35thstreetswarm

I think the problem is that the thread title question is too provocative and kind of begs for "no, you can't have too much" as an answer. It seems to me like what you're really asking is more like: what if we already have four guys in the rotation that are pitching well enough next season that it's not fair to bench them -- how do we make room to audition the group of prospects (hopefully) knocking at the door? Am I right? I think that's a fair question. Maybe we can test some guys out in the bullpen? Go with a 6-man rotation?

I think the "player's development is all that matters" mantra is focused on the wrong question. Not to sound harsh and uncaring, but these guys are not our children. They're effectively employees of the Chicago White Sox organization -- the team I cheer for. The relevant question for me (and I think most fans) therefore isn't what's "best for their development" as individual players in some abstract sense (if that's even possible to quantify). The question is what's best for the team, and issues like team control, the fanbase, etc. all factor into that. "What's best for the player" and "what's best for the team" are overlapping but not identical questions. Harming a player's development more than likely harms the team. So you would probably never do that. But let's say you could make a decision that presented a moderate risk of delaying a star player reaching his peak by one month, but ensured team control of that player in his prime for one year. You would be prioritizing the team over the player's development by making that decision, and you would do it every time. I think we're pretty close to that hypothetical here. #team2019

I’ve been reading complaints on this board for over a decade about plodding, station-to-station softball players, the need for the Sox to finally find some “baseball players”, emphasize up-the-middle defense, speed, etc. A little disorienting, after seeing the Sox finally draft a player who embodies everything the organization has deemphasized to its great detriment since 2005, to read that power is really all that matters.

Yes, and if that was how we regarded him why wouldn’t we have drafted him in the second round rather than hoping he was there (again) 40 picks later?

I can't believe this but...I love this entire draft so far. What's going on with this organization?

The Cubs called up Soler and Baez in 2014. They called up Bryant, Russell, and Schwarber in 2015 and started competing. That’s five of their major prospects with several (Almora, Torres, Jimenez, Contreras, etc) still in the minors. Moncada, Lopez, and Giolito are already up. Jimenez and Kopech will be up in 2019 at the latest. That’s five of their major prospects with several still in the minors. Not sure why you’re projecting the Sox will need four years after their first main core is called up to compete—that really has no precedent. This doesn’t even count Anderson as a “major prospect,” or account for the fact that Collins and other prospects may be called up in ‘19 as well. That’s a lot of the core talent. You shouldn’t need to fill the entire roster with 40 hot prospects within a 6-month window to get your rebuild going.

There will be a learning curve, but they won’t suck until 2023 (unless something goes wrong). They should contribute quickly even if they continue to improve over multiple seasons. For the record, I dont think calling Eloy/Kopech up in July vs September vs May of 2019 will make much difference in their development or the timeline of the rebuild, so while I would be excited to see them sooner, I think maximizing control is the most important thing.

If I pretended (i) that Jose Abreu, Tim Anderson, Lucas Giolito, Zack Collins, Seby Zavala, Yolmer Sanchez, and Matt Davidson (and others) didn't exist; (ii) that there is no free agency or trade market; and (iii) that top prospects typically languish and suck at the big league level for two-three years before contributing, I would agree with this. But this timeline is totally divorced from reality and recent rebuild history. I've said this before, but by your timeline, the Cubs and Astros should be getting decent any day now...

His involvement with the reality TV world has left me with a deep feeling of uneasiness about his makeup. Maybe unfair, and I hope I'm wrong, but the douche factor is strong with this one.

Yeah - it's like the opposite of looking at top pitchers drafted

Yeah, I think there's a good chance, and I'd be fine with anybody in that top four. I just really want Madrigal.

The Athletic mock draft goes Mize, Bart, Madrigal, Bohm, Singer, which lines up with my prediction/fear. I’m not sure why Philly passes on Madrigal, no matter what Law says.

My god - if they traded Russell for a rental, flamed out in the playoffs, and then Machado went elsewhere....leaving them with no SS while Torres tears it up with the Yankees.... Probably too much to ask, I suppose. I have to think they only go that route if they have pretty good assurances they keep Machado after '18.

I hope that's true, though I have my doubts. Seems like the factors leading so many on this board to gravitate toward Madrigal are the same ones that might move him out of our reach.

I agree that it will come down to the pitching. I don't think the Cubs are shaping into quite the offensive powerhouse some predicted, and hot starting pitching was more of a key to their past success than many casual fans/media types think. And if you throw the Phillies and Padres in the mix, it might even be that 12 of the next 6 WS are spoken for

They've had a great run, no doubt. But my question is really more about what the Cubs are now and going forward, not an assessment of the last three years. Are they in the middle of their run, or on the downslope? (I assume "time left in this group" means you think the former). The next few seasons are what will determine whether they're remembered as a good team with a good run, or a dynasty. And by the way, as good as their run has been, I think that if the Cubs were to go out in the first round this year, and never win another title, I don't think most would consider the Cubs to have delivered on the full promise of the much hyped Theo renaissance. They've put together a run that's on par with say the Royals of this decade, or the Phillies of last. Really good teams. But one banner is not exactly the stuff of legend.

