RagahRagah Posted December 30, 2020 Share Posted December 30, 2020 7 hours ago, ron883 said: Lol, remember that one time you argued the point below? Pointing out a flaw in someone's argument =/= being a dick. I was making a serious analogy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RagahRagah Posted December 30, 2020 Share Posted December 30, 2020 8 hours ago, southsider2k5 said: Unless it applies to you. Example? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ron883 Posted December 30, 2020 Share Posted December 30, 2020 1 minute ago, RagahRagah said: Pointing out a flaw in someone's argument =/= being a dick. I was making a serious analogy. Nobody, maybe in the history of Soxtalk, is less of a dick then you are. Nobody! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RagahRagah Posted December 30, 2020 Share Posted December 30, 2020 2 minutes ago, ron883 said: Nobody, maybe in the history of Soxtalk, is less of a dick then you are. Nobody! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chetkincaid Posted December 30, 2020 Share Posted December 30, 2020 1 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted December 30, 2020 Share Posted December 30, 2020 I do get a kick out of Hoyer saying this trade wasn't motivated by money. Oh really? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2Jimmy0 Posted December 30, 2020 Share Posted December 30, 2020 Just now, Dick Allen said: I do get a kick out of Hoyer saying this trade wasn't motivated by money. Oh really? He has to say that. Loses all leverage in future trades otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago White Sox Posted December 30, 2020 Share Posted December 30, 2020 3 minutes ago, Y2Jimmy0 said: He has to say that. Loses all leverage in future trades otherwise. While 100% true, at this point I think it’s pretty clear the Ricketts are in cost cutting mode. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted December 30, 2020 Share Posted December 30, 2020 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Y2Jimmy0 said: He has to say that. Loses all leverage in future trades otherwise. If other teams don't know that is BS, they need new management. Maybe now he doesn't have to trim any more payroll, but we all knew it was all about cash when Theo took a walk. Edited December 30, 2020 by Dick Allen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NCsoxfan Posted December 30, 2020 Share Posted December 30, 2020 Is the only reason that the Sox had to give up so much more than the Padres for Darvish the contract? Seems like we kind of got fleeced in comparison. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago White Sox Posted December 30, 2020 Share Posted December 30, 2020 10 minutes ago, NCsoxfan said: Is the only reason that the Sox had to give up so much more than the Padres for Darvish the contract? Seems like we kind of got fleeced in comparison. Are you talking about for Lynn? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted December 30, 2020 Share Posted December 30, 2020 13 minutes ago, NCsoxfan said: Is the only reason that the Sox had to give up so much more than the Padres for Darvish the contract? Seems like we kind of got fleeced in comparison. Passan was saying MLB should be spooked by that trade. Some elite pitcher being traded for 17 year olds who haven't played professionally yet. And there was only 1 taker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NCsoxfan Posted December 30, 2020 Share Posted December 30, 2020 5 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said: Are you talking about for Lynn? Yes. Tough to argue we didn’t give up more future value for less time under contract. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harold's Leg Lift Posted December 30, 2020 Share Posted December 30, 2020 1 hour ago, Y2Jimmy0 said: He has to say that. Loses all leverage in future trades otherwise. Judging from the Darvish return he doesn't have a lot of leverage to lose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted December 30, 2020 Share Posted December 30, 2020 Was the darvish trade that different from the hamels trade? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago White Sox Posted December 30, 2020 Share Posted December 30, 2020 (edited) 14 minutes ago, bmags said: Was the darvish trade that different from the hamels trade? In what sense? The Rangers gave up quite a bit of talent, the Padres not so much. Edited December 30, 2020 by Chicago White Sox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2Jimmy0 Posted December 30, 2020 Share Posted December 30, 2020 The Padres gave up a lot of talent though. Two of those dudes were significant international signings that have had immediate success in rookie ball. Caissie was highly regarded 2nd rounder. People were expecting more but it wasn't a straight salary dump. Cubs acquired some real talent. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted December 30, 2020 Share Posted December 30, 2020 10 minutes ago, Y2Jimmy0 said: The Padres gave up a lot of talent though. Two of those dudes were significant international signings that have had immediate success in rookie ball. Caissie was highly regarded 2nd rounder. People were expecting more but it wasn't a straight salary dump. Cubs acquired some real talent. It is real talent, it is just surprising how far away it all is. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ron883 Posted December 30, 2020 Share Posted December 30, 2020 Darvish is 34 years old, has injury concerns, and is in the hook for 3 more years. He also hasn't been consistently great by any means. I'm not sure why people expected the moon for him. It wasn't that long ago people were talking about how bad of a signing that was. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago White Sox Posted December 30, 2020 Share Posted December 30, 2020 14 minutes ago, Y2Jimmy0 said: The Padres gave up a lot of talent though. Two of those dudes were significant international signings that have had immediate success in rookie ball. Caissie was highly regarded 2nd rounder. People were expecting more but it wasn't a straight salary dump. Cubs acquired some real talent. Sure, but it’s incredibly high risk talent that is years away from contributing. When comparing it to the Snell package, it’s hard to say it’s not an underwhelming return. I think in a non COVID environment the Cubs get far more for the NL Cy Young runner-up on a 3/$54M deal even despite his advanced age. