Sisco is already pitching for the Royals.

[Tim]

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.

:thumright:

[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.

 

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.

:thumright:

 

I understand what you were saying, Tim. I just think in your original post which had a number of good objective points in it, that your subjective opinion about Sisco not being able to have the same results as a Cub didn't really fit.

 

Who's to say? Perhaps it was just his time to mature? Perhaps it started to "click" for him in the offseason, notwithstanding what team he was on?

[goonys evil twin]

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.

 

And I'm not arguing that Sisco would be pitching for the Cubs with a sub 2 ERA out of the pen right now if they kept him. But if the organization had any developmental ability at all, they'd be able to get some of what KC is getting out of him for their A ball team. If you think the only way to motivate a guy is by letting another team have him for free, then you don't have much of a developmental program in your own system.

[Tim]

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.

:thumright:

 

I understand what you were saying, Tim. I just think in your original post which had a number of good objective points in it, that your subjective opinion about Sisco not being able to have the same results as a Cub didn't really fit.

 

Who's to say? Perhaps it was just his time to mature? Perhaps it started to "click" for him in the offseason, notwithstanding what team he was on?

Actually, it was that particular point that led me to change the post to say they were my "feelings" on the subject as opposed to "thoughts".

[dime]

>Who's to say? Perhaps it was just his time to mature? Perhaps it started to "click" for him in the offseason, notwithstanding what team he was on?

>

 

I think it's much more likely that the Cubs felt they'd exhausted all attempts to reach Sisco, and could not find anything to justify a belief that Sisco would decide to suddenly turn himself around.

 

In spite of the popular opinion here, Jim Hendry and the Cubs brass are not stupid. They do want to win games. With all the money and hope invested in Sisco, I imagine that a LOT of time and effort were spent trying to salvage him. To leave him unprotected says an awful lot about where they felt their investment was headed.

 

I don't see how you can conclude that Sisco would have been humbled, lost 40 pounds, found Jesus or whatever else he's done if he remained with the Cubs under the same circumstances he was already in. "This time we REALLY mean it, Andy." Uh huh.

[Tim]

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.

 

And I'm not arguing that Sisco would be pitching for the Cubs with a sub 2 ERA out of the pen right now if they kept him. But if the organization had any developmental ability at all, they'd be able to get some of what KC is getting out of him for their A ball team. If you think the only way to motivate a guy is by letting another team have him for free, then you don't have much of a developmental program in your own system.

Sisco is certainly a distressing data point on that subject. Let's look at how Choi, Hill, Jones, Harris, Beltran, etc. have done since leaving the system before coming to any conclusions, though.

[goonys evil twin]

Sisco is certainly a distressing data point on that subject. Let's look at how Choi, Hill, Jones, Harris, Beltran, etc. have done since leaving the system before coming to any conclusions, though.

 

I'm not trying to get into a "The Cubs suck at teaching" debate here. All I'm saying is you should have more faith in your ability to teach a guy like Sisco than to simply let him go.

 

The logic behind the decision makes sense on certain levels. That doesn't excuse it from being wrong though. It was a mistake. Instead of making excuses and saying he'd never have made it if he stayed here, I hope the Cubs realize it was a mistake and do what they can to learn from it, and improve their system so they won't make it again.

[Tim]

Sisco is certainly a distressing data point on that subject. Let's look at how Choi, Hill, Jones, Harris, Beltran, etc. have done since leaving the system before coming to any conclusions, though.

 

I'm not trying to get into a "The Cubs suck at teaching" debate here. All I'm saying is you should have more faith in your ability to teach a guy like Sisco than to simply let him go.

 

The logic behind the decision makes sense on certain levels. That doesn't excuse it from being wrong though. It was a mistake. Instead of making excuses and saying he'd never have made it if he stayed here, I hope the Cubs realize it was a mistake and do what they can to learn from it, and improve their system so they won't make it again.

Who on earth is saying that "he'd never have made it if he stayed here?" I haven't seen anyone claim that, but I've seen you posit that others are saying it more than once.

