35thstreetswarm

I don’t think that’s the question at all. I think he’s definitely ready. I also think he should be called up next season. I’ll think the same if he hits 1.000 for the rest of the season. It’s about team control, not whether he needs to hit .350 or .360 or .370. The dude is a stud and will remain so next year barring injury.

Yeah, it's not fun having a bad season. If it makes you feel any better, when we go home without a WS trophy this season it will be because we're in year 2 of a rebuild. When they do, it will mean another year of their supposed "dynasty window" squandered.

Totally agree with the second half and overall sentiment of your post. But as to the Cubs experience: I knew a lot of die-hard Cub fans who were very impatient throughout their rebuild, and I'm sure there are Cub message boards with 2014 archives that look a lot like the dark corners of Soxtalk today. I remember a lot of griping when the Cubs lost out on Tanaka. When Javy Baez, their first big prospect to arrive, was setting strikeout records there was widespread talk of him being a bust. There was considerable angst on sports talk radio toward the end of the rebuild about how long things were taking, and news stories showing scads of empty seats at supposedly sold-out Cubs games in 2014. It's easy to forget all of that, just like these low points will hopefully be unmemorable blips if/when the rebuild starts to get traction at the major league level.

You keep saying this, but I think you know that the plan IS for the Sox's highly-touted farm system to turn out a core of elite talent comparable to Houston's. If all goes according to plan, Eloy, Moncada, Robert, Madrigal, etc. will be comparable to the young cores of Houston and other successful rebuilds. That's the whole idea. Now, nobody yet knows for sure if that will happen since they are still just touted prospects and not established MLB stars (just like Altuve, Correa, Springer, and Bregman a few years ago). You don't have to believe it. Maybe the baseball world was wrong about Moncada and Eloy. But the Sox have built a top farm system with projected star power, which is all you can really ask at this stage of a rebuild . Your issue really seems to be with the talent the rebuild has assembled (and the projections for that talent), not the rebuild process. And if you just think that the talent in the Sox system is no good, we're pretty much sunk and free agent signings aren't going to save us.

This was my main problem with the article - it suggests that KW bought into the premise that the timeline had changed, but it's not at all clear. I suspect the premise the author's, and I'd be surprised if Kenny really conceded that the timeline of the rebuild has changed. In any event, I don't think anything has happened this year to dramatically alter the 2020 arrival date, but rather just standard dog-days of the rebuild stuff. This is the malaise period. The last week's rash of (hopefully short-term) injuries provide a good opening for an anti-rebuild type to post an article reflecting the malaise. Nothing to see here.

I think the problem is that the thread title question is too provocative and kind of begs for "no, you can't have too much" as an answer. It seems to me like what you're really asking is more like: what if we already have four guys in the rotation that are pitching well enough next season that it's not fair to bench them -- how do we make room to audition the group of prospects (hopefully) knocking at the door? Am I right? I think that's a fair question. Maybe we can test some guys out in the bullpen? Go with a 6-man rotation?

I think the "player's development is all that matters" mantra is focused on the wrong question. Not to sound harsh and uncaring, but these guys are not our children. They're effectively employees of the Chicago White Sox organization -- the team I cheer for. The relevant question for me (and I think most fans) therefore isn't what's "best for their development" as individual players in some abstract sense (if that's even possible to quantify). The question is what's best for the team, and issues like team control, the fanbase, etc. all factor into that. "What's best for the player" and "what's best for the team" are overlapping but not identical questions. Harming a player's development more than likely harms the team. So you would probably never do that. But let's say you could make a decision that presented a moderate risk of delaying a star player reaching his peak by one month, but ensured team control of that player in his prime for one year. You would be prioritizing the team over the player's development by making that decision, and you would do it every time. I think we're pretty close to that hypothetical here. #team2019

I’ve been reading complaints on this board for over a decade about plodding, station-to-station softball players, the need for the Sox to finally find some “baseball players”, emphasize up-the-middle defense, speed, etc. A little disorienting, after seeing the Sox finally draft a player who embodies everything the organization has deemphasized to its great detriment since 2005, to read that power is really all that matters.

Yes, and if that was how we regarded him why wouldn’t we have drafted him in the second round rather than hoping he was there (again) 40 picks later?

I can't believe this but...I love this entire draft so far. What's going on with this organization?

The Cubs called up Soler and Baez in 2014. They called up Bryant, Russell, and Schwarber in 2015 and started competing. That’s five of their major prospects with several (Almora, Torres, Jimenez, Contreras, etc) still in the minors. Moncada, Lopez, and Giolito are already up. Jimenez and Kopech will be up in 2019 at the latest. That’s five of their major prospects with several still in the minors. Not sure why you’re projecting the Sox will need four years after their first main core is called up to compete—that really has no precedent. This doesn’t even count Anderson as a “major prospect,” or account for the fact that Collins and other prospects may be called up in ‘19 as well. That’s a lot of the core talent. You shouldn’t need to fill the entire roster with 40 hot prospects within a 6-month window to get your rebuild going.

There will be a learning curve, but they won’t suck until 2023 (unless something goes wrong). They should contribute quickly even if they continue to improve over multiple seasons. For the record, I dont think calling Eloy/Kopech up in July vs September vs May of 2019 will make much difference in their development or the timeline of the rebuild, so while I would be excited to see them sooner, I think maximizing control is the most important thing.