Considering I (and probably most on this board) thought he was organizational filler about a year ago, I'd count that as a huge and unexpected success, and a big shot in the arm of the rebuild.

This thread is way too dead for me as a card-carrying, not-remotely-too-cool-for-school, third-generation Cub hater. I need more to talk about while we await the arrival of the real White Sox team we've been promised. So here's the big-picture question. The Cubs have been sold as the ultimate rebuild success story. All seemed to be going according to script, with the earlier-than-expected coming out party in 2015 followed by the 2016 championship season. It appeared to be opening act to an extended run of championship baseball. Most of the Cub fans I know continue to carry their 2016 attitude today: they feel blessed to be in the midst of the "juggernaut era" the rebuild was supposed to usher in. And maybe they are. But the counterpoint is that as we stand here in 2018, they were at most the third best team in baseball last season. It's hard to argue that they've gotten better on a pure personnel level - the switch from Arrieta to Darvish, and from Wade Davis to Morrow & Co., were lateral moves at best (maybe not even that). Their main competition from last year hasn't gone away, and several contenders have gotten better. Their play has been uninspiring, though it's absurdly early. Their farm system has been stripped pretty bare: their next big wave is coming, but it's coming to the Bronx and 35th and Shields. So what are the Cubs exactly? Are they a sleeping giant that just took a post-championship hangover year off, and will momentarily return to form and rip off another title or two? Or are they just another team: one that rode some good moves, good luck, and a crazy-hot pitcher's career seasons to squeak by the Indians in extras of game 7, but have now fallen back into the pack of teams that are good but not "special"? Time will tell, but I think it's interesting that this is among the last moments you can credibly argue for either of these scenarios.

This--and other threads from anti-rebuild folks who are furious that a rebuilding team is bad--have really convinced me and gotten me thinking. I have even tried to apply the lessons of these threads to my own life. For example, in the offseason I decided to remodel my kitchen. I did this because it was old and bad, and I wanted one that was new and good. My contractor told me that I'd be "without a kitchen" for two months while they finished the job. I paid him, but must say I was really taken aback when I walked into my kitchen in early April to find all the appliances and most of the walls were gone! My original attitude about this was, "well, I will suffer through the pain of remodeling for the delayed gratification of a nicer kitchen down the road. After all, this was the plan all along." But reading the comments in these threads has inspired me to treat each day without a working kitchen as a new and independent outrage. I walk around the site each day screaming "where is the refrigerator?!!" and "This kitchen doesn't even have running water - kitchens should have running water!!" I mean, the name of the game is to have a kitchen, not a construction site, right? Pretty simple. My contractor tries to calm me down by saying things like "....I don't understand -- IT IS a construction site, because it's under construction" and "the refrigerator will arrive when the kitchen is done -- remember?" and "We talked about all this, didn't we? Wait, am I going crazy?" But honestly I think he's just an apologist. I'm thinking of firing him and having my big Viking stove delivered and plopped right in the middle of my former kitchen so I can admire it all day amid the sawdust. It's really the least that I deserve.

Oh, didn't realize that he stayed in the field. I have now taken several steps back from the ledge.

He pulled up running to third? This sounds like an injury to me, hopefully not serious.

I do like that the other full rebuilds that are "scheduled" to bear fruit at the same time as ours are clustered in the NL.

QUOTE (chitownsportsfan @ Apr 17, 2018 -> 10:23 AM) Reasonable responses. I think I had 79 wins, which looks way too optimistic. If Avi really goes back to being below replacement that is three wins right there and he sure looks like he is back in that mode. The losses don't bother me so much as how they are losing. Had to turn the game off after TAs error last night. Looks like a 70 win team right now. At least Lopez is off to a great start. I'm happier about Reynaldo Lopez looking like a legit MLB starter than I would be with the Sox in first place in April 2018 with Lopez looking shaky. I could care less about wins/losses with the current group. I do care about Moncada turning it around, but I still have confidence he'll do that.

QUOTE (Quin @ Apr 15, 2018 -> 10:14 PM) HeGoan is the worst nickname since HoT fIrE. HeGoan is actually very pithy and not at all a stretch of a disparaging nickname. Right in the running with "YOu cANt hit", or "Moncadamnhestruckoutagain", or "The Cuban Missile Crisis"

QUOTE (SoxFan2003 @ Apr 11, 2018 -> 02:06 PM) I agree. What I don't understand is why we take it so personally. I used to be guilty of it myself even though I personally go to 15-20 games a year. Even the Cubs were getting negative pub during their rebuild with pictures of vast empty spaces within Wrigley (though obviously never as empty as what we saw this week). This is a rebuild year. We'll be bad, and attendance will be bad. I thought everybody was clear on this.