The Blake Snell Thread

[SoxBlanco]

11 minutes ago, Harry Chappas said:

Would you rather be the Indians/Twins or White Sox.

Personally I'd rather have a shot going into every season as opposed to once every 10 years. 

If the cubs don't make the Chapman and Quintana trades they are looking much better right now that what they did.  They may not have the World Series but they have talent currently.

I may be the exception though of wanting sustained success over a title.  Once the title season is completed, it does nothing for me.

I take the Dodgers 2010-2019 over the cubs same run even though the cubs won the title.  I'd take the Indians and Twins 2000-2020 over the White Sox.  

It's an interesting debate. In the next 10 seasons, which would you rather have?

A)  10 playoff appearances and no titles

B)  1 playoff appearance that resulted in a World Series

Give me the World Series all day.

[ShoeLessRob]

15 minutes ago, Capital G said:

That would be a terrible trade. 

 

How many times has Snell sniffed 200 innings?

I don’t think that’s a good measuring stick, how many times has Kopech? I agree Vaughn, Kopech, and + is an overpay, but if a trade is built around Kopech as the headliner you make the trade. I’d rather take the pitcher who has won a Cy Young rather than an unknown, personally. 

3 minutes ago, HOFHurt35 said:

There's an elite level SP out there that would cost you not a single one of your prized prospects,  Bauer. 

Time to play with the big boys and hang out a 9 figure contract for once. 

Enough with this nonsense. 

 

This 100%. 

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

12 minutes ago, Harold's Leg Lift said:

So you just want a bunch of participation trophies?

You have a better chance of winning a title by being real good for 10 years than you do being great for 2.

[35thstreetswarm]

3 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

You have a better chance of winning a title by being real good for 10 years than you do being great for 2.

...but the question was backward-looking, not forward looking.  The original post said, even in retrospect, he'd take the sustained success with no titles over sporadic success with a ring.

[SoxBlanco]

3 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

You have a better chance of winning a title by being real good for 10 years than you do being great for 2.

Obviously, but this isn't a debate on which approach to go with to maximize your chances.  This is a debate that looks back on something that already happened (obviously hypothetical).  After the fact, would you rather have 10 playoff appearances and no titles, or 1 playoff appearance and a World Series?

I'm taking the World Series.

[Harold's Leg Lift]

6 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

You have a better chance of winning a title by being real good for 10 years than you do being great for 2.

27 minutes ago, Harry Chappas said:

Would you rather be the Indians/Twins or White Sox.

Personally I'd rather have a shot going into every season as opposed to once every 10 years. 

If the cubs don't make the Chapman and Quintana trades they are looking much better right now that what they did.  They may not have the World Series but they have talent currently.

I may be the exception though of wanting sustained success over a title.  Once the title season is completed, it does nothing for me.

I take the Dodgers 2010-2019 over the cubs same run even though the cubs won the title.  I'd take the Indians and Twins 2000-2020 over the White Sox.  

 

[bmags]

Would you rather be the Indians or the Twins? Because the Indians have made many more "all-in" moves. The same year that Chapman was traded, the Indians traded for Miller and gave up an outfielder that would have certainly helped their anemic offense (esp in outfield) the last few years. He was instrumental in getting them to a WS.

Would you rather at least make it to a World Series or lose in the first round every year?

People can obssess over the Chapman/Q trades all they want, but to me the reason the cubs are where they are is because they drafted for shit after 2014, and got zero production from INTL after their incredible 2013.

There's also just luck, who knows what is different if Cubs get Shohei for that paltry amount. I'd argue he gets them out of that wild card game against the Rox and who knows what changes. Maybe they still don't hit in the playoffs, but every year can be different. Hendricks / Lester / Hamels would have been pretty good and that was a better bullpen than 17.

If you take a lesson from the cubs, it's that we can't stop acquiring talent even though our big league roster is full of long-term talent. Having a Verdugo and Lux in your pocket is incredibly helpful in navigating a bad free agency period or supplementing suddenly underperforming players.

