Maddux and $$$ to the Dodgers for Cesar Izturis

[Bruno7481]

I had a pretty good friend who was a member of the Cubs pitching staff until he was traded away this Spring.

An educated guess based on your location, are you referring to Todd Wellemeyer?

 

Yep.

[USSoccer]

 

Show me your negligible, unprovable data that he doesn't have an effect.

 

Maddux was described to me as being the hot girl in high school. You just want to be around him, hang out etc. He will not approach you and say "your doing this wrong", "I wouldnt do it that way." Instead he allows guys to come to him, and if they want some advice he is more than happy to help them.

 

Well, my point is that given you cannot prove he has any positive effect, it's not a good enough reason to keep him. For example:

 

WHIP ERA

2003:

1.32 3.83

 

2004:

1.30 3.81

 

2005:

1.34 4.19

 

I'm not even going to post 2006's numbers, because there'd be no point. You can see from 2003 to 2004, there was a piddling decrease in both WHIP and ERA for the team. Since our pitching staff was still relatively intact for 2004, and Maddux was here to "mentor" our guys, where is the statistical evidence he did any good? In 2005, our WHIP wasn't much higher but our team ERA jumped up half a point. Now, if there's any area that Maddux would be able to mentor our pitchers in, it would be control, right? Well, the team WHIP doesn't indicate any benefit.

 

That said, that entire last paragraph was a waste of time to type. The point of me calling into question an intangible, immeasurable reason to keep a mediocre pitcher around for the last 2 months of a dead season is that intangible reasons like mentoring should not preclude you from doing what's best for the team long term. I can't prove there's no effect, nor can you prove there is a benefit to having him talk to other pitchers between starts, anecdotal evidence aside.

[Exile on Waveland]

I personally don't care one iota what the casual fan thinks and neither should the Cubs. I also don't think they do, because, if they did, Dusty would have already been fired to appease the casual (and not-so) casual fan.

[CubColtPacer]

I personally don't care one iota what the casual fan thinks and neither should the Cubs. I also don't think they do, because, if they did, Dusty would have already been fired to appease the casual (and not-so) casual fan.

 

You don't think the Cubs should care about 80 percent of their fan base? I don't think that most of the casual fans know if Dusty should be fired or not-what they see if he has had 1 very good year, 1 good year, 1 decent year, and a terrible year. Many of them see Prior and Wood as the big parts of the team, and so they are obviously willing to excuse the team when they go down. Right or wrong, the perception of that fan base matters.

[jjgman21]

There's been many comments from younger pitchers about talking to Maddux and sticking around him to hope to pick up nuggets of information here and there. That said, is keeping Maddux around for 8 weeks going to make a significant impact for the young starters who have already been around him for a while(since March in Marshall's case)? I don't think that's the case, and then there's the catch-22 of him taking up a spot in the rotation for other players he'd be able to mentor. With Zambrano, Prior, Marshall, Marmol, Hill, and Guzman, I'm not significantly worried about overworking the rotation, especially since Rusch will still be around to suck for a day if someone really needs it. And if Maddux is traded for a player that doesn't take up a 40 man spot, then you might even see Wells or Gallagher take that role and become an option by September, which also brings up the fact that it's nigh impossible to overwork a pitching staff once the rosters expand.

 

neither Wells nor Gallagher are on the 40-man. I don't think they could be called up. if I am not mistaken, both Marmol and Marshall are already well beyond their biggest career workload. with Guzman's injury history, I don't think it a good idea to extend him much further as he is well above any workload he has had in recent years. maybe 4-5 starts and I would shut him down (around 140-150 IP). same goes for Ryu. with Hills full workload last year, he's the only one who I wouldn't have a problem with having a slot the rest of the year without over work concerns.

 

again, I only advocate keeping him if trading him does not result in getting something decent back. if you get something decent back, then go with Rusch to save these guys arms.

 

I do not know the status of Williams these days. is he pitching? he is a possability to fill that role, but then you use up his last option and have to 25 man him next year.

 

it is difficult to abuse a staff once rosters expand, if your manager isn't a pitcher abusing bafoon. Dusty wants to win every game. if that means extending Marshall or Marmol to twice his workload of last year, that's exactly what he will do.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

Some people here in LA would be willing to deal Joel Guzman for Maddux. I would do this in a heartbeat.

