35thstreetswarm

Rock bottom for me was in 2016, coming off yet another mediocre season that I, and most hard core fans, knew deep down would be a mediocre season even before it started. Just like 2015, and 2014, and 2013, and so on. We had a terrible farm system and lacked the assets to supplement the small core of plus MLB players on our roster and create a contending team. The situation looked totally hopeless to me. I'll say that I'm having more fun checking Charlotte and Birmingham box scores, watching Eloy lay waste to MiLB pitching, and following the development of our farm than I ever did trying to convince myself every April-June that the team could somehow luck its way into a wild card.

The argument wasn’t Eloy vs Gleyber right now, or in the future. It was whether 2017 Eloy’s trade value as an A ball prospect (at the time he was traded) was equal to Gleyber’s trade value right now—after already blowing through the minors and succeeding at the ml level. Those values are obviously not equivalent. The fact that Eloy’s value has exploded since the 2017 trade due to his production at the AA and AAA levels only further proves that point.

I don’t know what any of this means. When he was traded, Jimenez was an A ball prospect who had not yet torched AA and AAA like he did over the last year. If Torres were traded tomorrow he’d be a major league player who has already blown through the minors and is currently succeeding at the major league level (and at a premium position). The values of the two are not equivalent.

Eloy Jimenez was an A-ball prospect. Gleyber Torres is a 22-year-old slashing .289/.347/.542/.889 for the New York Yankees .

I don’t think that’s the question at all. I think he’s definitely ready. I also think he should be called up next season. I’ll think the same if he hits 1.000 for the rest of the season. It’s about team control, not whether he needs to hit .350 or .360 or .370. The dude is a stud and will remain so next year barring injury.

Yeah, it's not fun having a bad season. If it makes you feel any better, when we go home without a WS trophy this season it will be because we're in year 2 of a rebuild. When they do, it will mean another year of their supposed "dynasty window" squandered.

Totally agree with the second half and overall sentiment of your post. But as to the Cubs experience: I knew a lot of die-hard Cub fans who were very impatient throughout their rebuild, and I'm sure there are Cub message boards with 2014 archives that look a lot like the dark corners of Soxtalk today. I remember a lot of griping when the Cubs lost out on Tanaka. When Javy Baez, their first big prospect to arrive, was setting strikeout records there was widespread talk of him being a bust. There was considerable angst on sports talk radio toward the end of the rebuild about how long things were taking, and news stories showing scads of empty seats at supposedly sold-out Cubs games in 2014. It's easy to forget all of that, just like these low points will hopefully be unmemorable blips if/when the rebuild starts to get traction at the major league level.

You keep saying this, but I think you know that the plan IS for the Sox's highly-touted farm system to turn out a core of elite talent comparable to Houston's. If all goes according to plan, Eloy, Moncada, Robert, Madrigal, etc. will be comparable to the young cores of Houston and other successful rebuilds. That's the whole idea. Now, nobody yet knows for sure if that will happen since they are still just touted prospects and not established MLB stars (just like Altuve, Correa, Springer, and Bregman a few years ago). You don't have to believe it. Maybe the baseball world was wrong about Moncada and Eloy. But the Sox have built a top farm system with projected star power, which is all you can really ask at this stage of a rebuild . Your issue really seems to be with the talent the rebuild has assembled (and the projections for that talent), not the rebuild process. And if you just think that the talent in the Sox system is no good, we're pretty much sunk and free agent signings aren't going to save us.

This was my main problem with the article - it suggests that KW bought into the premise that the timeline had changed, but it's not at all clear. I suspect the premise the author's, and I'd be surprised if Kenny really conceded that the timeline of the rebuild has changed. In any event, I don't think anything has happened this year to dramatically alter the 2020 arrival date, but rather just standard dog-days of the rebuild stuff. This is the malaise period. The last week's rash of (hopefully short-term) injuries provide a good opening for an anti-rebuild type to post an article reflecting the malaise. Nothing to see here.

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.