Maddux and $$$ to the Dodgers for Cesar Izturis

[goonys evil twin]

There's way too much gooey sentimentality in baseball.

 

"Gooey sentimentality" is what makes sports fun. My job has no gooey sentimentality, and that's why people don't pay $50 for a seat watching people file reports in cubicles.

 

I don't necessarily want a GM with too much of it, but if it didn't exist, what would be the point of watching sports? Isn't this supposed to be about fun? What's wrong with a little sentimentality?

 

Fans can have it, but no personel decisions should be made based, at all, on such feelings.

[abuck1220]

There's way too much gooey sentimentality in baseball.

 

"Gooey sentimentality" is what makes sports fun. My job has no gooey sentimentality, and that's why people don't pay $50 for a seat watching people file reports in cubicles.

 

I don't necessarily want a GM with too much of it, but if it didn't exist, what would be the point of watching sports? Isn't this supposed to be about fun? What's wrong with a little sentimentality?

 

it's more fun watching good teams than teams i want to hug and write poems about.

[Caryatid]

There's way too much gooey sentimentality in baseball.

 

"Gooey sentimentality" is what makes sports fun. My job has no gooey sentimentality, and that's why people don't pay $50 for a seat watching people file reports in cubicles.

 

I don't necessarily want a GM with too much of it, but if it didn't exist, what would be the point of watching sports? Isn't this supposed to be about fun? What's wrong with a little sentimentality?

 

it's more fun watching good teams than teams i want to hug and write poems about.

 

Feel free to prove that the Cubs would suddenly go from a team that hasn't won in 95 years to a good team by trading one guy for a "C" prospect.

[Sammy Sofa]

There's way too much gooey sentimentality in baseball.

 

"Gooey sentimentality" is what makes sports fun. My job has no gooey sentimentality, and that's why people don't pay $50 for a seat watching people file reports in cubicles.

 

I don't necessarily want a GM with too much of it, but if it didn't exist, what would be the point of watching sports? Isn't this supposed to be about fun? What's wrong with a little sentimentality?

 

it's more fun watching good teams than teams i want to hug and write poems about.

 

Yeah, because that's what everyone is talking about doing.

[WindyCity]

From Baseball Prospectus....

 

One interesting note on Greg Maddux: Indications are that Maddux himself was involved in the discussions, with his agent, Scott Boras, doing more looking around than Jim Hendry. Both sides understood the parameters under which a deal could be done. The relationship between Boras and the Cubs is a good one--something that we should remember when free agency kicks in this offseason.

[goonys evil twin]

There's way too much gooey sentimentality in baseball.

 

"Gooey sentimentality" is what makes sports fun. My job has no gooey sentimentality, and that's why people don't pay $50 for a seat watching people file reports in cubicles.

 

I don't necessarily want a GM with too much of it, but if it didn't exist, what would be the point of watching sports? Isn't this supposed to be about fun? What's wrong with a little sentimentality?

 

it's more fun watching good teams than teams i want to hug and write poems about.

 

Feel free to prove that the Cubs would suddenly go from a team that hasn't won in 95 years to a good team by trading one guy for a "C" prospect.

 

It wouldn't be sudden, but it would mostly be about giving a chance to young pitchers instead of wasting more time with him in that slot. That's the type of move that good teams make. Good teams don't make sentimental decisions, they make efficient "how does this affect the team" moves.

[CubsWin]

There's way too much gooey sentimentality in baseball. Sentimentality was likely the primary reason Maddux was offered his current contract, and it's the only reason I can think of for not trading him immeditately.

I got an idea! Why not take all that ooey, gooey sentimentality out of the national pasttime and let computers play baseball.

 

Too much sentimentality in baseball. That calls for the dreaded eye-rolling emoticon, but I just can't bring myself to click on it...

[abuck1220]

There's way too much gooey sentimentality in baseball.

 

"Gooey sentimentality" is what makes sports fun. My job has no gooey sentimentality, and that's why people don't pay $50 for a seat watching people file reports in cubicles.