 

Man, has Guzman lost favor in LA after the way he handled the demotion. I'd do that trade, but look to deal Guzman in the offseason (something I doubt Hendry would do).

 

By the way, since when is Hemet "LA"? :P

[CaliforniaRaisin]

There's been many comments from younger pitchers about talking to Maddux and sticking around him to hope to pick up nuggets of information here and there. That said, is keeping Maddux around for 8 weeks going to make a significant impact for the young starters who have already been around him for a while(since March in Marshall's case)? I don't think that's the case, and then there's the catch-22 of him taking up a spot in the rotation for other players he'd be able to mentor. With Zambrano, Prior, Marshall, Marmol, Hill, and Guzman, I'm not significantly worried about overworking the rotation, especially since Rusch will still be around to suck for a day if someone really needs it. And if Maddux is traded for a player that doesn't take up a 40 man spot, then you might even see Wells or Gallagher take that role and become an option by September, which also brings up the fact that it's nigh impossible to overwork a pitching staff once the rosters expand.

 

neither Wells nor Gallagher are on the 40-man. I don't think they could be called up. if I am not mistaken, both Marmol and Marshall are already well beyond their biggest career workload. with Guzman's injury history, I don't think it a good idea to extend him much further as he is well above any workload he has had in recent years. maybe 4-5 starts and I would shut him down (around 140-150 IP). same goes for Ryu. with Hills full workload last year, he's the only one who I wouldn't have a problem with having a slot the rest of the year without over work concerns.

 

again, I only advocate keeping him if trading him does not result in getting something decent back. if you get something decent back, then go with Rusch to save these guys arms.

 

I do not know the status of Williams these days. is he pitching? he is a possability to fill that role, but then you use up his last option and have to 25 man him next year.

 

it is difficult to abuse a staff once rosters expand, if your manager isn't a pitcher abusing bafoon. Dusty wants to win every game. if that means extending Marshall or Marmol to twice his workload of last year, that's exactly what he will do.

 

TT is suggesting that since you're trading Maddux (who is on the 40-man) for someone who isn't on the 40-man, you'd be able to add Wells or Gallagher to the 40-man roster in time for September call-ups.

 

Jerome Williams is indeed pitching and has returned to the Iowa rotation with better results than earlier in the season. Williams has already used his option when he was demoted to the minors, but I thought I read somewhere he might still have one (Craig??).

[jjgman21]

There's been many comments from younger pitchers about talking to Maddux and sticking around him to hope to pick up nuggets of information here and there. That said, is keeping Maddux around for 8 weeks going to make a significant impact for the young starters who have already been around him for a while(since March in Marshall's case)? I don't think that's the case, and then there's the catch-22 of him taking up a spot in the rotation for other players he'd be able to mentor. With Zambrano, Prior, Marshall, Marmol, Hill, and Guzman, I'm not significantly worried about overworking the rotation, especially since Rusch will still be around to suck for a day if someone really needs it. And if Maddux is traded for a player that doesn't take up a 40 man spot, then you might even see Wells or Gallagher take that role and become an option by September, which also brings up the fact that it's nigh impossible to overwork a pitching staff once the rosters expand.

 

neither Wells nor Gallagher are on the 40-man. I don't think they could be called up. if I am not mistaken, both Marmol and Marshall are already well beyond their biggest career workload. with Guzman's injury history, I don't think it a good idea to extend him much further as he is well above any workload he has had in recent years. maybe 4-5 starts and I would shut him down (around 140-150 IP). same goes for Ryu. with Hills full workload last year, he's the only one who I wouldn't have a problem with having a slot the rest of the year without over work concerns.

 

again, I only advocate keeping him if trading him does not result in getting something decent back. if you get something decent back, then go with Rusch to save these guys arms.

 

I do not know the status of Williams these days. is he pitching? he is a possability to fill that role, but then you use up his last option and have to 25 man him next year.

 

it is difficult to abuse a staff once rosters expand, if your manager isn't a pitcher abusing bafoon. Dusty wants to win every game. if that means extending Marshall or Marmol to twice his workload of last year, that's exactly what he will do.

 

TT is suggesting that since you're trading Maddux (who is on the 40-man) for someone who isn't on the 40-man, you'd be able to add Wells or Gallagher to the 40-man roster in time for September call-ups.

 

Jerome Williams is indeed pitching and has returned to the Iowa rotation with better results than earlier in the season. Williams has already used his option when he was demoted to the minors, but I thought I read somewhere he might still have one (Craig??).

