Sisco is already pitching for the Royals.

[imb]

So far Sisco has pitched 2.1 scoreless innings agianst the Angels. No hits allowed.

 

He looked very good. Considering he was brought into a game with the Royals already trailing 7-1, it appears they are going to ease him in with mop up duty.

I'm pretty sure at this point he's as good as gone.

 

I wouldn't be so sure. There's 157 games to go and he has to stay on the roster for all of them. While he looked good tonight, he may not the next time he's used.

 

Yeah, but they don't give a crap if he pitches effectively for them because their team sucks. Derrick Turnbow sucked as a Rule V pick. Miguel Asencio was bad for the Royals in '02 but they didn't care because they thought he had potential. Johan Santana winning the Cy Young gives even more incentive for crappy teams to hang onto high-ceiling players for their Rule V year.

 

I said it when the draft went down, Sisco would be gone. Thank God we have Rohlicek and Randolph, though.

 

yeah, that didnt work out so well.

[erik316wttn]

So far Sisco has pitched 2.1 scoreless innings agianst the Angels. No hits allowed.

 

He looked very good. Considering he was brought into a game with the Royals already trailing 7-1, it appears they are going to ease him in with mop up duty.

I'm pretty sure at this point he's as good as gone.

 

I wouldn't be so sure. There's 157 games to go and he has to stay on the roster for all of them. While he looked good tonight, he may not the next time he's used.

 

Yeah, but they don't give a crap if he pitches effectively for them because their team sucks. Derrick Turnbow sucked as a Rule V pick. Miguel Asencio was bad for the Royals in '02 but they didn't care because they thought he had potential. Johan Santana winning the Cy Young gives even more incentive for crappy teams to hang onto high-ceiling players for their Rule V year.

 

I said it when the draft went down, Sisco would be gone. Thank God we have Rohlicek and Randolph, though.

 

Who let Santana go unprotected?

[minnesotacubsfan]

grrrrrrrrrrrrr

 

 

its great to see sisco start to develop inot the pitcher we all thought he sould become, but not in THAT royal blue uni

 

 

I can understand Hendry's take on the rule 5, but htis could seriously backfire on us. it could have motivated him TOO much.

 

heres hoping sisco comes back...........

[ariakis]

Rule 5 pick Andy Sisco pitched three scoreless innings of relief yesterday.

 

Sisco relieved Jose Lima, just like he did on Opening Day. Teams often have a hard time finding regular work for their Rule 5 picks, but perhaps Kansas City's plan all along was to have him pitch each time Lima gets knocked out of a game in the early innings. In that case, Sisco should get plenty of work. Apr. 10 - 9:48 am et

[TruffleShuffle]

So far Sisco has pitched 2.1 scoreless innings agianst the Angels. No hits allowed.

 

He looked very good. Considering he was brought into a game with the Royals already trailing 7-1, it appears they are going to ease him in with mop up duty.

I'm pretty sure at this point he's as good as gone.

 

I wouldn't be so sure. There's 157 games to go and he has to stay on the roster for all of them. While he looked good tonight, he may not the next time he's used.

 

Yeah, but they don't give a crap if he pitches effectively for them because their team sucks. Derrick Turnbow sucked as a Rule V pick. Miguel Asencio was bad for the Royals in '02 but they didn't care because they thought he had potential. Johan Santana winning the Cy Young gives even more incentive for crappy teams to hang onto high-ceiling players for their Rule V year.

 

I said it when the draft went down, Sisco would be gone. Thank God we have Rohlicek and Randolph, though.

 

Who let Santana go unprotected?

 

The Astros... everyone point and laugh at them.

 

BTW his stats from his first year w/them:

 

W   L   G   GS  CG SHO  GF SV   IP     H    R   ER   HR  BB   SO  HBP  WP  ERA  ERA+
2   3  30   5   0   0   9  0   86.0  102   64   62  11   54   64   2   5   6.49  81

 

Obviously pretty bad stats. But they hung onto him the whole year b/c he had a lot of potential, which turned out to be a rather good move.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

So far Sisco has pitched 2.1 scoreless innings agianst the Angels. No hits allowed.

