White Sox Interactive Forums
What's The Score?

Welcome
Go Back   White Sox Interactive Forums > Baseball Discussions > What's The Score?
Home Chat Stats Register Blogs FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 06-23-2019, 03:33 PM
TDog TDog is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Modesto, California
Posts: 18,456
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteSox5187 View Post
I don't know why your post prompted this thought on my part, but one thing that is striking about the Cubs rebuild is how EVERYTHING went right. Bryant and Rizzo were as good as advertised almost right away (although I think Rizzo had one down year). ....
It wasn't just that Bryant was so good so soon. Everything went right for Bryant to make it to the Cubs at all. Beyond the Cubs losing enough to get the No. 2 pick in the draft (as if losing is part of everything going right), the Astros with their first selection went with a pitcher who is now out of baseball having never made it to the majors instead of taking the college hitter that most thought was more worthy of the top pick.

As for Rizzo, the Padres considered him a disappointment and traded him for a young pitcher the Cubs considered a disappointment. Rizzo blossomed with the Cubs and Cashner is still bouncing around the majors, occasionally looking like a quality major league starter. The Orioles, similarly, had given up on Arrieta, and thought Scott Feldman could do more for them in the short term. The Cubs did OK in signing Lester, but free agent starters signed since 2016 have been less impressive with Chatwood and Darvish not earning their big bucks.

The success of the Cubs rebuild isn't the sort a team can emulate. The Cubs weren't trading stars. They considered Castro untouchable until he played himself out of the designation, leading to a trade before the 2016 season.


Maybe the White Sox on the verge of things starting to go right after so much has gone wrong with their rebuild. They got a college hitter who could be better than Bryant (without the defensive flexibility) in the No. 3 pick this year. Pitching is still a huge issue, though, and that's where things have been most disappointing. Cease's Charlotte ERA continues to rise and so much of the rotation depends on recovery from surgery
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 06-23-2019, 03:57 PM
Mohoney Mohoney is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Palos Hills, IL
Posts: 11,625
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Domeshot17 View Post
Theo has been on record saying they have been lucky, it was not supposed to work this fast.
This is an important point.

There is a fairly decent possibility that all the pitching injuries and holes in the lineup will make this team non-competitive in 2020. The worst thing this team can possibly do is draw the wrong conclusion from that. Going back to the patchwork strategy of 3rd-tier free agent signings and trades for guys who are approaching free agency would be disastrous.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Horsemaster Fred
This is the major leagues so get it how you live and letís fight tomorrow.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 06-24-2019, 10:01 AM
Domeshot17 Domeshot17 is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Plainfield
Posts: 12,584
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TDog View Post
It wasn't just that Bryant was so good so soon. Everything went right for Bryant to make it to the Cubs at all. Beyond the Cubs losing enough to get the No. 2 pick in the draft (as if losing is part of everything going right), the Astros with their first selection went with a pitcher who is now out of baseball having never made it to the majors instead of taking the college hitter that most thought was more worthy of the top pick.

As for Rizzo, the Padres considered him a disappointment and traded him for a young pitcher the Cubs considered a disappointment. Rizzo blossomed with the Cubs and Cashner is still bouncing around the majors, occasionally looking like a quality major league starter. The Orioles, similarly, had given up on Arrieta, and thought Scott Feldman could do more for them in the short term. The Cubs did OK in signing Lester, but free agent starters signed since 2016 have been less impressive with Chatwood and Darvish not earning their big bucks.

The success of the Cubs rebuild isn't the sort a team can emulate. The Cubs weren't trading stars. They considered Castro untouchable until he played himself out of the designation, leading to a trade before the 2016 season.


