Ken Rosenthal, Jon Heyman say White Sox have better roster than Cubs for next five years

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

12 hours ago, Good Guys said:

I agree that Schwarber should have been traded to the AL long ago but trades haven't hurt the Cubs as much poor free agent signings/bad contracts have.  Heyward, Darvish, and Chatwood are 3 mistakes Theo wishes he could have back. Without the Chapman trade the Cubs don't have a WS ring.  

No matter how many times people say this, it doesn't make it true. Yes, however could the Cubs have won a World Series without that 3.86 and 3.52 ERA in the NLCS and the WS. How could they ever replace such production? The guy gave up 5 runs in 13 innings. He wasn't some lights out, games over, closer piece in the post-season that everyone wants to pretend he was. The Cubs could have replaced his production with someone else and it wouldn't have cost a top 5 prospect in baseball for 3 months of a RP - for 26 innings.

There's no excuse for trading 7 years of Torres for 26 innings from Chapman. No "present day vs future value" calculation would ever say that was a good idea - not matter how heavily you want to weight present value.

Edited December 3, 2019 by Look at Ray Ray Run

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

17 minutes ago, Kyyle23 said:

Cool.   So what would he have to give up for one of the best closers in baseball in August and not be played?

No one is giving up 7 years of a top 5 prospect for 26 innings from a RP - there's a reason the Cubs are the only ones who have paid such a steep price, and there's a reason it was considered a fleecing at the time. 

[wegner]

1 minute ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

No matter how many times people say this, it doesn't make it true. Yes, however could the Cubs have won a World Series without that 3.86 and 3.52 ERA in the NLCS and the WS. How could they ever replace such production? The guy gave up 5 runs in 13 innings. He wasn't some lights out, games over, closer piece in the post-season that everyone wants to pretend he was. The Cubs could have replaced his production with someone else and it wouldn't have cost a top 5 prospect in baseball for 3 months of a RP - for 26 innings.

Yep, he gave up the lead in game 7 of the World Series...people seem to forget that.

[Harry Chappas]

7 minutes ago, wegner said:

Yep, he gave up the lead in game 7 of the World Series...people seem to forget that.

He wasn't on the mound when they won.  That will be the thing that surprises me forever. 

They are on a nice run but it will be interesting how it goes from here.

If the White Sox don't change their stance on the international market this rebuild will be short lived.

[Bob Sacamano]

10 minutes ago, wegner said:

Yep, he gave up the lead in game 7 of the World Series...people seem to forget that.

Other than 2 games (I recall), he was good. Pretty much pitched every game that post-season. No one else in that pen could have had the success he did (yes, I acknowledge he had a bad game 7).

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

3 minutes ago, soxfan2014 said:

Other than 2 games (I recall), he was good. Pretty much pitched every game that post-season. No one else in that pen could have had the success he did (yes, I acknowledge he had a bad game 7).

Plenty of relievers available at the deadline could have given up 5 runs in 13 innings. 

To say a reliever only had 2 "bad games" in a post-season is saying he didn't have a great post-season.

[Kyyle23]

13 minutes ago, wegner said:

Yep, he gave up the lead in game 7 of the World Series...people seem to forget that.

I don't forget that, it happened.  He was also a crucial part of getting there and winning it all.

he paid a steep price for a World Series. The trophy wasn't guaranteed without him but they got it with him.  Saying that Theo could have paid less is 100 percent speculation 

[wegner]

6 minutes ago, Kyyle23 said:

I don't forget that, it happened.  He was also a crucial part of getting there and winning it all.

he paid a steep price for a World Series. The trophy wasn't guaranteed without him but they got it with him.  Saying that Theo could have paid less is 100 percent speculation 

IMHO Mike Napoli sucking in that World Series has a lot more to do with the Cubs winning than Chapman but I get your point.  Theo made the move that he thought he needed to make and paid the price necessary to get the best closer available...Do they win it all without Chapman?...Like you said that will always be just speculation.