[bmags]

The lesson of the 2000s white sox is also that you can't stop drafting and being a player in INTL and sustain success.

[southsider2k5]

46 minutes ago, Harry Chappas said:

Would you rather be the Indians/Twins or White Sox.

Personally I'd rather have a shot going into every season as opposed to once every 10 years. 

If the cubs don't make the Chapman and Quintana trades they are looking much better right now that what they did.  They may not have the World Series but they have talent currently.

I may be the exception though of wanting sustained success over a title.  Once the title season is completed, it does nothing for me.

I take the Dodgers 2010-2019 over the cubs same run even though the cubs won the title.  I'd take the Indians and Twins 2000-2020 over the White Sox.  

So what do you get out of losing early in the playoffs that you don't get out of winning it all?

[Tnetennba]

No one outside of chicago really remembers those great Sox teams of the 50s and 60s beyond losing in 1959.  They aren't talked about in legends and lore.  Thats what 'sustained success' does without ever winning a ring.  I want multiple division championships and a shot at a title every year, but I'll take one over becoming the 50s Sox or late 90s Cleveland.

[35thstreetswarm]

10 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

So what do you get out of losing early in the playoffs that you don't get out of winning it all?

I suspect the argument is that the cumulative joy of having been "in it" throughout multiple seasons adds up to more than the joy of winning it all one time.  Don't agree, but that's it.  Nobody would argue that, in a single season, it's more fun to lose early in the playoffs than win it all.

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

27 minutes ago, SoxBlanco said:

Obviously, but this isn't a debate on which approach to go with to maximize your chances.  This is a debate that looks back on something that already happened (obviously hypothetical).  After the fact, would you rather have 10 playoff appearances and no titles, or 1 playoff appearance and a World Series?

I'm taking the World Series.

The dodgers won a title so his point feels off. 

1 playoff appearance would really suck. Titles are what its all about but 9 years of pointless regular season baseball for 1 year of success is easier to commit to hypothetically. I am just reminded about how much bad baseball I've had to watch In the past decade. It sucks. If the sox have a cubs kind of run I would be thrilled though. We've never made the playoffs two years In a row for God sakes.

[bmags]

4 minutes ago, SouthWallace said:

No one outside of chicago really remembers those great Sox teams of the 50s and 60s beyond losing in 1959.  They aren't talked about in legends and lore.  Thats what 'sustained success' does without ever winning a ring.  I want multiple division championships and a shot at a title every year, but I'll take one over becoming the 50s Sox or late 90s Cleveland.

Probably hurts not to have a playoff of any sort. But, you are right. 59 sox had much less lore in the city than the 63 hawks, for instance. My family were from baltimore and moved here when I was a kid, so I had no built-in sox knowledge, and I still don't get pre-80s sox players right in terms of matching them to their eras.

[35thstreetswarm]

1 minute ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

The dodgers won a title so his point feels off. 

1 playoff appearance would really suck. Titles are what its all about but 9 years of pointless regular season baseball for 1 year of success is easier to commit to hypothetically. I am just reminded about how much bad baseball I've had to watch In the past decade. It sucks. If the sox have a cubs kind of run I would be thrilled though. We've never made the playoffs two years In a row for God sakes.

No, I suspect that's why he compared the Cubs run to the Dodgers through 2019, not 2020.  The Dodgers didn't win a ring in that window.

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

Just now, 35thstreetswarm said:

No, I suspect that's why he compared the Cubs run to the Dodgers through 2019, not 2020.  The Dodgers didn't win a ring in that window.

But their sustained success led to a title. Its stupid to cut off the point. 

[35thstreetswarm]

Just now, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

But their sustained success led to a title. Its stupid to cut off the point. 

You know what they say, "don't fight the hypo."  The poster cut it off at 2019 to make a rhetorical point about success sans championship being more satisfying than championship with fewer "successful" seasons overall.  You might not like the way he set up the argument, but that's kind of a different point.

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

Taking the Twins over the white sox 2000-2020 is absolutely mad though. The twins have lost 18 playoff games in a row. Why would anyone want that?