Maybe the White Sox on the verge of things starting to go right after so much has gone wrong with their rebuild. They got a college hitter who could be better than Bryant (without the defensive flexibility) in the No. 3 pick this year. Pitching is still a huge issue, though, and that's where things have been most disappointing. Cease's Charlotte ERA continues to rise and so much of the rotation depends on recovery from surgery
I agree with MOST of what you are saying, but Vaughn isn't coming into the pros with the scouting report Bryant had. Bryant had 70-80 on his power grade. Vaughn is probably the best pure hitter since Bryant, but that is a high bar to set.

The real truth is, the Sox have done a good job of amasing the young talent. It now falls on the front office in terms of what can they do to supplement it. That is going to mean a prime time FA or trade SP, a similar batter, and atleast one mid rotation arm.

The Sox need veterans who can teach these kids how to win. That isn't an Abreu or Wellington Castillo, that comes from a player who spent time in a winning organization.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 06-25-2019, 07:23 PM
Tragg Tragg is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Gonzales LA
Posts: 15,706
Blog Entries: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohoney View Post
This is an important point.
Going back to the patchwork strategy of 3rd-tier free agent signings and trades for guys who are approaching free agency would be disastrous.
That's exactly what they did last offseason. And he wanted to trade for Joc, which would have been a higher resource trade, along the lines you are warning against. Perhaps that's just what they do to try to build a team.

Last edited by Tragg; 06-25-2019 at 07:32 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 06-25-2019, 08:33 PM
blandman blandman is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,881
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tragg View Post
That's exactly what they did last offseason. And he wanted to trade for Joc, which would have been a higher resource trade, along the lines you are warning against. Perhaps that's just what they do to try to build a team.

Joc Pederson is a high upside young talent, and we missed our opportunity to grab him before his value skyrocketed. He's got 20 homers in less than half a season, an .875 slugging percentage, and is on his way to a 3-4 WAR season. He would LEAD our current roster in slugging and be second in OPS to part-timer James McCann. Making this sting more is the acquisition of Yonder Alonso to be our left handed power bat instead.

But nobody should be making the argument we dodged a bullet by not trading for Pederson, when he's clearly better than the bulk of our roster, even the highly touted kids. He would be our BEST hitter right now, as a 27 year old with another season on his contract.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 06-25-2019, 09:48 PM
Tragg Tragg is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Gonzales LA
Posts: 15,706
Blog Entries: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blandman View Post

But nobody should be making the argument we dodged a bullet by not trading for Pederson, when he's clearly better than the bulk of our roster, even the highly touted kids. He would be our BEST hitter right now, as a 27 year old with another season on his contract.
He's exactly what you said we shouldn't do: trade for a player nearing free agency. And I agree with that assessment. That's not how these other teams were built. That's how some teams that are already built add a cherry on top. That's what the White Sox did in 2014 and 2015 when they weren't ready and they paid a heavy price.

The Cubs may have been lucky, but you make your own luck by giving yourself plenty of chances, by making value trades for young players, using the July trade period etc.
And I suppose the Astros, As and Brewers were lucky in that regard too.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 06-26-2019, 02:49 PM
blandman blandman is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,881
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tragg View Post
He's exactly what you said we shouldn't do: trade for a player nearing free agency. And I agree with that assessment. That's not how these other teams were built. That's how some teams that are already built add a cherry on top. That's what the White Sox did in 2014 and 2015 when they weren't ready and they paid a heavy price.

The Cubs may have been lucky, but you make your own luck by giving yourself plenty of chances, by making value trades for young players, using the July trade period etc.
And I suppose the Astros, As and Brewers were lucky in that regard too.

He was a buy low opportunity that would have cost a pittance. He panned out. Now he's young with another year of control. If you trade him now he's worth a haul. You trade him this offseason, he's worth a haul. You keep him, maybe you extend him and have more tradable assets. This was a non-move that bit us in the ass. Sometimes passing is the wrong move. It's not going to be on Hahn's list of bad trades. But sometimes its the right moves you fail to make that define you.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Forum Jump




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:50 PM.




Design by: Michelle

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Site-specific editorial/photos Copyright ©2001 - 2008 White Sox Interactive. All rights reserved.