[mqr]

14 minutes ago, Kyyle23 said:

I don't forget that, it happened.  He was also a crucial part of getting there and winning it all.

he paid a steep price for a World Series. The trophy wasn't guaranteed without him but they got it with him.  Saying that Theo could have paid less is 100 percent speculation 

The Indians did pay less for a better asset

[bmags]

6 minutes ago, wegner said:

IMHO Mike Napoli sucking in that World Series has a lot more to do with the Cubs winning than Chapman but I get your point.  Theo made the move that he thought he needed to make and paid the price necessary to get the best closer available...Do they win it all without Chapman?...Like you said that will always be just speculation.

Especially when they won it in a game 7 in extra innings.

[Kyyle23]

2 minutes ago, mqr said:

The Indians did pay less for a better asset

Yea well if we are gonna crush Chapman for blowing the lead in game 7 then we should acknowledge that Miller actually lost that game

 

[mqr]

7 minutes ago, wegner said:

IMHO Mike Napoli sucking in that World Series has a lot more to do with the Cubs winning than Chapman but I get your point.  Theo made the move that he thought he needed to make and paid the price necessary to get the best closer available...Do they win it all without Chapman?...Like you said that will always be just speculation.

Just to take it to an extreme, would the Tatis trade be worth it if the Sox held on and won it all, Shields and Tatis themselves being equal. No chance.

[Kyyle23]

2 minutes ago, mqr said:

Just to take it to an extreme, would the Tatis trade be worth it if the Sox held on and won it all, Shields and Tatis themselves being equal. No chance.

Yea if the Sox won a title as a result of th at trade I would still be just fine with it.  

[Harold's Leg Lift]

Chapman pitched in 13 games that postseason.  Maddon overused him but they don't even get to the WS without him.  

[bmags]

2 minutes ago, mqr said:

Just to take it to an extreme, would the Tatis trade be worth it if the Sox held on and won it all, Shields and Tatis themselves being equal. No chance.

You are asking if shields was actually terrible? Or if he was a meaningful contributor to a 2016 world series? Uh...yes that trade would have been worth it.

Would you guys rather be the dodgers of the 2010s or the red sox? I'd much rather be the freakin red sox. That used to be a slam dunk answer, now everyone just wants to be a hedge fund GM.

[Harold's Leg Lift]

1 minute ago, bmags said:

You are asking if shields was actually terrible? Or if he was a meaningful contributor to a 2016 world series? Uh...yes that trade would have been worth it.

Would you guys rather be the dodgers of the 2010s or the red sox? I'd much rather be the freakin red sox. That used to be a slam dunk answer, now everyone just wants to be a hedge fund GM.

Yep.  Don't tell me if you won a World Series tell me how you won it.

[wegner]

6 minutes ago, mqr said:

Just to take it to an extreme, would the Tatis trade be worth it if the Sox held on and won it all, Shields and Tatis themselves being equal. No chance.

That is some next level alternative history there haha...but I'll play.  If Shields pitched the last 4 innings in an epic game 7 for the 2016 World Series Champion White Sox then hell yes the trade was worth it.

Back to real history...the problem I will always have with the Shields trade was that Erik Johnson should have been more than enough to acquire a James Shields who had been called out by the Padres owner for sucking so badly.  The fact that Hahn had to throw anyone else in the deal is a joke,  The fact it was Tatis borders on a tragedy.

[SonofaRoache]

9 minutes ago, mqr said:

Just to take it to an extreme, would the Tatis trade be worth it if the Sox held on and won it all, Shields and Tatis themselves being equal. No chance.

We make the playoffs once a decade over the last 70 years or so. We win titles once in a lifetime. So I'd say yes, it would have been worth it. I'd trade Moncada tomorrow for one title in the next 3 seasons and a few more playoff appearances. 

[mqr]

1 minute ago, bmags said:

You are asking if shields was actually terrible? Or if he was a meaningful contributor to a 2016 world series? Uh...yes that trade would have been worth it.