 

I don't necessarily want a GM with too much of it, but if it didn't exist, what would be the point of watching sports? Isn't this supposed to be about fun? What's wrong with a little sentimentality?

 

it's more fun watching good teams than teams i want to hug and write poems about.

 

Feel free to prove that the Cubs would suddenly go from a team that hasn't won in 95 years to a good team by trading one guy for a "C" prospect.

 

feel free to prove how the cubs would suddenly go from a team that hasn't won in 95 years to a good team by keeping a 40 year old with a 4.70 era in the last year of his contract.

[goonys evil twin]

From Baseball Prospectus....

 

One interesting note on Greg Maddux: Indications are that Maddux himself was involved in the discussions, with his agent, Scott Boras, doing more looking around than Jim Hendry. Both sides understood the parameters under which a deal could be done. The relationship between Boras and the Cubs is a good one--something that we should remember when free agency kicks in this offseason.

 

I've heard about this good relationship for a while, but I can't remember the last time the Cubs signed a Boras player to a team friendly deal. I'm guessing it's more about the fact that Hendry is willing to overpay for mediocrity, as opposed to getting involved with his impact clients. Boras will be friendly with anybody that meets his high demands.

[Outshined_One]

I've heard about this good relationship for a while, but I can't remember the last time the Cubs signed a Boras player to a team friendly deal.

 

Mark Pawelek.

[cubfan1955]

There's way too much gooey sentimentality in baseball.

 

"Gooey sentimentality" is what makes sports fun. My job has no gooey sentimentality, and that's why people don't pay $50 for a seat watching people file reports in cubicles.

 

I don't necessarily want a GM with too much of it, but if it didn't exist, what would be the point of watching sports? Isn't this supposed to be about fun? What's wrong with a little sentimentality?

 

it's more fun watching good teams than teams i want to hug and write poems about.

 

Feel free to prove that the Cubs would suddenly go from a team that hasn't won in 95 years to a good team by trading one guy for a "C" prospect.

 

It wouldn't be sudden, but it would mostly be about giving a chance to young pitchers instead of wasting more time with him in that slot. That's the type of move that good teams make. Good teams don't make sentimental decisions, they make efficient "how does this affect the team" moves.

Anymore youngsters getting more starts will likely give Dusty a heart attack. Hmmm...maybe there is an upside to giving Maddux away.

[Caryatid]

There's way too much gooey sentimentality in baseball.

 

"Gooey sentimentality" is what makes sports fun. My job has no gooey sentimentality, and that's why people don't pay $50 for a seat watching people file reports in cubicles.

 

I don't necessarily want a GM with too much of it, but if it didn't exist, what would be the point of watching sports? Isn't this supposed to be about fun? What's wrong with a little sentimentality?

 

it's more fun watching good teams than teams i want to hug and write poems about.

 

Feel free to prove that the Cubs would suddenly go from a team that hasn't won in 95 years to a good team by trading one guy for a "C" prospect.

 

It wouldn't be sudden, but it would mostly be about giving a chance to young pitchers instead of wasting more time with him in that slot. That's the type of move that good teams make. Good teams don't make sentimental decisions, they make efficient "how does this affect the team" moves.

 

Cubs have had rookies make more starts this year than any team in baseball aside from the Marlins-they have shown a willingness to do that already.

 

Getting Ryu 10 starts this year would do little, in my opinion, to affect this team long-term, and as such, moving Maddux for anything other than a decent prospect is pointless. The minimal likelihood that these 10 starts change the team for the better long-term is offset by the loss of a mentor in the clubouse (which, I know, is not a statistically provable commodity, but is one that I think has more value than 10 starts + a C level prospect).

[Caryatid]

There's way too much gooey sentimentality in baseball.

 

"Gooey sentimentality" is what makes sports fun. My job has no gooey sentimentality, and that's why people don't pay $50 for a seat watching people file reports in cubicles.

 

I don't necessarily want a GM with too much of it, but if it didn't exist, what would be the point of watching sports? Isn't this supposed to be about fun? What's wrong with a little sentimentality?

 

it's more fun watching good teams than teams i want to hug and write poems about.