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted December 30, 2020 Share Posted December 30, 2020 (edited) 41 minutes ago, Y2Jimmy0 said: The Padres gave up a lot of talent though. Two of those dudes were significant international signings that have had immediate success in rookie ball. Caissie was highly regarded 2nd rounder. People were expecting more but it wasn't a straight salary dump. Cubs acquired some real talent. 31 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said: It is real talent, it is just surprising how far away it all is. After doing some reading and listening, I think this is absolutely the case. I think a lot of fans on the North Side could stomach a rebuild/retool right now. They really don't like the current core and have seen it fail numerous times over the last few seasons. I think they are ready for big change. But it's also not that simple. 1. They are frustrated that the core put together only made one World Series. They expected more, as did many others outside Wrigleyville. 2. Ownership over the last 16 months has made multiple blunders that really hurt their credibility, which seems almost unfathomable considering they brought them a World Series Championship in 2016. 3. Furthermore, the Ricketts family talked about how much they loved Wrigley Field, going to games in the summer, siting out in the bleachers....and they've turned Wrigleyville into a Schaumburg shopping center. So you gutted a neighborhood people loved so you could make more of a profit....and now you're seemingly shedding payroll. 4. I think it's starting to feel like a mass exodus over there with both Theo and Kasper leaving unexpectedly, almost seeming like they wanted to get out before the ship went completely underwater. So, with those points in mind......when you trade Darvish for a pitcher who has one year left on his deal and 4 young lottery tickets....the harsh reality really sets in that the ride is not only over....but it's going to be another LONG rebuild that isn't 100% driven by baseball decisions, but also somewhat forced by ownership. I think the feeling on the Darvish trade is different if instead of 5 players they got 2 back.....but it was the caliber of Eloy and Cease back in 2017. People know the rebuild is still happening, but you got young, identifiable prospects people are excited to follow and see develop. They got 4 guys that while may turn out to be studs...are a LONG way away. That's just my take on it, but when you add all that up, you're going to have some unhappy customers. Edited December 30, 2020 by Tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sox80 Posted December 30, 2020 Share Posted December 30, 2020 46 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said: Sure, but it’s incredibly high risk talent that is years away from contributing. When comparing it to the Snell package, it’s hard to say it’s not an underwhelming return. I think in a non COVID environment the Cubs get far more for the NL Cy Young runner-up on a 3/$54M deal even despite his advanced age. If the Cubs are punting the next 3-4 years the younger prospects might not be a bad approach. I know it's more risk . Just a thought . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted December 30, 2020 Share Posted December 30, 2020 29 minutes ago, Tony said: After doing some reading and listening, I think this is absolutely the case. I think a lot of fans on the North Side could stomach a rebuild/retool right now. They really don't like the current core and have seen it fail numerous times over the last few seasons. I think they are ready for big change. But it's also not that simple. 1. They are frustrated that the core put together only made one World Series. They expected more, as did many others outside Wrigleyville. 2. Ownership over the last 16 months has made multiple blunders that really hurt their credibility, which seems almost unfathomable considering they brought them a World Series Championship in 2016. 3. Furthermore, the Ricketts family talked about how much they loved Wrigley Field, going to games in the summer, siting out in the bleachers....and they've turned Wrigleyville into a Schaumburg shopping center. So you gutted a neighborhood people loved so you could make more of a profit....and now you're seemingly shedding payroll. 4. I think it's starting to feel like a mass exodus over there with both Theo and Kasper leaving unexpectedly, almost seeming like they wanted to get out before the ship went completely underwater. So, with those points in mind......when you trade Darvish for a pitcher who has one year left on his deal and 4 young lottery tickets....the harsh reality really sets in that the ride is not only over....but it's going to be another LONG rebuild that isn't 100% driven by baseball decisions, but also somewhat forced by ownership. I think the feeling on the Darvish trade is different if instead of 5 players they got 2 back.....but it was the caliber of Eloy and Cease back in 2017. People know the rebuild is still happening, but you got young, identifiable prospects people are excited to follow and see develop. They got 4 guys that while may turn out to be studs...are a LONG way away. That's just my take on it, but when you add all that up, you're going to have some unhappy customers. Honestly it reminds me of the Sox trading for Eloy pretty early in his US career. It was one of those deals where he could have exploded on the scene, or he could have flopped, but his upside was there to make it worth while. All four of the kids, especially the international ones, have the potential to be to 3 prospects in the Cubs system in a year or two's time. They also have the potential to wash out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted December 30, 2020 Share Posted December 30, 2020 I think a big part of it is the feeling that the top prospects of 2019 were just wrapped in bubble wrap and are the same now. Had there been baseball, the top 100 would have seen huge churn as always. These guys being 10-20 or something means less than if it happened last winter. We just have little idea. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flash Posted December 31, 2020 Share Posted December 31, 2020 3 hours ago, Y2Jimmy0 said: The Padres gave up a lot of talent though. Two of those dudes were significant international signings that have had immediate success in rookie ball. Caissie was highly regarded 2nd rounder. People were expecting more but it wasn't a straight salary dump. Cubs acquired some real talent. Absolutely agree. Hoyer knew what he was doing. Cubs, unlike Rays, are looking several years odown the road. All four of these guys move into Cubs top 10-12 prospects. Cubs weren't interested in major league ready talent. Just tooled-up, high upside athletes and thats what they got. I give this trade a win-win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.