Sisco is already pitching for the Royals.

[Laura]

Who can think of eating at a time like this?

 

If it's donuts, Andy Sisco can. :)

 

Where's Lenny Harris when you need him?

[JC]

Another strong showing by Sisco, bringing his ERA down to 1.00.

 

However, Sisco has now made 12 appearances in 25 Kansas City games. he has pitched 18 innings all told. He has the most innings pitched for anyone in baseball that hasn't started at least three games.

Considering that he is probably the best thing going for the Royals right now and that he hasn't ever been utilized in this role, is he being overused right now? No apparent ill effects, but I thought it was interesting and perhaps someone would want to share their insight on the matter.

 

I wish you'd stop posting this stuff.

 

Why? I liked the guy. I find it interesting to follow him. As much as I like Sisco, he won't sustain this level the entire season. However, until then, he is a legitamite story. Not only because he was a former Cub, but because he is being so dominant right now. If he were amost anywhere other than KC, he'd be garnering some national coverage (not a lot, but a mention here and there, I'd think).

 

The point of that particular post, however, was to hopefully inspire some discussion as to his workload. I don't know what to think of it: part of me thinks he is young and needs all the experience he can get, yet part of me is wary about using him in a manner so frequently that his arm may not be used to.

 

I am not trying to rub anyone's nose in his success. I get far more satisfaction of knowing that I was right rather than thinking others are wrong. I think its a shame that those who stuck by Sisco aren't given more credit, but that is largely endemic of this board in general. People dig there heels and think that acknowledging someone else's correct assertion is somehow impugning themselves. However, I'm sure I do it to.

[ZZ Thorn]

Another strong showing by Sisco, bringing his ERA down to 1.00.

 

However, Sisco has now made 12 appearances in 25 Kansas City games. he has pitched 18 innings all told. He has the most innings pitched for anyone in baseball that hasn't started at least three games.

Considering that he is probably the best thing going for the Royals right now and that he hasn't ever been utilized in this role, is he being overused right now? No apparent ill effects, but I thought it was interesting and perhaps someone would want to share their insight on the matter.

 

I wish you'd stop posting this stuff.

 

stuff

 

Sadist....

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Relax Vance, not calling you out. I was just ribbing you back then, that I was listening right from the horse's mouth here in KC that Sisco was staying, but you were adamant he'd be back based on no contradictory information you had. You seemed impossible to convince that a team really would go into the Rule 5 process intent on keeping someone, no matter what. And that's exactly what the Royals were doing from day one.

 

It was obvious to anyone here in the offseason that the Royals were going to be really REALLY bad this year, Sisco is something they can hang their hat on for the future. I've seen him now, and he DOES look good. He must have really burned some bridges in Lansing for the Cubs to give up on him so easily. Dude looks like a mountain out there.

 

Of course on the bright side, the Sisco autograph I got in ST 2004 may actually end up having some value.

 

And it wasn't that I didn't think that the Royals intended to keep him, my view was based on the history that very few guys stick (and I'm sure many of those teams intended to keep the guys they drafted as well) and that I thought he'd perform so erratically that he'd create some interesting roster decisions that would likely lead to his return. His performance as a reliever changed everything. Now, regardless of anything else, he's earned his keep.

 

I'm no wondering if they'll even put him in the minors next season or continue to let him perform in the majors.

[don_kessinger_was_good]

Relax Vance, not calling you out. I was just ribbing you back then, that I was listening right from the horse's mouth here in KC that Sisco was staying, but you were adamant he'd be back based on no contradictory information you had. You seemed impossible to convince that a team really would go into the Rule 5 process intent on keeping someone, no matter what. And that's exactly what the Royals were doing from day one.

 

It was obvious to anyone here in the offseason that the Royals were going to be really REALLY bad this year, Sisco is something they can hang their hat on for the future. I've seen him now, and he DOES look good. He must have really burned some bridges in Lansing for the Cubs to give up on him so easily. Dude looks like a mountain out there.

 

Of course on the bright side, the Sisco autograph I got in ST 2004 may actually end up having some value.