 

I see your point re: Maddux openning up a roster spot, but that means the only return is a low level prospect that doesn't need to be on the 40 man. I hope others see my point re: pitcher abuse.

 

doesn't Williams demotion earlier this year mean he can remain in the minors indefinitely until the next time he is called up, then he has to stick?

 

also, which Guzman are you referring trading if LA's Guzman comes in a Maddux trade?

[Exile on Waveland]

I personally don't care one iota what the casual fan thinks and neither should the Cubs. I also don't think they do, because, if they did, Dusty would have already been fired to appease the casual (and not-so) casual fan.

 

You don't think the Cubs should care about 80 percent of their fan base? I don't think that most of the casual fans know if Dusty should be fired or not-what they see if he has had 1 very good year, 1 good year, 1 decent year, and a terrible year. Many of them see Prior and Wood as the big parts of the team, and so they are obviously willing to excuse the team when they go down. Right or wrong, the perception of that fan base matters.

 

No, I don't. The Cubs should do what's best for the team and organization. If that means trading Maddux, you trade him. Listening to fan opinion is a horrible, horrible way to run a franchise.

 

Also, yes, I think most all Cubs fans want Dusty fired. The casual fan may not know the exact reasons why he should be fired, they just see the declining results and want him fired. Worse record=poor manager. That's the casual thinking, most definitely.

[Laura]

 

Well, my point is that given you cannot prove he has any positive effect, it's not a good enough reason to keep him. For example:

 

WHIP ERA

2003:

1.32 3.83

 

2004:

1.30 3.81

 

2005:

1.34 4.19

 

I'm not even going to post 2006's numbers, because there'd be no point. You can see from 2003 to 2004, there was a piddling decrease in both WHIP and ERA for the team. Since our pitching staff was still relatively intact for 2004, and Maddux was here to "mentor" our guys, where is the statistical evidence he did any good? In 2005, our WHIP wasn't much higher but our team ERA jumped up half a point. Now, if there's any area that Maddux would be able to mentor our pitchers in, it would be control, right? Well, the team WHIP doesn't indicate any benefit.

 

That said, that entire last paragraph was a waste of time to type. The point of me calling into question an intangible, immeasurable reason to keep a mediocre pitcher around for the last 2 months of a dead season is that intangible reasons like mentoring should not preclude you from doing what's best for the team long term. I can't prove there's no effect, nor can you prove there is a benefit to having him talk to other pitchers between starts, anecdotal evidence aside.

 

Unfortunately, Maddux isn't a surgeon. Perhaps the Cubs would have been better served hiring an MD and putting him on the 25-man roster, though knowing the Cubs, they would hire a Dr. Nick type. Or maybe just the money could have been spent on a trainload full of bubblewrap to encase the pitching staff and a jar full of clues for Hendry.

 

When it comes down to the knowledge and insights that Maddux does share with pitchers, I'll have to rely on the mere decade+ of anecodatal evidence and testimony from pitchers and players and coaches and managers who believe that Maddux has been a great resource and has incredible insight into the game of baseball. And, in some cases, has changed the way they approach the game and game situations.

 

No, Maddux doesn't have a magic wand filled with magical fairy dust that will make Marmol throw strikes, Wood's rotator cuff to heal itself or Rusch to lose weight and stop stinking. Sadly this organization is such a joke that Maddux can catch flak for not improving the entire pitching staff WHEN IT'S NOT HIS JOB TO DO SO AND HE NEVER SAID IT WAS. The Cubs organization consistently tries to coast on his credibility since they have none of their own.

 

When it comes to Maddux and his own pitching, he's obviously not the guy who left in '92. I'm one of the few on this board who values what he has done in his second round as a Cub and I can point to anecdotal instances where Z (since he was mentioned above) has credited and/or referred to talks with Maddux as affecting how he approaches some pitching situations.

 

I would love to see him traded to the Dodgers or another contending team. I will be sad to see him go again, mainly because the circumstances of his departure once again illustrate ongoing problems within the franchise and because after the embarrassments of the last of years, he's one player who still carries himself with some dignity and self-respect. I think he'd be a valuable addition to a team that's actually in the race and I suspect that there's a lot of posturing going on right now in terms of asking and selling prices.