 

He looked very good. Considering he was brought into a game with the Royals already trailing 7-1, it appears they are going to ease him in with mop up duty.

I'm pretty sure at this point he's as good as gone.

 

I wouldn't be so sure. There's 157 games to go and he has to stay on the roster for all of them. While he looked good tonight, he may not the next time he's used.

 

:roll: :roll: Must be February 2nd, I keep seeing the same poster with the same comment over and over again.

 

 

Yeah it must be Feb 2, cause I keep seeing the same poster making pessimistic comments over and over again. :roll: :roll: :roll:

[dime]

I must have missed the part where this guy became johan freaking santana.

 

give me a break.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

So far Sisco has pitched 2.1 scoreless innings agianst the Angels. No hits allowed.

 

He looked very good. Considering he was brought into a game with the Royals already trailing 7-1, it appears they are going to ease him in with mop up duty.

I'm pretty sure at this point he's as good as gone.

 

I wouldn't be so sure. There's 157 games to go and he has to stay on the roster for all of them. While he looked good tonight, he may not the next time he's used.

 

Yeah, but they don't give a crap if he pitches effectively for them because their team sucks. Derrick Turnbow sucked as a Rule V pick. Miguel Asencio was bad for the Royals in '02 but they didn't care because they thought he had potential. Johan Santana winning the Cy Young gives even more incentive for crappy teams to hang onto high-ceiling players for their Rule V year.

 

I said it when the draft went down, Sisco would be gone. Thank God we have Rohlicek and Randolph, though.

 

For crying out loud, that's not why he was left unprotected. IT WAS NOT TO KEEP OTHER PLAYERS ON THE 40- MAN ROSTER, HE SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ON IT. I apologize for the shouting, but it seems many people have ignored this being the chief reason for Sisco's exposure, despite repeated attempts to explain so.

[treebird]

So far Sisco has pitched 2.1 scoreless innings agianst the Angels. No hits allowed.

 

He looked very good. Considering he was brought into a game with the Royals already trailing 7-1, it appears they are going to ease him in with mop up duty.

I'm pretty sure at this point he's as good as gone.

 

I wouldn't be so sure. There's 157 games to go and he has to stay on the roster for all of them. While he looked good tonight, he may not the next time he's used.

 

Yeah, but they don't give a crap if he pitches effectively for them because their team sucks. Derrick Turnbow sucked as a Rule V pick. Miguel Asencio was bad for the Royals in '02 but they didn't care because they thought he had potential. Johan Santana winning the Cy Young gives even more incentive for crappy teams to hang onto high-ceiling players for their Rule V year.

 

I said it when the draft went down, Sisco would be gone. Thank God we have Rohlicek and Randolph, though.

 

For crying out loud, that's not why he was left unprotected. IT WAS NOT TO KEEP OTHER PLAYERS ON THE 40- MAN ROSTER, HE SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ON IT. I apologize for the shouting, but it seems many people have ignored this being the chief reason for Sisco's exposure, despite repeated attempts to explain so.

 

I've seen it in some places and not others, and I seem to remember mlpeel saying something conclusive about it (which I can't find), but does this major league experience start Sisco's clock to where he has to stick in the major leagues in three years?

[TruffleShuffle]

So far Sisco has pitched 2.1 scoreless innings agianst the Angels. No hits allowed.

 

He looked very good. Considering he was brought into a game with the Royals already trailing 7-1, it appears they are going to ease him in with mop up duty.

I'm pretty sure at this point he's as good as gone.

 

I wouldn't be so sure. There's 157 games to go and he has to stay on the roster for all of them. While he looked good tonight, he may not the next time he's used.