If I pretended (i) that Jose Abreu, Tim Anderson, Lucas Giolito, Zack Collins, Seby Zavala, Yolmer Sanchez, and Matt Davidson (and others) didn't exist; (ii) that there is no free agency or trade market; and (iii) that top prospects typically languish and suck at the big league level for two-three years before contributing, I would agree with this. But this timeline is totally divorced from reality and recent rebuild history. I've said this before, but by your timeline, the Cubs and Astros should be getting decent any day now...

His involvement with the reality TV world has left me with a deep feeling of uneasiness about his makeup. Maybe unfair, and I hope I'm wrong, but the douche factor is strong with this one.

Yeah - it's like the opposite of looking at top pitchers drafted

Yeah, I think there's a good chance, and I'd be fine with anybody in that top four. I just really want Madrigal.

The Athletic mock draft goes Mize, Bart, Madrigal, Bohm, Singer, which lines up with my prediction/fear. I’m not sure why Philly passes on Madrigal, no matter what Law says.

My god - if they traded Russell for a rental, flamed out in the playoffs, and then Machado went elsewhere....leaving them with no SS while Torres tears it up with the Yankees.... Probably too much to ask, I suppose. I have to think they only go that route if they have pretty good assurances they keep Machado after '18.

I hope that's true, though I have my doubts. Seems like the factors leading so many on this board to gravitate toward Madrigal are the same ones that might move him out of our reach.

I agree that it will come down to the pitching. I don't think the Cubs are shaping into quite the offensive powerhouse some predicted, and hot starting pitching was more of a key to their past success than many casual fans/media types think. And if you throw the Phillies and Padres in the mix, it might even be that 12 of the next 6 WS are spoken for

They've had a great run, no doubt. But my question is really more about what the Cubs are now and going forward, not an assessment of the last three years. Are they in the middle of their run, or on the downslope? (I assume "time left in this group" means you think the former). The next few seasons are what will determine whether they're remembered as a good team with a good run, or a dynasty. And by the way, as good as their run has been, I think that if the Cubs were to go out in the first round this year, and never win another title, I don't think most would consider the Cubs to have delivered on the full promise of the much hyped Theo renaissance. They've put together a run that's on par with say the Royals of this decade, or the Phillies of last. Really good teams. But one banner is not exactly the stuff of legend.

Considering I (and probably most on this board) thought he was organizational filler about a year ago, I'd count that as a huge and unexpected success, and a big shot in the arm of the rebuild.

This thread is way too dead for me as a card-carrying, not-remotely-too-cool-for-school, third-generation Cub hater. I need more to talk about while we await the arrival of the real White Sox team we've been promised. So here's the big-picture question. The Cubs have been sold as the ultimate rebuild success story. All seemed to be going according to script, with the earlier-than-expected coming out party in 2015 followed by the 2016 championship season. It appeared to be opening act to an extended run of championship baseball. Most of the Cub fans I know continue to carry their 2016 attitude today: they feel blessed to be in the midst of the "juggernaut era" the rebuild was supposed to usher in. And maybe they are. But the counterpoint is that as we stand here in 2018, they were at most the third best team in baseball last season. It's hard to argue that they've gotten better on a pure personnel level - the switch from Arrieta to Darvish, and from Wade Davis to Morrow & Co., were lateral moves at best (maybe not even that). Their main competition from last year hasn't gone away, and several contenders have gotten better. Their play has been uninspiring, though it's absurdly early. Their farm system has been stripped pretty bare: their next big wave is coming, but it's coming to the Bronx and 35th and Shields. So what are the Cubs exactly? Are they a sleeping giant that just took a post-championship hangover year off, and will momentarily return to form and rip off another title or two? Or are they just another team: one that rode some good moves, good luck, and a crazy-hot pitcher's career seasons to squeak by the Indians in extras of game 7, but have now fallen back into the pack of teams that are good but not "special"? Time will tell, but I think it's interesting that this is among the last moments you can credibly argue for either of these scenarios.

This--and other threads from anti-rebuild folks who are furious that a rebuilding team is bad--have really convinced me and gotten me thinking. I have even tried to apply the lessons of these threads to my own life. For example, in the offseason I decided to remodel my kitchen. I did this because it was old and bad, and I wanted one that was new and good. My contractor told me that I'd be "without a kitchen" for two months while they finished the job. I paid him, but must say I was really taken aback when I walked into my kitchen in early April to find all the appliances and most of the walls were gone! My original attitude about this was, "well, I will suffer through the pain of remodeling for the delayed gratification of a nicer kitchen down the road. After all, this was the plan all along." But reading the comments in these threads has inspired me to treat each day without a working kitchen as a new and independent outrage. I walk around the site each day screaming "where is the refrigerator?!!" and "This kitchen doesn't even have running water - kitchens should have running water!!" I mean, the name of the game is to have a kitchen, not a construction site, right? Pretty simple. My contractor tries to calm me down by saying things like "....I don't understand -- IT IS a construction site, because it's under construction" and "the refrigerator will arrive when the kitchen is done -- remember?" and "We talked about all this, didn't we? Wait, am I going crazy?" But honestly I think he's just an apologist. I'm thinking of firing him and having my big Viking stove delivered and plopped right in the middle of my former kitchen so I can admire it all day amid the sawdust. It's really the least that I deserve.

Oh, didn't realize that he stayed in the field. I have now taken several steps back from the ledge.