 

Finally, one can respect the use of stats and the use of analytical methods to improve the understanding of how baseball actually works ... and also recognize that there are human elements to a game that is still played by humans. Respecting the insights and the value added of a truly exceptional player like Maddux is not the message board equivalent of practicing voodoo or doing rain dances. Perhaps we just choose to emphasize different data sources when we draw our conclusions about the overall assets of players.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

I see your point re: Maddux openning up a roster spot, but that means the only return is a low level prospect that doesn't need to be on the 40 man. I hope others see my point re: pitcher abuse.

 

Not necessarily. A guy can be higher up in the system and just broke out this season. As such, he might not yet on the 40-man.

 

doesn't Williams demotion earlier this year mean he can remain in the minors indefinitely until the next time he is called up, then he has to stick?

 

It doesn't matter this season. He can shuttle back and forth between Des Moines and Wrigley as many times as the Cubs want this season. It would matter next season, but I thought I read that there was some loophole that Jerome might qualify for...I think I'm mistaking it for Angel Guzman (due to his injuries).

 

also, which Guzman are you referring trading if LA's Guzman comes in a Maddux trade?

 

Yeah, I'm referring to the Dodgers' Joel Guzman. He had some unkind words for management when he was demoted.

Edited July 30, 2006 by CaliforniaRaisin

[CaliforniaRaisin]

I had a pretty good friend who was a member of the Cubs pitching staff until he was traded away this Spring.

An educated guess based on your location, are you referring to Todd Wellemeyer?

 

Yep.

 

Thanks for sharing your insight. It's the second person on here who's mentioned how great Maddux has been. I love the "hot girl in HS" analogy, especially given what Greg does look like.

[CubColtPacer]

I personally don't care one iota what the casual fan thinks and neither should the Cubs. I also don't think they do, because, if they did, Dusty would have already been fired to appease the casual (and not-so) casual fan.

 

You don't think the Cubs should care about 80 percent of their fan base? I don't think that most of the casual fans know if Dusty should be fired or not-what they see if he has had 1 very good year, 1 good year, 1 decent year, and a terrible year. Many of them see Prior and Wood as the big parts of the team, and so they are obviously willing to excuse the team when they go down. Right or wrong, the perception of that fan base matters.

 

No, I don't. The Cubs should do what's best for the team and organization. If that means trading Maddux, you trade him. Listening to fan opinion is a horrible, horrible way to run a franchise.

 

Also, yes, I think most all Cubs fans want Dusty fired. The casual fan may not know the exact reasons why he should be fired, they just see the declining results and want him fired. Worse record=poor manager. That's the casual thinking, most definitely.

 

True-the Cubs should do what's best for the organization first. I'm not saying that you let the fans run the team-but when a decision is close, the fans should definitely play a factor. If we can't get a good return for Maddux, then unloading him for almost nothing and opening up a spot on the team needs to be balanced against the influence that Maddux has on the young pitchers and the reaction of the fans. It's a tough call that I won't be upset by either way the Cubs choose.

[USSoccer]

 

Well, my point is that given you cannot prove he has any positive effect, it's not a good enough reason to keep him. For example:

 

WHIP ERA

2003:

1.32 3.83

 

2004:

1.30 3.81

 

2005:

1.34 4.19

 

I'm not even going to post 2006's numbers, because there'd be no point. You can see from 2003 to 2004, there was a piddling decrease in both WHIP and ERA for the team. Since our pitching staff was still relatively intact for 2004, and Maddux was here to "mentor" our guys, where is the statistical evidence he did any good? In 2005, our WHIP wasn't much higher but our team ERA jumped up half a point. Now, if there's any area that Maddux would be able to mentor our pitchers in, it would be control, right? Well, the team WHIP doesn't indicate any benefit.

 

That said, that entire last paragraph was a waste of time to type. The point of me calling into question an intangible, immeasurable reason to keep a mediocre pitcher around for the last 2 months of a dead season is that intangible reasons like mentoring should not preclude you from doing what's best for the team long term. I can't prove there's no effect, nor can you prove there is a benefit to having him talk to other pitchers between starts, anecdotal evidence aside.

 

Unfortunately, Maddux isn't a surgeon. Perhaps the Cubs would have been better served hiring an MD and putting him on the 25-man roster, though knowing the Cubs, they would hire a Dr. Nick type. Or maybe just the money could have been spent on a trainload full of bubblewrap to encase the pitching staff and a jar full of clues for Hendry.