 

Yeah, but they don't give a crap if he pitches effectively for them because their team sucks. Derrick Turnbow sucked as a Rule V pick. Miguel Asencio was bad for the Royals in '02 but they didn't care because they thought he had potential. Johan Santana winning the Cy Young gives even more incentive for crappy teams to hang onto high-ceiling players for their Rule V year.

 

I said it when the draft went down, Sisco would be gone. Thank God we have Rohlicek and Randolph, though.

 

For crying out loud, that's not why he was left unprotected. IT WAS NOT TO KEEP OTHER PLAYERS ON THE 40- MAN ROSTER, HE SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ON IT. I apologize for the shouting, but it seems many people have ignored this being the chief reason for Sisco's exposure, despite repeated attempts to explain so.

 

OK, well can you explain again? I understand that there were questions about his maturity (wall punching) and work ethic (getting fat), but seriously, most 20-21 year olds are immature, and as for the work ethic - it's worth keeping a talented kid to try and hoping that he can be taught a better work ethic or can figure it out himself. It's not worth basically releasing a guy who is three years out of high school and still has a good deal of talent. He's not some guy like Josh Hamilton who is in and out of rehab... his problems weren't so severe that they couldn't be dealt with.

 

I must have missed the part where this guy became johan freaking santana.

 

give me a break.

 

Uh, give me a break. I never said anything close to "he is as good as Johan Santana." What I said was that Santana's ascent from Rule V pick to Cy Young will make teams realize that it's worth keeping high ceiling guys around for a whole year, because sometimes they will pan out and be productive major leaguers. People keep saying that if he gets shelled, the Royals will send him back, and I'm giving examples of teams that have held onto guys who were bad their first year in the majors. The Royals are going nowhere this year, and as long as Sisco keeps showing a fastball in the low to mid 90s, there's no reason for them to give up on him.

[YearofDaCubs]

How can you be optimistic about the Sisco situation? He landed on a team that can afford to keep him on the 25 man. Regardless of Sisco's problems in the past. He has the potential to be a dominant starter. I dont know about you guys but I hate seeing any kind of talent leaving our farm system.

[SouthSideRyan]

So far Sisco has pitched 2.1 scoreless innings agianst the Angels. No hits allowed.

 

He looked very good. Considering he was brought into a game with the Royals already trailing 7-1, it appears they are going to ease him in with mop up duty.

I'm pretty sure at this point he's as good as gone.

 

I wouldn't be so sure. There's 157 games to go and he has to stay on the roster for all of them. While he looked good tonight, he may not the next time he's used.

 

Yeah, but they don't give a crap if he pitches effectively for them because their team sucks. Derrick Turnbow sucked as a Rule V pick. Miguel Asencio was bad for the Royals in '02 but they didn't care because they thought he had potential. Johan Santana winning the Cy Young gives even more incentive for crappy teams to hang onto high-ceiling players for their Rule V year.

 

I said it when the draft went down, Sisco would be gone. Thank God we have Rohlicek and Randolph, though.

 

I had thought Asencio was a rule V guy too, but I'm not so sure he is anymore. baseballreference has him being released by the White Sox in '01, and nothing after that. They do have other guys being picked in that years rule V though. Also, Asencio was a league average pitcher in '02.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

So far Sisco has pitched 2.1 scoreless innings agianst the Angels. No hits allowed.

 

He looked very good. Considering he was brought into a game with the Royals already trailing 7-1, it appears they are going to ease him in with mop up duty.

I'm pretty sure at this point he's as good as gone.

 

I wouldn't be so sure. There's 157 games to go and he has to stay on the roster for all of them. While he looked good tonight, he may not the next time he's used.

 

Yeah, but they don't give a crap if he pitches effectively for them because their team sucks. Derrick Turnbow sucked as a Rule V pick. Miguel Asencio was bad for the Royals in '02 but they didn't care because they thought he had potential. Johan Santana winning the Cy Young gives even more incentive for crappy teams to hang onto high-ceiling players for their Rule V year.

