JC

You lasted longer than I could, Tim. And I thought I gave him the benefit of the doubt for too long. :wink: Suckers. :tongue: 8)

Today just keeps getting better and better.

If we are just going to grab a guy and leave the strategy up the a qualified bench coach, I vote for Leo Mazzone. Pay him a king's ransom, give him the title of manager, and tell him to go to work on the pitchers. Problem solved. :wink:

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

Starred? I suppose that is too subjective of a word to get a consensus. The Ripkens, Cansecos, Guerreros, Martinezes and Boones immediately come to mind. But, usually one brother is head and shoulders above the other. Pedro and Ramon might be the only two that were legitimate stars at points in their careers, but not at the same time on the same team. Edit: Or, you can just read Garwilly's response if you page down more. :x

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.

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.

Actually, I think it's from the "Beane did it, so it must be the right decision" school of thought that causes the urge to :puker: Nope, everything's some form of revolution with Sully. maybe it's "Beane did it, so I desperately want it to fail or I'll rip my face off, gouge my eyes out and vomit on my baseball card collection because I've spent my life believing that sacrifice bunting is the be-all-end-all of team success and if I have to believe anything different I'll cease to exist" that causes it. Once again Sulley's amazing online psychological skills fail miserably. or, i hit a nerve which has caused you to insult me personally. good show, ryan. I insulted you personally by saying you don't know how I think? Or was it my response to your always condescending tone regarding Beane. I don't really have a dog in this fight as I'd prefer the topic return to the fantastic, underappreciated Andy Sisco. However, I think its disengenuous to pretend someone wouldn't be insulted by the bolded portion.

I posted this in the game thread last night, but it probably belongs here: http://espn.go.com/i/mlb/profiles/players/6763.jpg is http://www.nndb.com/people/096/000026018/will-ferrell-sized.jpg

further evidence that this forum needs a puke emoticon. Perhaps a review of existing emoticons would satisfy you. :pukel: :puker: :puke:

Like Jason Schmidt? :P I know you're mostly having fun, but I was surprised to see that Schmidt wasn't much of anything during his short time with the Braves. Plus, they got an awfully good pitcher (at the time) in Denny Neagle.

BTW - does anyone else have severe bullpen envy when looking at Oakland? What a set of arms. :wave: I was thinking that the other day.

Despite my ardent support of Sisco, I'm willing to admit that he will likely not be this good for the balance of the season. Anyone who thinks Cruz's number likely won't improve is just kidding themselves.

Not so much of "what could have been", but they represent 4 decisions that I wouldn't have made. Willis isn't so much a reflection of his success, but rather that I never would have made a trade for Alf with Clement as a throw in. Juan indeed is struggling right now, but I can't ignore the talent he has shown and, despite Lewis's success, I still don't like the trade that brought Andy Pratt to this organization, even if only for a short time.

I know what you are saying here. Every Rule V selection is a gamble in a sense. But, I'd still give KC some credit.

I think he has probably shown enough, even at this early stage, to stick with KC even if he sucks the rest of the way. After he has the requisite time in, they can DL him if they choose. He already has a substantial chunk eaten away toward that time. Unfortunately, I think he is pretty much gone. The KC talent evaluators deserve credit.

Ha! The one hit Sisco did give up was to Ichiro. The kid has to be building confidence.

:| :( #-o

Capt. Jack Aubrey: "Not everything is in your books, Stephen." Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World I throw that out there simply because it is a fantastic movie and has some relevance to the discussion. Certainly a component of the game includes first hand observation, but, personally, I would give more deference to statistical analysis on most occassions.

Poor ZZ. He can't win for losing.