 

And he wasn't "simply let go". That would be waiving a guy. This was taking a gamble that a guy the team had some trouble with (and whose performance had declined for two straight years) wasn't going to be mature enough or good enough to stick straight out of A-ball.

 

I understand you think it's a mistake on Hendry's part. I believe you even think it to be a major mistake on his part. But there is enough to criticize about the whole thing without characterizing it to be things it isn't.

[dime]

as I said in my previous post, I think the fact that the Cubs DID give up on Sisco in such dramatic fashion speaks volumes about how they felt he was doing.

 

I don't think that success he has in a completely different environment, with (apparently) a completely different attitude, means that the Cubs were "wrong" or "made a mistake."

 

If they tried to deal him, they likely would not have gotten much back, and more importantly they would never have Sisco again. By leaving him unprotected they figured they would have at least a 80 percent(?) chance at having him back, this time humble enough to listen.

[goonys evil twin]

Who on earth is saying that "he'd never have made it if he stayed here?" I haven't seen anyone claim that, but I've seen you posit that others are saying it more than once.

 

And he wasn't "simply let go". That would be waiving a guy. This was taking a gamble that a guy the team had some trouble with (and whose performance had declined for two straight years) wasn't going to be mature enough or good enough to stick straight out of A-ball.

 

I understand you think it's a mistake on Hendry's part. I believe you even think it to be a major mistake on his part. But there is enough to criticize about the whole thing without characterizing it to be things it isn't.

 

How am I characterizing it as something it is not?

 

 

People have said Sisco was a lazy, fat slob with no motivation who is only pitching well because not being protected was a slap in the face. That, to me, is saying he wouldn't have made it here.

 

You knew that if he was left unprotected that somebody would take him. What you didn't know was who would take him, how uncommitted that team would be to putting the best possible 25 players on the field this year, how well Sisco would pitch, and how badly the team that took him wanted him and would therefore be willing to put up with bad pitching.

 

You knew he'd be gone. What you didn't know is if he'd come back. They let him go. They hoped they'd get him back, but they gave up their control of Sisco. They owned the next 9 years of his career but they gave it up, for nothing.

 

No, it wasn't a simple decision. But they simply let him go. Regardless of whether they thought he'd come back, they let him go. If you let your girlfriend go on a date with Brad Pitt, you might expect her to come back, but there's no guarantee. Brad might have more space on his dance card than you though he had.

[Tim]

as I said in my previous post, I think the fact that the Cubs DID give up on Sisco in such dramatic fashion speaks volumes about how they felt he was doing.

 

I don't think that success he has in a completely different environment, with (apparently) a completely different attitude, means that the Cubs were "wrong" or "made a mistake."

 

If they tried to deal him, they likely would not have gotten much back, and more importantly they would never have Sisco again. By leaving him unprotected they figured they would have at least a 80 percent(?) chance at having him back, this time humble enough to listen.

Leaving an A-Ball pitcher exposed to the Rule 5 is not "giving up on him in dramatic fashion". It is a statement that the team strongly believed he was not ready to stick (and they had a number of good reasons for that belief).

[Tim]

Who on earth is saying that "he'd never have made it if he stayed here?" I haven't seen anyone claim that, but I've seen you posit that others are saying it more than once.

 

And he wasn't "simply let go". That would be waiving a guy. This was taking a gamble that a guy the team had some trouble with (and whose performance had declined for two straight years) wasn't going to be mature enough or good enough to stick straight out of A-ball.

 

I understand you think it's a mistake on Hendry's part. I believe you even think it to be a major mistake on his part. But there is enough to criticize about the whole thing without characterizing it to be things it isn't.

 

How am I characterizing it as something it is not?

 

 

People have said Sisco was a lazy, fat slob with no motivation who is only pitching well because not being protected was a slap in the face. That, to me, is saying he wouldn't have made it here.

 

You knew that if he was left unprotected that somebody would take him. What you didn't know was who would take him, how uncommitted that team would be to putting the best possible 25 players on the field this year, how well Sisco would pitch, and how badly the team that took him wanted him and would therefore be willing to put up with bad pitching.