 

And it wasn't that I didn't think that the Royals intended to keep him, my view was based on the history that very few guys stick (and I'm sure many of those teams intended to keep the guys they drafted as well) and that I thought he'd perform so erratically that he'd create some interesting roster decisions that would likely lead to his return. His performance as a reliever changed everything. Now, regardless of anything else, he's earned his keep.

 

I'm no wondering if they'll even put him in the minors next season or continue to let him perform in the majors.

 

The talk here has been they want to turn him into a closer, and maybe sooner rather than later. Unless he suddenly blows up, there's no chance he sees Omaha, much less Wichita. He's here to stay.

[SouthSideRyan]

Why? I liked the guy. I find it interesting to follow him. As much as I like Sisco, he won't sustain this level the entire season. However, until then, he is a legitamite story. Not only because he was a former Cub, but because he is being so dominant right now. If he were amost anywhere other than KC, he'd be garnering some national coverage (not a lot, but a mention here and there, I'd think).

 

The point of that particular post, however, was to hopefully inspire some discussion as to his workload. I don't know what to think of it: part of me thinks he is young and needs all the experience he can get, yet part of me is wary about using him in a manner so frequently that his arm may not be used to.

 

I am not trying to rub anyone's nose in his success. I get far more satisfaction of knowing that I was right rather than thinking others are wrong. I think its a shame that those who stuck by Sisco aren't given more credit, but that is largely endemic of this board in general. People dig there heels and think that acknowledging someone else's correct assertion is somehow impugning themselves. However, I'm sure I do it to.

 

If he has a couple bad outings to inflate his ERA are you going to continue posting about him, or are you going to cop out like you did after his 1st couple appearances this year?

[USSoccer]

Why? I liked the guy. I find it interesting to follow him. As much as I like Sisco, he won't sustain this level the entire season. However, until then, he is a legitamite story. Not only because he was a former Cub, but because he is being so dominant right now. If he were amost anywhere other than KC, he'd be garnering some national coverage (not a lot, but a mention here and there, I'd think).

 

The point of that particular post, however, was to hopefully inspire some discussion as to his workload. I don't know what to think of it: part of me thinks he is young and needs all the experience he can get, yet part of me is wary about using him in a manner so frequently that his arm may not be used to.

 

I am not trying to rub anyone's nose in his success. I get far more satisfaction of knowing that I was right rather than thinking others are wrong. I think its a shame that those who stuck by Sisco aren't given more credit, but that is largely endemic of this board in general. People dig there heels and think that acknowledging someone else's correct assertion is somehow impugning themselves. However, I'm sure I do it to.

 

If he has a couple bad outings to inflate his ERA are you going to continue posting about him, or are you going to cop out like you did after his 1st couple appearances this year?

 

Isn;t that a little hostile considering that JC has been pretty consistent about Sisco since he was left unprotected?

[Tim]

JC's been pretty darned consistent in his monitoring of Sisco. While it isn't good news, it is certainly something we as Cubs fans should be monitoring.

 

Hey, if there's one good side to this, at least Hendry can go to other GM's and say, "If Sisco's doing that well, imagine how good the guys I protected must be! Surely you want to give me Huff for Koronka."

[UBlink]

JC's been pretty darned consistent in his monitoring of Sisco. While it isn't good news, it is certainly something we as Cubs fans should be monitoring.

 

Hey, if there's one good side to this, at least Hendry can go to other GM's and say, "If Sisco's doing that well, imagine how good the guys I protected must be! Surely you want to give me Huff for Koronka."

 

Forget the tech business, Tim, you should be selling ice cubes to the Eskimo's! :P

[the sport]

Brock for Brolio, Madlock for Mercer, and Sisco for nothing. Sure has the makings of yet another patented, historic Cubbie blunder. Oh, wait check that....it was Sisco for piece of mind, so those sensitive Cubs don't have to watch him destroy himself through overeating.

[the sport]

It is becoming increasingly clear that the Cubs peaked in '03. What should have only been the start of bigger and better things to come for the most promising (at the time) franchise in all of baseball inexplicably turned out to be the apex instead. The person solely responsible for the Sisco fiasco is responsible for this sad twist of fate as well. They are interwoven. And the man doing the weaving?