 

I said it when the draft went down, Sisco would be gone. Thank God we have Rohlicek and Randolph, though.

 

For crying out loud, that's not why he was left unprotected. IT WAS NOT TO KEEP OTHER PLAYERS ON THE 40- MAN ROSTER, HE SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ON IT. I apologize for the shouting, but it seems many people have ignored this being the chief reason for Sisco's exposure, despite repeated attempts to explain so.

 

I've seen it in some places and not others, and I seem to remember mlpeel saying something conclusive about it (which I can't find), but does this major league experience start Sisco's clock to where he has to stick in the major leagues in three years?

 

I wasn't positive, as I remembered that post, then Tim said something here that his service time clock(6 year arbitration/free agency) starts, but does not start his 3 year option clock. At least that's how I understand it.

Edited April 11, 2005 by Transmogrified Tiger

[dime]

> his problems weren't so severe that they couldn't be dealt with.

>

 

how would you know what his problems were? you think he hurt his hand hitting a "wall", for crying out loud.

 

the guy was a fat jerk, if getting cut is his wake-up call good for him. but he wasn't doing what the cubs asked of him and so they let him go. not a big loss.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

So far Sisco has pitched 2.1 scoreless innings agianst the Angels. No hits allowed.

 

He looked very good. Considering he was brought into a game with the Royals already trailing 7-1, it appears they are going to ease him in with mop up duty.

I'm pretty sure at this point he's as good as gone.

 

I wouldn't be so sure. There's 157 games to go and he has to stay on the roster for all of them. While he looked good tonight, he may not the next time he's used.

 

Yeah, but they don't give a crap if he pitches effectively for them because their team sucks. Derrick Turnbow sucked as a Rule V pick. Miguel Asencio was bad for the Royals in '02 but they didn't care because they thought he had potential. Johan Santana winning the Cy Young gives even more incentive for crappy teams to hang onto high-ceiling players for their Rule V year.

 

I said it when the draft went down, Sisco would be gone. Thank God we have Rohlicek and Randolph, though.

 

For crying out loud, that's not why he was left unprotected. IT WAS NOT TO KEEP OTHER PLAYERS ON THE 40- MAN ROSTER, HE SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ON IT. I apologize for the shouting, but it seems many people have ignored this being the chief reason for Sisco's exposure, despite repeated attempts to explain so.

 

OK, well can you explain again? I understand that there were questions about his maturity (wall punching) and work ethic (getting fat), but seriously, most 20-21 year olds are immature, and as for the work ethic - it's worth keeping a talented kid to try and hoping that he can be taught a better work ethic or can figure it out himself. It's not worth basically releasing a guy who is three years out of high school and still has a good deal of talent. He's not some guy like Josh Hamilton who is in and out of rehab... his problems weren't so severe that they couldn't be dealt with.

 

Problem is that rostering him would have been rushing him pretty badly. He had an average to mediocre season at High A, and had weight/maturity/work ethic problems as you said. At that point, it's almost impossible to invision Sisco making and staying in the Major Leagues within 3 years. This would have been the scenario had he been protected on the 40-man, starting his option clock. By taking this gamble you control him for fewer years once he makes it to the big leagues, but it's a gamble worth taking when he looked as bad as he did all-around last year, and by rostering him you risk ruining him do to time constraints.

[treebird]

So far Sisco has pitched 2.1 scoreless innings agianst the Angels. No hits allowed.

 

He looked very good. Considering he was brought into a game with the Royals already trailing 7-1, it appears they are going to ease him in with mop up duty.

I'm pretty sure at this point he's as good as gone.

 

I wouldn't be so sure. There's 157 games to go and he has to stay on the roster for all of them. While he looked good tonight, he may not the next time he's used.

 

Yeah, but they don't give a crap if he pitches effectively for them because their team sucks. Derrick Turnbow sucked as a Rule V pick. Miguel Asencio was bad for the Royals in '02 but they didn't care because they thought he had potential. Johan Santana winning the Cy Young gives even more incentive for crappy teams to hang onto high-ceiling players for their Rule V year.

