with sugar production in Java, where they moved to exporting higher-margin products (rum, hard candies etc) made from sugar, rather than raw sugar. On the other hand, there is the difficulty that there will be competition from other sweeteners and other sugar producers. Lots of places can grow sugar, and if this is happening in a colonial environment there will also be the tendency that countries had to put up trade barriers to other countries sugar production, which would hinder development of a large market.
Lumber - mostly no, but might help in very specialised regions. As a general rule, lumber is too bulky and doesn't have high enough margins. There are also usually too many competitors around, and transportation costs too high, to have enough of a market. Even more fundamentally, trees get cut down and deforestation is a real risk. The tendency is usually to simply cut down enough trees and move on, which makes it hard to invest in a factory in the area which will be able to rely on enough lumber to operate. While lumber could be imported in some circumstances for a factory, see again high transportation costs and bulk cargoes. In specialised circumstances coppicing can exist, but that's more for charcoal production than for using timber for other purposes.
The reason I haven't ruled out lumber completely is because of the intriguing example of Sweden. In OTL, Sweden's rise as an industrial power was in large part driven by timber and wood products (and to a lesser degree charcoal for iron production). However, Sweden's circumstances were very specialised, including large areas of untapped timber on land which was less useful for agricultural purposes, and some
extremely high quality iron ore which meant that it was still competitive to use charcoal to convert that iron ore to iron or steel. Sweden also didn't start the industrial revolution, rather it industrialised using some technologies developed elsewhere, particularly railways. Also, Swedish industrialisation benefited from the progress of industrialisation elsewhere which increased total market sizes for Swedish exports such as wood pulp and matches. Swedish industrialisation also relied on a massive influx of foreign capital (mostly French and German) which helped investment in mechanisation and internal improvements. These wouldn't work in the same way for a country which was the first to develop an industrial revolution.
Porcelain - no. I mostly mention porcelain since it's an example of how a product can be profitable and have in this case a world monopoly, leading to specialised production, but not an industrial revolution. Chinese porcelain had been exported across the world for several centuries, and China had an effective monopoly for much of that time. China developed some massive scale porcelain production, principally at Jingdezhen. This town became the centre of China's largest porcelain production around the fourteenth century, due to a combination of some local resources and location close to the Grand Canal which facilitated transport of goods. Jingdezhen porcelain was exported around China and in time around much of the world, to the point where people in, say, colonial North America could order specialised porcelain designs and have the produced in Jingdezhen. This lead to an extremely efficient manufacturing complex, which imported raw materials from across China (and in a few specialised cases, overseas) and had very large workshops with specialised division of labour and kilns which could fire more than ten thousand pieces of porcelain at once.
But while Jingdezhen porcelain production was massive and impressive, it didn't lead to an industrial revolution or anything close to it. Porcelain was bulky and too low margin for the producers, with much of the value that was there being captured by the transport companies. Porcelain was also very much a luxury good; while it was exported around the world, it was exported only to the wealthy (until it became industrialised thanks to developments elsewhere). So there wasn't anything like the virtuous circle of production to drive investment and industrialisation.
Brewing -
maybe. Brewing was a (relatively small) part of the Industrial Revolution in OTL. On the one hand brewing relies on bulk production and transport, so see again comments about transportation costs. On the other hand, it leads to a product which is in bulk demand by most levels of society, so if it can be produced and/or transported more cheaply, then it leads to the virtuous circle of cheaper prices increasing demand. If it can be produced in a region where the raw ingredients can be sourced relatively locally, then there may be some scope for it becoming a larger part of an alt-industrial revolution.