 

When it comes down to the knowledge and insights that Maddux does share with pitchers, I'll have to rely on the mere decade+ of anecodatal evidence and testimony from pitchers and players and coaches and managers who believe that Maddux has been a great resource and has incredible insight into the game of baseball. And, in some cases, has changed the way they approach the game and game situations.

 

No, Maddux doesn't have a magic wand filled with magical fairy dust that will make Marmol throw strikes, Wood's rotator cuff to heal itself or Rusch to lose weight and stop stinking. Sadly this organization is such a joke that Maddux can catch flak for not improving the entire pitching staff WHEN IT'S NOT HIS JOB TO DO SO AND HE NEVER SAID IT WAS. The Cubs organization consistently tries to coast on his credibility since they have none of their own.

 

When it comes to Maddux and his own pitching, he's obviously not the guy who left in '92. I'm one of the few on this board who values what he has done in his second round as a Cub and I can point to anecdotal instances where Z (since he was mentioned above) has credited and/or referred to talks with Maddux as affecting how he approaches some pitching situations.

 

I would love to see him traded to the Dodgers or another contending team. I will be sad to see him go again, mainly because the circumstances of his departure once again illustrate ongoing problems within the franchise and because after the embarrassments of the last of years, he's one player who still carries himself with some dignity and self-respect. I think he'd be a valuable addition to a team that's actually in the race and I suspect that there's a lot of posturing going on right now in terms of asking and selling prices.

 

Finally, one can respect the use of stats and the use of analytical methods to improve the understanding of how baseball actually works ... and also recognize that there are human elements to a game that is still played by humans. Respecting the insights and the value added of a truly exceptional player like Maddux is not the message board equivalent of practicing voodoo or doing rain dances. Perhaps we just choose to emphasize different data sources when we draw our conclusions about the overall assets of players.

 

Serena, I'm not saying that Maddux's job was to make the staff better. Far from it. I'm also not saying he might not have an effect on the pitchig staff through his experience. What I am saying is that an intangible reason like that is not a good enough reason to not trade him when there's only 2 months left in the season. I think the benefit of giving some guys regular rotation experience outweighs any benefit Maddux has on the staff through mentoring.

[Laura]

Fair enough, I'd like to see some return on him.

 

I'm a little less concerned with opening up pitching slots since there's been no shortage of open pitching slots so far this season and I don't see a shortage regardless of whether Maddux stays or goes (the 40-man space is a good consideration, though). I'm more interested in getting consistent work for the pitchers the Cubs need to make decisions on in the near term (Hill and Guzman in particular; maybe they've already made a decision on Jerome Williams?) than working as many pitchers as possible through the rotation.

[jjgman21]

 

Not necessarily. A guy can be higher up in the system and just broke out this season. As such, he might not yet on the 40-man.

 

problem is, from all indications, noone is offering such a prospect.

 

 

It doesn't matter this season. He can shuttle back and forth between Des Moines and Wrigley as many times as the Cubs want this season. It would matter next season, but I thought I read that there was some loophole that Jerome might qualify for...I think I'm mistaking it for Angel Guzman (due to his injuries).

 

I think you are confusing the two. I'm pretty sure the years don't matter. this is Williams third option year, so once he's brought up, he must stick. I could be wrong, but I'm almost positive that's how it works.

 

 

 

Yeah, I'm referring to the Dodgers' Joel Guzman. He had some unkind words for management when he was demoted.

 

attitude problem or not, I've been sick of waiting for ours for quite some time now and would just as soon trade him.

[USSoccer]

Fair enough, I'd like to see some return on him.

 

I'm a little less concerned with opening up pitching slots since there's been no shortage of open pitching slots so far this season and I don't see a shortage regardless of whether Maddux stays or goes (the 40-man space is a good consideration, though). I'm more interested in getting consistent work for the pitchers the Cubs need to make decisions on in the near term (Hill and Guzman in particular; maybe they've already made a decision on Jerome Williams?) than working as many pitchers as possible through the rotation.