 

I said it when the draft went down, Sisco would be gone. Thank God we have Rohlicek and Randolph, though.

 

For crying out loud, that's not why he was left unprotected. IT WAS NOT TO KEEP OTHER PLAYERS ON THE 40- MAN ROSTER, HE SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ON IT. I apologize for the shouting, but it seems many people have ignored this being the chief reason for Sisco's exposure, despite repeated attempts to explain so.

 

I've seen it in some places and not others, and I seem to remember mlpeel saying something conclusive about it (which I can't find), but does this major league experience start Sisco's clock to where he has to stick in the major leagues in three years?

 

I wasn't positive, as I remembered that post, then Tim said something here that his service time clock(6 year arbitration/free agency), but does not start his 3 year option clock. At least that's how I understand it.

 

That's how it reads, but Tim doesn't mention the 3 year clock at all. Would he (or someone else) mind coming in and confirming that?

[TruffleShuffle]

Problem is that rostering him would have been rushing him pretty badly. He had an average to mediocre season at High A, and had weight/maturity/work ethic problems as you said. At that point, it's almost impossible to invision Sisco making and staying in the Major Leagues within 3 years. This would have been the scenario had he been protected on the 40-man, starting his option clock. By taking this gamble you control him for fewer years once he makes it to the big leagues, but it's a gamble worth taking when he looked as bad as he did all-around last year, and by rostering him you risk ruining him do to time constraints.

 

I wouldn't say that at all. While he didn't have a great year at Daytona, he would have started this year in AA. If he had an adequate season at AA, he'd have been in Iowa in 2006, and then possibly with the big club in 2007. There are a whole lot of guys who were in High-A ball last year who will be major leaguers by the end of the 2007 season. It's hardly rushing a guy to have him go one level per year.

 

The real worthwhile gamble was leaving Hagerty unprotected, since he was coming back from a major injury and had hardly even pitched above rookie ball... plus he didn't look good last season. The likelihood of him being able to stick on a major league team was significantly less than the likelihood of Sisco being able to stick.

 

> his problems weren't so severe that they couldn't be dealt with.

>

 

how would you know what his problems were? you think he hurt his hand hitting a "wall", for crying out loud.

 

the guy was a fat jerk, if getting cut is his wake-up call good for him. but he wasn't doing what the cubs asked of him and so they let him go. not a big loss.

 

OK, well please enlighten me on how he hurt his hand.

 

The bottom line is, he was a bigger loss than some of the other bums on the 40 man roster, who would not have been selected and who have next to no chance to be solid contributors to the Cubs in the future. When he was left unprotected, it was widely believed that he would be one of the first picks in the Rule V draft, meaning that if the Hendry planned on him not being drafted or on getting him back at some point during the season, he was sorely mistaken.

[Vinestal]

Well his father said (or rather implied) that he hurt it punching Ryu, during a locker room scuffle that was instigated by Ryu. Thats making a long story short. If you are really worried about charecter issues worry about Ryu. Of course that story comes from Sisco's father who has some degree of bias.

[ZZ Thorn]

Problem is that rostering him would have been rushing him pretty badly. He had an average to mediocre season at High A, and had weight/maturity/work ethic problems as you said. At that point, it's almost impossible to invision Sisco making and staying in the Major Leagues within 3 years. This would have been the scenario had he been protected on the 40-man, starting his option clock. By taking this gamble you control him for fewer years once he makes it to the big leagues, but it's a gamble worth taking when he looked as bad as he did all-around last year, and by rostering him you risk ruining him do to time constraints.

 

Can we make this a sticky?