Would you guys rather be the dodgers of the 2010s or the red sox? I'd much rather be the freakin red sox. That used to be a slam dunk answer, now everyone just wants to be a hedge fund GM.

I want spins of the wheel and many of them because actually getting over the top is like 95% luck. The Nationals were a misplayed ball in right field away from being bounced in the Wild Card Game.

The Dodgers could just as easily have 2 or 3 World Series as they do 0. They'll be among the favorites again this year and for the foreseeable future. The breaks didn't go their way, but that's viewing through hindsight. Who would you rather be right now?

[bmags]

1 minute ago, mqr said:

I want spins of the wheel and many of them because actually getting over the top is like 95% luck. The Nationals were a misplayed ball in right field away from being bounced in the Wild Card Game.

The Dodgers could just as easily have 2 or 3 World Series as they do 0. They'll be among the favorites again this year and for the foreseeable future. The breaks didn't go their way, but that's viewing through hindsight. Who would you rather be right now?

Yes but your hypothetical guarantees a World Series so of course you take it. Nothing about having Tatis Jr. guarantees a WS for the padres, great as he is. Winning a world series does rely a lot on luck, which is why teams overpay for any marginal advantage and that's okay! It's much better than being a tigers fan wondering what if they could have just found a freakin bullpen.

[poppysox]

1 hour ago, oldsox said:

Disagree.  Chapman was so readily available, I didn't believe at the time that Cubs had to give up that much.  Still don't.  Theo had other ways to help his bullpen without giving up Torres.  Theo got played by Yank GM.

I agree with you.  Hated the trade when it happened and still do.  My Cub fan brother thinks it was great for the WS reason.  That's why they make chocolate and vanilla.

[mqr]

What really matters is it awesome that people view the White Sox better moving forward than the Cubs ?

[MiddleCoastBias]

 

 

Anyone catch what was talked about?

[35thstreetswarm]

15 minutes ago, poppysox said:

I agree with you.  Hated the trade when it happened and still do.  My Cub fan brother thinks it was great for the WS reason.  That's why they make chocolate and vanilla.

I understand that from a fan's perspective.  It's perfectly understandable to say, in retrospect, that you'd change absolutely nothing about the formula that led to a WS since you never know if it might have altered the trajectory that led to the ultimate prize.  If I had a time machine I wouldn't trade Juan Uribe straight up for A-Rod at the beginning of the 2005 season lest it somehow disrupt the space time continuum and cost us the precious.  I wouldn't even magically cause Frank to come back from his injury for the playoffs because...who knows?

As a non-Cub fan I'm not burdened by all that, though.  Correlation does not necessarily equal causation and I do sometimes wonder if Chapman IN FACT was strictly necessary to the championship and if there was any way for them to win it while hanging on to Torres.  We'll never know.

Edited December 3, 2019 by 35thstreetswarm

[Balta1701]

12 minutes ago, 35thstreetswarm said:

I understand that from a fan's perspective.  It's perfectly understandable to say, in retrospect, that you'd change absolutely nothing about the formula that led to a WS since you never know if it might have altered the trajectory that led to the ultimate prize.  If I had a time machine I wouldn't trade Juan Uribe straight up for A-Rod at the beginning of the 2005 season lest it somehow disrupt the space time continuum and cost us the precious.  I wouldn't even magically cause Frank to come back from his injury for the playoffs because...who knows?

As a non-Cub fan I'm not burdened by all that, though.  Correlation does not necessarily equal causation and I do sometimes wonder if Chapman IN FACT was strictly necessary to the championship and if there was any way for them to win it while hanging on to Torres.  We'll never know.

What's a little mind-blowing is that the Yankees were able to trade Miller a few days later for an equally valuable return...and it wound up being a question of Miller vs Chapman for dominance in the playoffs. Had the Yankees not gotten that return for Chapman maybe the Yankees don't open up and trade Miller either.