Sisco is already pitching for the Royals.

[ZZ Thorn]

What? I thought he had to be on the roster the whole year, he can't get get hidden on the DL.

 

We've done this so many times I don't know which way is up....

[SouthSideRyan]

Agreed Sully, let's go back to wallowing over losing Sisco :(

 

He can be stashed on the DL, but it's not exactly the NBA, a phantom injury putting Sisco on the DL isn't gonna be that easy.

[WindyCity]

Returning to the original topic, why the heck didn't Hendry include Sisco in the Nomar deal last year??? At least we'd still have Jones and could feel like Sisco's departure contributed something to the Cubs.

 

The fact of the matter remains that someone in the front office made a serious miscalculation with regards to Sisco.... a million dollar miscalculation (his signing bonus). Unless you worked as an executive for Enron or Worldcom, when managment makes a 7 figure mistake, doesn't someone have to take the fall for the error? Where is the accountability?

 

 

 

:x :x :x

[TruffleShuffle]

Sisco pitched 2/3 of an inning today with 1 BB. While we were worried that the Royals might be able to hide him in the back of their bullpen, he has now become one of their primary relievers. :( Come back Andy!

 

Andy won't be back. He has shown enough to be stashed for the remainder of the required 90 days, then DLed if he starts to suck. (I got that right, Tim, 90 days?) Despite the posters who continue to contend he is not technically gone yet, I think its pretty much a given at this point.

 

Yup, this ship has sailed. I pin the blame squarely on Hendry, and while I acknowledge that he probably wouldn't be doing this well if he hadn't gotten new life with a different organization, it's also asinine to give up on a 21 year old with a lot of potential, just because he has a bad attitude. Take a chance that other organizations won't want a mediocre guy like Koronka, rather than taking a chance that a very high ceiling pitcher won't stick with a crappy team.

[minnesotacubsfan]

can someone explain how Sisco got a blown save?

 

Sisco (BS, 1) 0.2 0 0 0 1 0 0 1.74

 

 

(the "1" is a BB......)

[CoolHandLuke]

can someone explain how Sisco got a blown save?

 

Sisco (BS, 1) 0.2 0 0 0 1 0 0 1.74

 

 

(the "1" is a BB......)

 

he did give up a sac fly that tied the game up, so that is probably why. I'm pretty sure that anytime a reliever blows a lead at any point in the game it technically counts as a blown save.

[minnesotacubsfan]

can someone explain how Sisco got a blown save?

 

Sisco (BS, 1) 0.2 0 0 0 1 0 0 1.74

 

 

(the "1" is a BB......)

 

he did give up a sac fly that tied the game up, so that is probably why. I'm pretty sure that anytime a reliever blows a lead at any point in the game it technically counts as a blown save.

 

a sac fly? huh.

[JC]

can someone explain how Sisco got a blown save?

 

Sisco (BS, 1) 0.2 0 0 0 1 0 0 1.74

 

 

(the "1" is a BB......)

 

he did give up a sac fly that tied the game up, so that is probably why. I'm pretty sure that anytime a reliever blows a lead at any point in the game it technically counts as a blown save.

 

a sac fly? huh.

 

He entered the game with runners at 2nd and 3rd with one out. He gave up a sac fly and the runner scored from 3rd. Since he didn't put him on base, it doesn't count against Sisco.

[YearofDaCubs]

Hendry is a fool for letting Sisco go. I dont care if his era shoots up to 5. We should of never have given the opportunity for him to be drafted through rule V anyways.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Hendry is a fool for letting Sisco go. I dont care if his era shoots up to 5. We should of never have given the opportunity for him to be drafted through rule V anyways.

 

Holy hyperbole, Hendry isn't a fool. He took a calculated gamble that doesn't look like it is going to pay off. Some wouldn't have made that gamble in the first place, myself I would have.

[YearofDaCubs]

Hendry is a fool for letting Sisco go. I dont care if his era shoots up to 5. We should of never have given the opportunity for him to be drafted through rule V anyways.

 

Holy hyperbole, Hendry isn't a fool. He took a calculated gamble that doesn't look like it is going to pay off. Some wouldn't have made that gamble in the first place, myself I would have.