[dime]

ryu was hoping to bait a rare bird into striking distance, so he was looking for a treat. he reached for one of andy's twinkies, and the fight was ON.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Problem is that rostering him would have been rushing him pretty badly. He had an average to mediocre season at High A, and had weight/maturity/work ethic problems as you said. At that point, it's almost impossible to invision Sisco making and staying in the Major Leagues within 3 years. This would have been the scenario had he been protected on the 40-man, starting his option clock. By taking this gamble you control him for fewer years once he makes it to the big leagues, but it's a gamble worth taking when he looked as bad as he did all-around last year, and by rostering him you risk ruining him do to time constraints.

 

I wouldn't say that at all. While he didn't have a great year at Daytona, he would have started this year in AA. If he had an adequate season at AA, he'd have been in Iowa in 2006, and then possibly with the big club in 2007. There are a whole lot of guys who were in High-A ball last year who will be major leaguers by the end of the 2007 season. It's hardly rushing a guy to have him go one level per year.

 

The real worthwhile gamble was leaving Hagerty unprotected, since he was coming back from a major injury and had hardly even pitched above rookie ball... plus he didn't look good last season. The likelihood of him being able to stick on a major league team was significantly less than the likelihood of Sisco being able to stick.

 

Sure some A ball guys will make it to the big leagues, but how many of them, especially pitchers, will be able to stick there within 3 years. That's the key, since he can't get sent down.

 

Also, I think it was learned on this board by some source this year that Sisco broke his hand in some incident with Ryu, although I don't think it was a fight. Anyone remember the specifics?

 

EDIT: Or I could skip Vinestal's post entirely.

[biittner77]

I've seen it in some places and not others, and I seem to remember mlpeel saying something conclusive about it (which I can't find), but does this major league experience start Sisco's clock to where he has to stick in the major leagues in three years?

 

 

It starts his option clock meaning he'd have to clear waivers in 3 years if he was sent down. What remains unclear is whether the Cubs are required to add him to their 40 man roster if/when he returns or whether they can wait until next winter to do that.

[BigbadB]

IIRC, the incident had something to do with how much money they make. A little nose rubbing gone haywire.

[CubinNY]

> his problems weren't so severe that they couldn't be dealt with.

>

 

how would you know what his problems were? you think he hurt his hand hitting a "wall", for crying out loud.

 

the guy was a fat jerk, if getting cut is his wake-up call good for him. but he wasn't doing what the cubs asked of him and so they let him go. not a big loss.

 

JC and others argument withstanding, I agree with Dime. I don't know that he was a "fat jerk" but something obviously wasn't right when he was the Cubs property. I agree that this may have been a wake up call for him. It's a shame for the Cubs though.

[JC]

> his problems weren't so severe that they couldn't be dealt with.

>

 

how would you know what his problems were? you think he hurt his hand hitting a "wall", for crying out loud.

 

the guy was a fat jerk, if getting cut is his wake-up call good for him. but he wasn't doing what the cubs asked of him and so they let him go. not a big loss.

 

JC and others argument withstanding, I agree with Dime. I don't know that he was a "fat jerk" but something obviously wasn't right when he was the Cubs property. I agree that this may have been a wake up call for him. It's a shame for the Cubs though.

 

How did I get pulled into this? :D

 

Despite his "problems" (which I think are often exaggerated due to the possibility of Cub management looking bad), his potential remained obvious, evidenced by the number of opinions that he would be vulnerable in the Rule V draft. While the same can be said for Hagerty, I don't think he presented the upside Sisco did, nor the investment by the Cubs.

 

I understand the argument about the option clock, but I don't agree with it in this case. What do the Cubs gain if Sisco crashes and is returned at this point? A pitcher who has now been subject to a new system's pitching instruction? Half a season until the same decision must be made again?

 

At what point do should people start giving KC credit for their "gamble"? Perhaps, just perhaps, they had a better idea on Sisco's value and potential than the Cubs did. Of course, there are 150+ games to be played yet, so time will tell whether it was good scouting by KC, or pie in the sky hopes. Regardless, I maintain that the risk wasn't worth it for the Cubs based on all of the arguments I have presented in the various threads on this issue earlier.