 

You knew he'd be gone. What you didn't know is if he'd come back. They let him go. They hoped they'd get him back, but they gave up their control of Sisco. They owned the next 9 years of his career but they gave it up, for nothing.

 

No, it wasn't a simple decision. But they simply let him go. Regardless of whether they thought he'd come back, they let him go. If you let your girlfriend go on a date with Brad Pitt, you might expect her to come back, but there's no guarantee. Brad might have more space on his dance card than you though he had.

You see no difference in believing that Sisco had very little chance of sticking on a major league roster this season and believing he had no future with the Cubs?

[JC]

Who on earth is saying that "he'd never have made it if he stayed here?" I haven't seen anyone claim that, but I've seen you posit that others are saying it more than once.

 

And he wasn't "simply let go". That would be waiving a guy. This was taking a gamble that a guy the team had some trouble with (and whose performance had declined for two straight years) wasn't going to be mature enough or good enough to stick straight out of A-ball.

 

I understand you think it's a mistake on Hendry's part. I believe you even think it to be a major mistake on his part. But there is enough to criticize about the whole thing without characterizing it to be things it isn't.

 

How am I characterizing it as something it is not?

 

 

People have said Sisco was a lazy, fat slob with no motivation who is only pitching well because not being protected was a slap in the face. That, to me, is saying he wouldn't have made it here.

 

You knew that if he was left unprotected that somebody would take him. What you didn't know was who would take him, how uncommitted that team would be to putting the best possible 25 players on the field this year, how well Sisco would pitch, and how badly the team that took him wanted him and would therefore be willing to put up with bad pitching.

 

You knew he'd be gone. What you didn't know is if he'd come back. They let him go. They hoped they'd get him back, but they gave up their control of Sisco. They owned the next 9 years of his career but they gave it up, for nothing.

 

No, it wasn't a simple decision. But they simply let him go. Regardless of whether they thought he'd come back, they let him go. If you let your girlfriend go on a date with Brad Pitt, you might expect her to come back, but there's no guarantee. Brad might have more space on his dance card than you though he had.

You see no difference in believing that Sisco had very little chance of sticking on a major league roster this season and believing he had no future with the Cubs?

 

What? Where does this come from?

[goonys evil twin]

You see no difference in believing that Sisco had very little chance of sticking on a major league roster this season and believing he had no future with the Cubs?

 

I see a big difference, which is why I said the logic behind the decision makes some sense. I also see the difference between exposing a mediocre prospect who might one day be your 5th starter or a setup man, and exposing a guy who many see as a top or the rotation starter.

 

I understand that they thought he would return. But the odds are they were wrong. They didn't have to take that chance. It was a bad decision that is likely to backfire. An unnecessary risk.

[Tim]

Who on earth is saying that "he'd never have made it if he stayed here?" I haven't seen anyone claim that, but I've seen you posit that others are saying it more than once.

 

And he wasn't "simply let go". That would be waiving a guy. This was taking a gamble that a guy the team had some trouble with (and whose performance had declined for two straight years) wasn't going to be mature enough or good enough to stick straight out of A-ball.

 

I understand you think it's a mistake on Hendry's part. I believe you even think it to be a major mistake on his part. But there is enough to criticize about the whole thing without characterizing it to be things it isn't.

 

How am I characterizing it as something it is not?

 

 

People have said Sisco was a lazy, fat slob with no motivation who is only pitching well because not being protected was a slap in the face. That, to me, is saying he wouldn't have made it here.

 

You knew that if he was left unprotected that somebody would take him. What you didn't know was who would take him, how uncommitted that team would be to putting the best possible 25 players on the field this year, how well Sisco would pitch, and how badly the team that took him wanted him and would therefore be willing to put up with bad pitching.

 

You knew he'd be gone. What you didn't know is if he'd come back. They let him go. They hoped they'd get him back, but they gave up their control of Sisco. They owned the next 9 years of his career but they gave it up, for nothing.

 

No, it wasn't a simple decision. But they simply let him go. Regardless of whether they thought he'd come back, they let him go. If you let your girlfriend go on a date with Brad Pitt, you might expect her to come back, but there's no guarantee. Brad might have more space on his dance card than you though he had.

