35thstreetswarm

It's safe to say that a) everyone can imagine the worst-case COVID scenario; and b) everyone understands (and frankly assumes) you believe it will come to pass. There's really no need to rehash the position over another dozen+ posts. That's not illuminating - it's venting.

He's definitely on the Ian Happ and David Bote HOF trajectory

I know - it's odd he seems so uncontroversial as 1/1. I guess the potential for outfield must be it, along with a perception that it's important to take the safety of a known quantity like Torkelson in a year with such unprecedented limitations on available player data (and maybe a weaker draft pool).

Vaughn 2018: .402/.531/.819, 23 HR, 44 BB, 18 SO Torkelson 2018: .320/.440/.743, 25 HR, 38 BB, 44 SO Vaughn 2019: .381/.544/.716, 15 HR, 59 BB, 33 SO Torkelson 2019: .351/.446/.707, 23 HR, 41 BB, 45 SO Torkelson 2020: .340/.598/.780, 6 HR, 31 BB, 15 SO

I've probably just missed it as I haven't followed that closely, but given Torkelson seems a lock to go 1/1, has there been as much agonizing this year about how short-ish RH first basemen should never be 1/1 picks? Maybe Vaughn blazed a trail by going as high as he did.

Our young players also need the development to keep our rebuild on track. I'd prefer more games to fewer, but zero games would be a disaster from a development perspective (in addition to a whole lot of others).

Agreed. I'd have a tough time justifying my fandom if I was a Cubs fan. Good thing I hated them already!

Nope, he had it right with "ignorant." What you declare as "science" (good trick, by the way! Ron Burgundy would be proud) is rejected by the actual scientists who make up the world's epidemiological community. "Hasten the spread of Coronavirus" is an approach favored by literally no one with credibility. That is because it is stupid.

I totally agree and am surprised this board isn't more focused on this side of things. This seems like a best-case-scenario for a team that is inexperienced but (we hope) at the beginning of a marked upward trend, and has a number of potentially key pieces that were set to arrive "late" in a traditional season.

There’s some reporting suggesting the possibility of “expanded rosters” in lieu of a minor league season: https://www.lookoutlanding.com/2020/4/29/21242000/sources-no-minor-league-baseball-in-2020-mlb-expanding-rosters-instead Whether true or not, this coalesces with a thought that’s been bouncing around in my head for a while: couldn’t the combination of delay and expanded rosters/relaxed service time restrictions be particularly advantageous (or at least interesting) for the Sox? Imagine a season where we can just start out with Kopech and Rodon in the rotation mix, Madrigal splitting time at 2nd, maybe even Vaughn thrown in as well? Maybe the roster management difficulties would be too great, but boy, it would be interesting to unlock all the potential late-season bonuses we’ve been looking forward to all at once.

https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/mlb-discussing-three-state-plan-with-one-hub-in-texas-as-possible-solution-to-start-2020-season/

Like

Even better.

It would appear the multiple people discussing the format of a possible 2020 baseball season in this thread do.

I'd feel pretty good about that. Not hard to imagine the Sox finishing top 4.

My first impression was: this switch would make our divisional prospects worse. My second impression was: ...but maybe this switch would make our League prospects (including wild card chances) better, and that ultimately matters more. My third impression was: who cares? It would be different and crazy and this already promises to be a bit of an "experimental" year anyway. That's where I am now.

Nah, next season is the one that would be the real kick in the teeth to interrupt. Maybe the one after that as well. I’m excited for this season, but it’s still just the warmup.

On the bright side, maybe no more worries about his innings limit...

They're in another forum (SLaM)

Ooooohhh, the trap is set! Masterful!

Great—it’s probably what allowed us to get him at 3.

I think Cease may end up being the story of the year. I really hope so.

It's funny, almost any trade can be justified by playing the "circumstances at the time" game, since all were made by baseball professionals and few trades are patently terrible on day 1. Most trades, though, do end up getting evaluated by fans and organizations based on tangible results, i.e. what actually happens with the players. Every manager on his way out the door can deploy a million persuasive ex ante rationalizations for all their "bad" moves -- fans are not usually willing to deploy the same reasoning in their favor, though, unless the team has built an insane amount of goodwill. It sounds to me like the Cubs' performance during their fast-closing window was good enough to buy your blanket forgiveness for a while. Fair enough, but I just don't think one title after an uber-hyped multi-year tank job will buy that much from most.

I agree that we'll have to make the same *types* of decisions that the Cubs did. I just hope we'll make better ones. I think the knock on the Cubs is they traded the wrong prospects (though tough to know if the deals would've been available at the time for different prospects) and signed the wrong free agents (e.g. Heyward). Not that they should've just avoided trades and the free agent market altogether. And the Darvish example aside, it's not like there weren't better moves available at many points along the way - they likely could've had Verlander, for example.

I think that's why the poster wrote "what not to do on the back end." The whole "Cubs won a World Series and I'd be happy with a World Series" post kind of goes without saying [typing?] at this point.