[SouthSideRyan]

JC's been pretty darned consistent in his monitoring of Sisco. While it isn't good news, it is certainly something we as Cubs fans should be monitoring.

 

Hey, if there's one good side to this, at least Hendry can go to other GM's and say, "If Sisco's doing that well, imagine how good the guys I protected must be! Surely you want to give me Huff for Koronka."

 

Unless I'm confusing him with someone else, he had his ST stats in his sig, then when the season started, he removed the stats from his sig with the disclaimer that it had nothing to do with his bad start to the year, but that he thought he had proven his point. Lo and behold, Sisco's #s get good again, and the stats are back.

[don_kessinger_was_good]

Brock for Brolio, Madlock for Mercer, and Sisco for nothing. Sure has the makings of yet another patented, historic Cubbie blunder. Oh, wait check that....it was Sisco for piece of mind, so those sensitive Cubs don't have to watch him destroy himself through overeating.

 

Do not bring up the Madlock trade in my presence ever again. Ever.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Brock for Brolio, Madlock for Mercer, and Sisco for nothing. Sure has the makings of yet another patented, historic Cubbie blunder. Oh, wait check that....it was Sisco for piece of mind, so those sensitive Cubs don't have to watch him destroy himself through overeating.

 

Have you read any of this thread?

[USSoccer]

JC's been pretty darned consistent in his monitoring of Sisco. While it isn't good news, it is certainly something we as Cubs fans should be monitoring.

 

Hey, if there's one good side to this, at least Hendry can go to other GM's and say, "If Sisco's doing that well, imagine how good the guys I protected must be! Surely you want to give me Huff for Koronka."

 

Unless I'm confusing him with someone else, he had his ST stats in his sig, then when the season started, he removed the stats from his sig with the disclaimer that it had nothing to do with his bad start to the year, but that he thought he had proven his point. Lo and behold, Sisco's #s get good again, and the stats are back.

 

So are you saying that because JC removed meaningless ST stats from his sig at some point his overall point which he hasn't budged from has no merit?

[JC]

JC's been pretty darned consistent in his monitoring of Sisco. While it isn't good news, it is certainly something we as Cubs fans should be monitoring.

 

Hey, if there's one good side to this, at least Hendry can go to other GM's and say, "If Sisco's doing that well, imagine how good the guys I protected must be! Surely you want to give me Huff for Koronka."

 

Unless I'm confusing him with someone else, he had his ST stats in his sig, then when the season started, he removed the stats from his sig with the disclaimer that it had nothing to do with his bad start to the year, but that he thought he had proven his point. Lo and behold, Sisco's #s get good again, and the stats are back.

 

You are right in that I had his ST stats in my sig. You are right that they were removed with a disclaimer. You are dreadfully wrong that they were removed due to his first outing (the only one in which he has been scored upon). I can't remember the language of the disclaimer, but I believe it included the fact that it was not due to what will happen at the ML level because I consider the move to be wrong regardless. I also suspected someone would want to paint me in an ill light, and you were the accomodating party. I can't remember whether his stats were removed following the beginning of the season or not.

 

While his first outing was rocky, I wouldn't say it was bad. In fact, I'm certain that I defended him upon his debut as having had a pretty good outing considering it was opening day, he had never pitched in the bigs, and he is relatively new to the relief role. Do a search and you'd likely find it. That would be far too much trouble and endanger your premise, so I can see why you'd avoid it.

 

So, give your mouth a rest and get your facts straight before you accuse me of copping out on anything. That isn't indicative of my personality nor my posting habits to date. There was no reason for your original post unless you are harboring some kind of bad blood about something I am unaware of. If that is the case, be frank about it. Otherwise, get your crap together before you start with the insults and accusations.

 

EDIT: Let me also add that Sisco's stats in my sig only appeared this week following a post (in this very thread) in which I inquired whether he was being overused. Thus, the number of appearances are noted with a "confused" smiley. Another example of faulty speculation on your part with respect to the reasons behind my posting.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

With the Royals brutal pitching, maybe they should let Sisco start... :-k

[CuseCubFan69]

With the Royals brutal pitching, maybe they should let Sisco start... :-k

 

Next year Vance. KC will be able to get another Cub via Rule 5 Draft next year for the pen.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Maybe we can get Sisco back in a few years when he gets too expensive for the Royals to keep him.