And that gamble will cost us one of our top prospects.

[WindyCity]

Hendry is a fool for letting Sisco go. I dont care if his era shoots up to 5. We should of never have given the opportunity for him to be drafted through rule V anyways.

 

Holy hyperbole, Hendry isn't a fool. He took a calculated gamble that doesn't look like it is going to pay off. Some wouldn't have made that gamble in the first place, myself I would have.

 

An unnecessary million dollar gamble with a high ceiling lefty starter is foolish.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Hendry is a fool for letting Sisco go. I dont care if his era shoots up to 5. We should of never have given the opportunity for him to be drafted through rule V anyways.

 

Holy hyperbole, Hendry isn't a fool. He took a calculated gamble that doesn't look like it is going to pay off. Some wouldn't have made that gamble in the first place, myself I would have.

And that gamble will cost us one of our top prospects.

 

Protecting him might have ultimately lost him too, it's not a one-way street.

[goonys evil twin]

I can't believe some people are still trying to defend Hendry for this move.

 

It was a mistake.

 

A clear mistake.

 

Sisco was one of the Cubs highest rated prospects last year, and right now he's gone for nothing in return. It was a mistake. There's no reason to pretend otherwise.

[CoolHandLuke]

If Sisco continues pitching like he has this year for the entire year, will he become a regular bullpen guy or maybe given a chance to start in KC in the next couple years, or will they send him down next year?

[JC]

Hendry is a fool for letting Sisco go. I dont care if his era shoots up to 5. We should of never have given the opportunity for him to be drafted through rule V anyways.

 

Holy hyperbole, Hendry isn't a fool. He took a calculated gamble that doesn't look like it is going to pay off. Some wouldn't have made that gamble in the first place, myself I would have.

And that gamble will cost us one of our top prospects.

 

Protecting him might have ultimately lost him too, it's not a one-way street.

 

I don't understand what you are getting at here. All players are subject to being lost at some point during their tenures with organizations, in various ways. Protecting Sisco is just an easier way of saying "ensuring future control" over him. Yes, it would have started his option clock, but that still provides years of control at minimum cost.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Hendry is a fool for letting Sisco go. I dont care if his era shoots up to 5. We should of never have given the opportunity for him to be drafted through rule V anyways.

 

Holy hyperbole, Hendry isn't a fool. He took a calculated gamble that doesn't look like it is going to pay off. Some wouldn't have made that gamble in the first place, myself I would have.

And that gamble will cost us one of our top prospects.

 

Protecting him might have ultimately lost him too, it's not a one-way street.

 

I don't understand what you are getting at here. All players are subject to being lost at some point during their tenures with organizations, in various ways. Protecting Sisco is just an easier way of saying "ensuring future control" over him. Yes, it would have started his option clock, but that still provides years of control at minimum cost.

 

The option clock thing is pretty big. Sure they control him, but he has 3 years to go thru AA, AAA, and stick in the Majors. It's not uncommon for HS power pitchers to take a long time in developing, so he wouldn't be a non-prospect by the time that he made it if he took longer. By keeping him and putting him on this accelerated schedule, you likely are not going to be able to get the best value you can out of Sisco. Sure, at some point you could deal him for something, but then people would still argue we got a poor return on a big investment on the farm. With the number of pitching prospects above him that were already further along(Guzman, Pinto, Brownlie, Mitre, Nolasco, etc.), and coming off a decidedly average campaign where questions arose about his work ethic and weight, it's not a huge stretch to think he won't stick in the Majors a full year, therefore getting another year of development out of him without having to put him on track to have to stick in the Majors. Unfortunately, Sisco took that as a slight, shaped up, and is performing admirably for KC. It's a mistake in hindsight, but at the time, it wasn't a no-brainer by any means.

[goonys evil twin]

The option clock thing is pretty big. Sure they control him, but he has 3 years to go thru AA, AAA, and stick in the Majors. It's not uncommon for HS power pitchers to take a long time in developing, so he wouldn't be a non-prospect by the time that he made it if he took longer. By keeping him and putting him on this accelerated schedule, you likely are not going to be able to get the best value you can out of Sisco. Sure, at some point you could deal him for something, but then people would still argue we got a poor return on a big investment on the farm.