You see no difference in believing that Sisco had very little chance of sticking on a major league roster this season and believing he had no future with the Cubs?

 

What? Where does this come from?

[dime]

>I understand that they thought he would return. But the odds are they were wrong.

>

 

I'd love to see some past examples of how many A-ball pitchers with Sisco's stats were, in fact, taken in the rule 5 and NOT returned.

 

I'd guess the percentage is quite small.

[JC]

Who on earth is saying that "he'd never have made it if he stayed here?" I haven't seen anyone claim that, but I've seen you posit that others are saying it more than once.

 

And he wasn't "simply let go". That would be waiving a guy. This was taking a gamble that a guy the team had some trouble with (and whose performance had declined for two straight years) wasn't going to be mature enough or good enough to stick straight out of A-ball.

 

I understand you think it's a mistake on Hendry's part. I believe you even think it to be a major mistake on his part. But there is enough to criticize about the whole thing without characterizing it to be things it isn't.

 

How am I characterizing it as something it is not?

 

 

People have said Sisco was a lazy, fat slob with no motivation who is only pitching well because not being protected was a slap in the face. That, to me, is saying he wouldn't have made it here.

 

You knew that if he was left unprotected that somebody would take him. What you didn't know was who would take him, how uncommitted that team would be to putting the best possible 25 players on the field this year, how well Sisco would pitch, and how badly the team that took him wanted him and would therefore be willing to put up with bad pitching.

 

You knew he'd be gone. What you didn't know is if he'd come back. They let him go. They hoped they'd get him back, but they gave up their control of Sisco. They owned the next 9 years of his career but they gave it up, for nothing.

 

No, it wasn't a simple decision. But they simply let him go. Regardless of whether they thought he'd come back, they let him go. If you let your girlfriend go on a date with Brad Pitt, you might expect her to come back, but there's no guarantee. Brad might have more space on his dance card than you though he had.

You see no difference in believing that Sisco had very little chance of sticking on a major league roster this season and believing he had no future with the Cubs?

 

What? Where does this come from?

 

I'm missing the comparison somewhere.

[dime]

btw the Sisco-Brad Pitt analogy is begging to be used as a sig.

[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.

:thumright:

 

I understand what you were saying, Tim. I just think in your original post which had a number of good objective points in it, that your subjective opinion about Sisco not being able to have the same results as a Cub didn't really fit.

 

Who's to say? Perhaps it was just his time to mature? Perhaps it started to "click" for him in the offseason, notwithstanding what team he was on?

 

I could've sworn I read something that said the Cubs not protecting Sisco was his primary motivation in his reformed attitude/work ethic/weight/whatever.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

2 more shutout innings today; 1 hit, 1 BB, 3 Ks. Down to a 1.41 ERA. :(

[JC]

2 more shutout innings today; 1 hit, 1 BB, 3 Ks. Down to a 1.41 ERA. :(

 

Today just keeps getting better and better.

[CoolHandLuke]

btw the Sisco-Brad Pitt analogy is begging to be used as a sig.

 

I think that comparing Pitt to the royals is a pretty bad analogy.

[SouthSideRyan]

btw the Sisco-Brad Pitt analogy is begging to be used as a sig.

 

I think that comparing Pitt to the royals is a pretty bad analogy.

 

Yeah but comparing someone of Sisco's size to goony's girlfriend is perfect. :)

[Illini Iceman]

2 more shutout innings today; 1 hit, 1 BB, 3 Ks. Down to a 1.41 ERA. :(

 

Today just keeps getting better and better.

 

Our stud lefty Bartosh also has a 1.42 ERA but, as with Sisco, I will check back in July before I let myself get too impressed.

[JC]

2 more shutout innings today; 1 hit, 1 BB, 3 Ks. Down to a 1.41 ERA. :(

 

Today just keeps getting better and better.

 

Our stud lefty Bartosh also has a 1.42 ERA but, as with Sisco, I will check back in July before I let myself get too impressed.

 

Thank God we don't have TWO lefties in the pen with sub 1.50 ERA's.

 

The Bartosh comparison isn't really relevant. Sisco didn't have to be on our major league roster.