[CuseCubFan69]

Maybe we can get Sisco back in a few years when he gets too expensive for the Royals to keep him.

 

Yeah, since he loved playing in the Cub organization so much. :wink:

[SouthSideRyan]

[

You are right in that I had his ST stats in my sig. You are right that they were removed with a disclaimer. You are dreadfully wrong that they were removed due to his first outing (the only one in which he has been scored upon). I can't remember the language of the disclaimer, but I believe it included the fact that it was not due to what will happen at the ML level because I consider the move to be wrong regardless. I also suspected someone would want to paint me in an ill light, and you were the accomodating party. I can't remember whether his stats were removed following the beginning of the season or not.

 

While his first outing was rocky, I wouldn't say it was bad. In fact, I'm certain that I defended him upon his debut as having had a pretty good outing considering it was opening day, he had never pitched in the bigs, and he is relatively new to the relief role. Do a search and you'd likely find it. That would be far too much trouble and endanger your premise, so I can see why you'd avoid it.

 

So, give your mouth a rest and get your facts straight before you accuse me of copping out on anything. That isn't indicative of my personality nor my posting habits to date. There was no reason for your original post unless you are harboring some kind of bad blood about something I am unaware of. If that is the case, be frank about it. Otherwise, get your crap together before you start with the insults and accusations.

 

EDIT: Let me also add that Sisco's stats in my sig only appeared this week following a post (in this very thread) in which I inquired whether he was being overused. Thus, the number of appearances are noted with a "confused" smiley. Another example of faulty speculation on your part with respect to the reasons behind my posting.

 

No personal problem with you at all. I hadn't realized that bringing those stats back was such a recent thing, as I thought I had seen them since late April. The language of the disclaimer is what I thought was a cop out. You mentioned that you may bring them back later on in the regular season but your point had been proven. The fact that the time they were brought back conicided with Sisco having sick numbers didn't sit well with me. I took the emoticon to be the same uneasiness with the Cubs not with his workload.

[erik316wttn]

With the Royals brutal pitching, maybe they should let Sisco start... :-k

 

Next year Vance. KC will be able to get another Cub via Rule 5 Draft next year for the pen.

 

Well hell, lets leave Pie and Dopirak unprotected next year. Surely no one will want to take them. :roll:

[JC]

 

No personal problem with you at all. I hadn't realized that bringing those stats back was such a recent thing, as I thought I had seen them since late April. The language of the disclaimer is what I thought was a cop out. You mentioned that you may bring them back later on in the regular season but your point had been proven. The fact that the time they were brought back conicided with Sisco having sick numbers didn't sit well with me. I took the emoticon to be the same uneasiness with the Cubs not with his workload.

 

Until this week, I had photos of Sisco, Farns, Willis, and Cruz in my sig indicating four pitchers that were lost in transactions that I wasn't a fan of. As far as Sisco's numbers, they have been terrific in every outing but for his first one. He gave up two earned runs in that outing and hasn't given up another one yet. (Unless he did last night.) His numbers have been worthy of praise for nearly all of April.

[SouthSideRyan]

 

Until this week, I had photos of Sisco, Farns, Willis, and Cruz in my sig indicating four pitchers that were lost in transactions that I wasn't a fan of.

 

Yeah, I realized that as I was typing out my last response. I don't know where I remember seeing Sisco's numbers then. My mistake.

[JGalt73]

Baseball Prospectus chimes in on the Sisco debate -

 

"Best VORP of any reliever in baseball? That’s right: Kansas City Rule-Fiver Andy Sisco."

 

For non-BP readers, Value Over Replacement Player (VORP) measures the impact a player has had versus a theoretically available league average pick-up. In short, he's the most valuable reliever in this short sample.

 

Also of note: Sisco's VORP exceeds that of one of the starting pitchers on his team. Of the 2 other teams to sport such a dubious honor - the Cubs with Glendon Rusch outdoing Zambrano. Now that one I do not follow?

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=3993