 

The difference is something versus nothing. The Cubs are likely to get absolutely nothing out of a huge asset, that's indefensible, and inexcusable.

 

The option clock thing is a cop-out. You don't just let a guy go for nothing when he was so highly regarded. You know he has value. So he had a setback. Big deal. Few prospects avoid setbacks. 3 years isn't exactly a brief moment in time. If you couldn't develop him into somebody who could stick, at least in the pen, in 3 years, then maybe you should look at your developmental people. The fact is the Cubs screwed up. It isn't the first time and it won't be the last. Hopefully they can overcome this screwup, and win without that asset under their control. But that still wouldn't negate the fact that it was a screw up.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

The option clock thing is pretty big. Sure they control him, but he has 3 years to go thru AA, AAA, and stick in the Majors. It's not uncommon for HS power pitchers to take a long time in developing, so he wouldn't be a non-prospect by the time that he made it if he took longer. By keeping him and putting him on this accelerated schedule, you likely are not going to be able to get the best value you can out of Sisco. Sure, at some point you could deal him for something, but then people would still argue we got a poor return on a big investment on the farm.

 

The difference is something versus nothing. The Cubs are likely to get absolutely nothing out of a huge asset, that's indefensible, and inexcusable.

 

The option clock thing is a cop-out. You don't just let a guy go for nothing when he was so highly regarded. You know he has value. So he had a setback. Big deal. Few prospects avoid setbacks. 3 years isn't exactly a brief moment in time. If you couldn't develop him into somebody who could stick, at least in the pen, in 3 years, then maybe you should look at your developmental people. The fact is the Cubs screwed up. It isn't the first time and it won't be the last. Hopefully they can overcome this screwup, and win without that asset under their control. But that still wouldn't negate the fact that it was a screw up.

 

After last season, do you honestly think Sisco would stick on a ML roster all year?

[goonys evil twin]

The option clock thing is pretty big. Sure they control him, but he has 3 years to go thru AA, AAA, and stick in the Majors. It's not uncommon for HS power pitchers to take a long time in developing, so he wouldn't be a non-prospect by the time that he made it if he took longer. By keeping him and putting him on this accelerated schedule, you likely are not going to be able to get the best value you can out of Sisco. Sure, at some point you could deal him for something, but then people would still argue we got a poor return on a big investment on the farm.

 

The difference is something versus nothing. The Cubs are likely to get absolutely nothing out of a huge asset, that's indefensible, and inexcusable.

 

The option clock thing is a cop-out. You don't just let a guy go for nothing when he was so highly regarded. You know he has value. So he had a setback. Big deal. Few prospects avoid setbacks. 3 years isn't exactly a brief moment in time. If you couldn't develop him into somebody who could stick, at least in the pen, in 3 years, then maybe you should look at your developmental people. The fact is the Cubs screwed up. It isn't the first time and it won't be the last. Hopefully they can overcome this screwup, and win without that asset under their control. But that still wouldn't negate the fact that it was a screw up.

 

After last season, do you honestly think Sisco would stick on a ML roster all year?

 

It doesn't matter. You knew he'd get selected. You knew there were teams bad enough that could justify hiding him even if he sucked.

 

This isn't complaining with hindsight. People have been blasting this move from day one. It was pointless. It was self defeating. It wasn't necessary. How can you not protect the pitcher with the highest upside in your organization? And how do you justify always overspending for mediocre lefties when you just let the one with the most potential just leave for nothing?

 

You can't defend this move. There was always hope that it might not blow up in their face, but the simple fact is they never had to light that fuse in the first place. They could have, and should have protected him. Risk losing the mediocre guys, that's fine. You just don't risk your top prospects, in any situation.

[JC]

The option clock thing is pretty big. Sure they control him, but he has 3 years to go thru AA, AAA, and stick in the Majors. It's not uncommon for HS power pitchers to take a long time in developing, so he wouldn't be a non-prospect by the time that he made it if he took longer. By keeping him and putting him on this accelerated schedule, you likely are not going to be able to get the best value you can out of Sisco. Sure, at some point you could deal him for something, but then people would still argue we got a poor return on a big investment on the farm.