 

As other have pointed out, you have:

 

Z

Prior

Marshall

Marmol

Guzman

Hill

Rusch

Williams

Ryu

 

as candidates for starting games the rest of the season. Keeping Maddux means you have one less spot for Guzman and Hill to get acclimated to ML play. Going down to Iowa will accomplish nothing for Hill; he needs to be here. Guzman is getting back to where he needs to be; by September he should be here starting. Ryu can piggyback Marshall or Marmol to keep their innings down, and Williams and Rusch can go long for Z to keep his innings and pitch counts down. And that list doesn't include any other pitchers that might be added to the 40 man once another player is dealt.

 

Bottom line is that Hill and Guzman need to be here, and need to be in a rotation the rest of the way. Maddux being here makes that more difficult. Z has a legit shot at the Cy Young, so I doubt they'll skip him much, and they can't skip Prior-they need him to work the rest of the season in preparation for 2007.

[jjgman21]

Fair enough, I'd like to see some return on him.

 

I'm a little less concerned with opening up pitching slots since there's been no shortage of open pitching slots so far this season and I don't see a shortage regardless of whether Maddux stays or goes (the 40-man space is a good consideration, though). I'm more interested in getting consistent work for the pitchers the Cubs need to make decisions on in the near term (Hill and Guzman in particular; maybe they've already made a decision on Jerome Williams?) than working as many pitchers as possible through the rotation.

 

As other have pointed out, you have:

 

Z

Prior

Marshall

Marmol

Guzman

Hill

Rusch

Williams

Ryu

 

as candidates for starting games the rest of the season. Keeping Maddux means you have one less spot for Guzman and Hill to get acclimated to ML play. Going down to Iowa will accomplish nothing for Hill; he needs to be here. Guzman is getting back to where he needs to be; by September he should be here starting. Ryu can piggyback Marshall or Marmol to keep their innings down, and Williams and Rusch can go long for Z to keep his innings and pitch counts down. And that list doesn't include any other pitchers that might be added to the 40 man once another player is dealt.

 

Bottom line is that Hill and Guzman need to be here, and need to be in a rotation the rest of the way. Maddux being here makes that more difficult. Z has a legit shot at the Cy Young, so I doubt they'll skip him much, and they can't skip Prior-they need him to work the rest of the season in preparation for 2007.

 

that's a good idea to keep the innings of the youngsters down while getting them some experience. problem is it is hypothetical, and we are trying to forecast what could/should happen in reality, and what you suggest wouldn't happen in reality considering who our manager is.

[Laura]

Fair enough, I'd like to see some return on him.

 

I'm a little less concerned with opening up pitching slots since there's been no shortage of open pitching slots so far this season and I don't see a shortage regardless of whether Maddux stays or goes (the 40-man space is a good consideration, though). I'm more interested in getting consistent work for the pitchers the Cubs need to make decisions on in the near term (Hill and Guzman in particular; maybe they've already made a decision on Jerome Williams?) than working as many pitchers as possible through the rotation.

 

As other have pointed out, you have:

 

Z

Prior

Marshall

Marmol

Guzman

Hill

Rusch

Williams

Ryu

 

as candidates for starting games the rest of the season. Keeping Maddux means you have one less spot for Guzman and Hill to get acclimated to ML play. Going down to Iowa will accomplish nothing for Hill; he needs to be here. Guzman is getting back to where he needs to be; by September he should be here starting. Ryu can piggyback Marshall or Marmol to keep their innings down, and Williams and Rusch can go long for Z to keep his innings and pitch counts down. And that list doesn't include any other pitchers that might be added to the 40 man once another player is dealt.

 

Bottom line is that Hill and Guzman need to be here, and need to be in a rotation the rest of the way. Maddux being here makes that more difficult. Z has a legit shot at the Cy Young, so I doubt they'll skip him much, and they can't skip Prior-they need him to work the rest of the season in preparation for 2007.

 

I get the rotation issues. My understanding is that Marshall hasn't thrown since going on the DL (maybe there's an update?). What's Ryu's status since spraining his ankle?

 

I'm guessing that you're including Rusch up there as a likely Dusty-Hendry startingcandidate, since there's really no point in evaluating him.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

 

Not necessarily. A guy can be higher up in the system and just broke out this season. As such, he might not yet on the 40-man.

 

problem is, from all indications, noone is offering such a prospect.

 

It was just a hypothetical suggested by TT.

 

If the Cubs need more arms, Guzman, Ryu and Williams are ready to be called up.

 

It doesn't matter this season. He can shuttle back and forth between Des Moines and Wrigley as many times as the Cubs want this season. It would matter next season, but I thought I read that there was some loophole that Jerome might qualify for...I think I'm mistaking it for Angel Guzman (due to his injuries).