Thats insane. Sox maybe don't have a lot of division titles but they had a wire to wire dominant team who set playoff records. 

[35thstreetswarm]

Just now, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Taking the Twins over the white sox 2000-2020 is absolutely mad though. The twins have lost 18 playoff games in a row. Why would anyone want that?

Thats insane. Sox maybe don't have a lot of division titles but they had a wire to wire dominant team who set playoff records. 

I don't think you'd find many Twins fans who wouldn't trade a bunch of gut-punch playoff losses to the Yankees for our one ring. 

[bmags]

I really think you need to bundle up the As/Twins as a hypothetical and not dodgers/cleveland. Dodgers and Cleveland, and Tigers before them, had a really great run that just didn't have that luck that comes with winning a championship, but put themselves in position multiple times.

The Twins/As were doing the very cautious long-term look to make sure they can compete on their budgets, and that would be pretty brutal. I don't know how I would feel as a Twins fan about all this. I think I probably think more favorably on the 2010 white sox than they do on most of their playoff teams, and that's just easier because it was still in the shadow of an amazing year.

[Tnetennba]

11 minutes ago, bmags said:

Probably hurts not to have a playoff of any sort. But, you are right. 59 sox had much less lore in the city than the 63 hawks, for instance. My family were from baltimore and moved here when I was a kid, so I had no built-in sox knowledge, and I still don't get pre-80s sox players right in terms of matching them to their eras.

Who knows what a different playoff format does back then.  Maybe they break through and win a couple.  That might just change the trajectory of the whole franchise over time.

Point being, sustained success matters little for the history books if the team never wins the whole thing.  I'll take a single team etched in history over none at all.

[Southwest Sider]

Might as well throw in Elija Tatis along with Vaughn, Kopech and Stiever and really hate that trade.

I don't think you can realistically trade Andrew Vaughn, let alone Michael Kopech. Their ceilings are incredibly high. 

[BamaDoc]

1 hour ago, 35thstreetswarm said:

Exactly.  This is a Sale-like return.  If I trade Vaughn AND Kopech (and I don't want to), PLUS MORE, I better be getting a DeGrom caliber pitcher in return.

And DeGrom is 32 and owed 35.5/35.5/32.5 and optional 32.5       Keep your players and sign Bauer if thats what they are thinking.  DeGrom is not on that cheap of a contract.

[ron883]

2 hours ago, HOFHurt35 said:

There's an elite level SP out there that would cost you not a single one of your prized prospects,  Bauer. 

Time to play with the big boys and hang out a 9 figure contract for once. 

Enough with this nonsense. 

 

This. This. This. It's crazy to empty the farm when there is a guy out there in Bauer that fills EXACTLY what we need.

[Harry Chappas]

3 hours ago, Harold's Leg Lift said:

So you just want a bunch of participation trophies?

I have received zero trophies.  I suppose I could go find a souvenir world series trophy and put it on my mantle and pretend I am part of the organization.   Once the final out of the last game happens I have nothing to show or gained for the most recently completed season and only have to look toward the next season.

I am not part of the organization so I have never won or lost anything thus the only thing i get out of the White Sox is looking forward to spending a few hours each day watching them and looking forward to the next season.

The playoffs and world series extend my White Sox enjoyment by a few days or weeks but once completed it adds nothing to my life. 

 

 

[Harry Chappas]

2 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

So what do you get out of losing early in the playoffs that you don't get out of winning it all?

Nothing.  It is the enjoyment of a season and potential season throughout the summer into the fall and into the winter to do it all over again.

The White Sox have won five playoff series in their history.  Does the extreme of losing 18 straight playoff games sound enticing, no, but give me an 85-90 win team annually and I am fine with that.  Sadly I am the epitome of the JR carrot fan.

Don't get me wrong and this does contradict what I posted earlier, I do appreciate and find joy in the world series but I think I would equally be as satisfied with 90s Braves and 10s Dodgers success.

I did cut off the Dodgers at 2020 to make a point.