 

The difference is something versus nothing. The Cubs are likely to get absolutely nothing out of a huge asset, that's indefensible, and inexcusable.

 

The option clock thing is a cop-out. You don't just let a guy go for nothing when he was so highly regarded. You know he has value. So he had a setback. Big deal. Few prospects avoid setbacks. 3 years isn't exactly a brief moment in time. If you couldn't develop him into somebody who could stick, at least in the pen, in 3 years, then maybe you should look at your developmental people. The fact is the Cubs screwed up. It isn't the first time and it won't be the last. Hopefully they can overcome this screwup, and win without that asset under their control. But that still wouldn't negate the fact that it was a screw up.

 

After last season, do you honestly think Sisco would stick on a ML roster all year?

 

Its not about whether he would or would not stick, its about whether its a good risk. This wasn't a good one in light of his ceiling, the Cubs' investment, and the number of teams so bad that they could stash him.(KC is not in the same position as San Diego was last year, despite the comparisons people make to the Zoomer situation.) On top of that, there is a very real argument that Sisco was a result of Hendry's alleged housecleaning of bad attitudes. It would be even less easy to swallow losing Sisco if it were because Hendry made this decision based on emotion.

[Tim]

After a lot of thought, here's my feelings:

 

1 - I had assumed that Sisco would be protected and was shocked when he wasn't.

 

2 - In no way did I think that Sisco was ready to stick on a MLB roster, let alone actually contribute

 

3 - The track record for rule 5 guys picked out of A-ball and sticking is quite short compared to the ones returned

 

4 - Sisco definitely had an attitude issue while with the Cubs and I don't believe he would have turned things around like this had he stuck with the team

 

5 - Andy had slid significantly on the prospect lists because of performance and stuff (and, as it turns out, attitude) throughout 2004

 

6 - Sisco was actually picked behind another A-ball pitcher with an even higher ceiling and no attitude problems. He got returned to Minnesota after not sticking with a more awful team than KC (they drafted before them, anyway)

 

7 - There's going to be a much bigger roster crunch after this year and there is reason to put guys on the 40 man that are easier to take off instead of putting someone on there that might slip through the rule 5 but would never make it through waivers

 

Hendry took a gamble that I disagreed with at the time. I understand his logic behind the decision, though, and wouldn't bash him for making the choice he did. Given the outcome to date, it certainly looks like he's going to lose the gamble. Which, in the end, means it was a mistake to risk it.

 

But again, I can sure understand why he did it and wouldn't overly criticize him for the choice.

[brinoch]

7 - There's going to be a much bigger roster crunch after this year and there is reason to put guys on the 40 man that are easier to take off instead of putting someone on there that might slip through the rule 5 but would never make it through waivers

 

Hendry took a gamble that I disagreed with at the time. I understand his logic behind the decision, though, and wouldn't bash him for making the choice he did. Given the outcome to date, it certainly looks like he's going to lose the gamble. Which, in the end, means it was a mistake to risk it.

 

But again, I can sure understand why he did it and wouldn't overly criticize him for the choice.

 

Knowing that we have a crunch makes it even more critical that we jettison guys with little or no upside on the 40-man. I grant that the value the Cubs see is different than what we see, however, I see a need to clean house and preserve our prospects.

[JC]

4 - Sisco definitely had an attitude issue while with the Cubs and I don't believe he would have turned things around like this had he stuck with the team

 

That is just a hard one for me to swallow. You aren't the only one who has speculated that Sisco would just be the same old mess this year. I suppose some will think this is ironic, but I'm more optimistic that it was simple immaturity that he could grow out of. Zambrano is afforded growing pains. Sisco should have be allowed the same, IMO.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

4 - Sisco definitely had an attitude issue while with the Cubs and I don't believe he would have turned things around like this had he stuck with the team

 

That is just a hard one for me to swallow. You aren't the only one who has speculated that Sisco would just be the same old mess this year. I suppose some will think this is ironic, but I'm more optimistic that it was simple immaturity that he could grow out of. Zambrano is afforded growing pains. Sisco should have be allowed the same, IMO.

 

I don't think he's implying that Sisco would be some egomaniacal jerk his entire career, just that his turnaround from this offseason to this season wouldn't have happened had he not been left unprotected.