 

I think you are confusing the two. I'm pretty sure the years don't matter. this is Williams third option year, so once he's brought up, he must stick. I could be wrong, but I'm almost positive that's how it works.

 

There are exceptions to the rule, and I had confused a few other Cubs who might qualify for the exceptions with Jerome (Aardsma, Guzman and Novoa). My bad.

 

Yeah, I'm referring to the Dodgers' Joel Guzman. He had some unkind words for management when he was demoted.

 

attitude problem or not, I've been sick of waiting for ours for quite some time now and would just as soon trade him.

 

I don't care about his attitude problem. I'd take him in a heartbeat if the Cubs could get him for Maddux, but I'd trade him again in the offseason because I don't like his plate discipline and a few other aspects to his game. I think he'd be a very valuable trading chip to acquire an everyday big leaguer.

Edited July 30, 2006 by CaliforniaRaisin

[USSoccer]

Fair enough, I'd like to see some return on him.

 

I'm a little less concerned with opening up pitching slots since there's been no shortage of open pitching slots so far this season and I don't see a shortage regardless of whether Maddux stays or goes (the 40-man space is a good consideration, though). I'm more interested in getting consistent work for the pitchers the Cubs need to make decisions on in the near term (Hill and Guzman in particular; maybe they've already made a decision on Jerome Williams?) than working as many pitchers as possible through the rotation.

 

As other have pointed out, you have:

 

Z

Prior

Marshall

Marmol

Guzman

Hill

Rusch

Williams

Ryu

 

as candidates for starting games the rest of the season. Keeping Maddux means you have one less spot for Guzman and Hill to get acclimated to ML play. Going down to Iowa will accomplish nothing for Hill; he needs to be here. Guzman is getting back to where he needs to be; by September he should be here starting. Ryu can piggyback Marshall or Marmol to keep their innings down, and Williams and Rusch can go long for Z to keep his innings and pitch counts down. And that list doesn't include any other pitchers that might be added to the 40 man once another player is dealt.

 

Bottom line is that Hill and Guzman need to be here, and need to be in a rotation the rest of the way. Maddux being here makes that more difficult. Z has a legit shot at the Cy Young, so I doubt they'll skip him much, and they can't skip Prior-they need him to work the rest of the season in preparation for 2007.

 

that's a good idea to keep the innings of the youngsters down while getting them some experience. problem is it is hypothetical, and we are trying to forecast what could/should happen in reality, and what you suggest wouldn't happen in reality considering who our manager is.

 

It definetly won't happen if Maddux stays. In addition to the Z and Prior reasons, he'd kep starting Maddux out of deference, which means there's one less spot for him to use 5 young pitchers. Take Maddux away, and you'll make the situation a little more "Dusty-Proof".

 

I can see Marshall's IP being limited a bit anyway thanks to his oblique strain, which means only Marmol really needs to be protected.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

Serena, Ryu returned from his sprained ankle and has made two starts for Iowa so far. He has shown no ill-effects from the injury.

[Laura]

Serena, Ryu returned from his sprained ankle and has made two starts for Iowa so far. He has shown no ill-effects from the injury.

 

Thanks. I thought I had spotted him in the ML game threads, but it's easier asking than trying to track it down without a search. :)

[CaliforniaRaisin]

The reason I'm in favor of trading Maddux is that arbitration for extra draft choices isn't an option at the end of the season. I think it's pretty obvious Hendry won't trade Maddux unless he makes out real well, since he doesn't want to trade an "icon" otherwise.

 

For this reason, I don't think Maddux will be traded, which is a shame. I feel his value to the Cubs youngsters for the next 2 months won't be as much as the players he could fetch in a trade.

[Laura]

The reason I'm in favor of trading Maddux is that arbitration for extra draft choices isn't an option at the end of the season. I think it's pretty obvious Hendry won't trade Maddux unless he makes out real well, since he doesn't want to trade an "icon" otherwise.

 

For this reason, I don't think Maddux will be traded, which is a shame. I feel his value to the Cubs youngsters for the next 2 months won't be as much as the players he could fetch in a trade.

 

Then the question becomes (and I'm scared to even type this) whether Hendry will re-sign him to a one-year deal in the off-season ... which wouldn't surprise me.

 

I really hope a deal can be reached.