 

Feel free to prove that the Cubs would suddenly go from a team that hasn't won in 95 years to a good team by trading one guy for a "C" prospect.

 

feel free to prove how the cubs would suddenly go from a team that hasn't won in 95 years to a good team by keeping a 40 year old with a 4.70 era in the last year of his contract.

 

Answer a question with a question...hmmm....

 

Anyway, I don't have to prove that, seeing as how I never claimed it to be true. I have claimed TWO things:

 

1. Keeping Maddux would be good for Marshall, etc., because they have expressed an affinity for him and claim that he has helped them greatly.

2. Keeping Maddux would be good because I enjoy watching him pitch

 

These two things, in my opinion, outweight the cumulative value of getting some C prospect and having Ryu get 10 starts. That's what I have written.

 

You are the one who claimed you wanted to watch a "good" team, therefore the burden of proof is on you. Go ahead.

[abuck1220]

There's way too much gooey sentimentality in baseball.

 

"Gooey sentimentality" is what makes sports fun. My job has no gooey sentimentality, and that's why people don't pay $50 for a seat watching people file reports in cubicles.

 

I don't necessarily want a GM with too much of it, but if it didn't exist, what would be the point of watching sports? Isn't this supposed to be about fun? What's wrong with a little sentimentality?

 

it's more fun watching good teams than teams i want to hug and write poems about.

 

Feel free to prove that the Cubs would suddenly go from a team that hasn't won in 95 years to a good team by trading one guy for a "C" prospect.

 

It wouldn't be sudden, but it would mostly be about giving a chance to young pitchers instead of wasting more time with him in that slot. That's the type of move that good teams make. Good teams don't make sentimental decisions, they make efficient "how does this affect the team" moves.

 

Cubs have had rookies make more starts this year than any team in baseball aside from the Marlins-they have shown a willingness to do that already.

 

Getting Ryu 10 starts this year would do little, in my opinion, to affect this team long-term, and as such, moving Maddux for anything other than a decent prospect is pointless. The minimal likelihood that these 10 starts change the team for the better long-term is offset by the loss of a mentor in the clubouse (which, I know, is not a statistically provable commodity, but is one that I think has more value than 10 starts + a C level prospect).

 

if ryu/hill/guzman are such low level prospects then why do you care if maddux is around to mentor them?

 

do you really think they can gain more from listening to maddux talk about pitching (which he may or may not even do) than by actually pitching?

[abuck1220]

There's way too much gooey sentimentality in baseball.

 

"Gooey sentimentality" is what makes sports fun. My job has no gooey sentimentality, and that's why people don't pay $50 for a seat watching people file reports in cubicles.

 

I don't necessarily want a GM with too much of it, but if it didn't exist, what would be the point of watching sports? Isn't this supposed to be about fun? What's wrong with a little sentimentality?

 

it's more fun watching good teams than teams i want to hug and write poems about.

 

Feel free to prove that the Cubs would suddenly go from a team that hasn't won in 95 years to a good team by trading one guy for a "C" prospect.

 

feel free to prove how the cubs would suddenly go from a team that hasn't won in 95 years to a good team by keeping a 40 year old with a 4.70 era in the last year of his contract.

 

Answer a question with a question...hmmm....

 

Anyway, I don't have to prove that, seeing as how I never claimed it to be true. I have claimed TWO things:

 

1. Keeping Maddux would be good for Marshall, etc., because they have expressed an affinity for him and claim that he has helped them greatly.

2. Keeping Maddux would be good because I enjoy watching him pitch

 

These two things, in my opinion, outweight the cumulative value of getting some C prospect and having Ryu get 10 starts. That's what I have written.

 

You are the one who claimed you wanted to watch a "good" team, therefore the burden of proof is on you. Go ahead.

 

you got me. i can't prove the opposite of the thing that you admittedly can't prove yourself. it's like you saying unicorns exist and then saying you're right b/c i can't prove they don't.

 

well played.

[Caryatid]

if ryu/hill/guzman are such low level prospects then why do you care if maddux is around to mentor them?

 

I never wrote that. I wrote "getting a C level prospect and Ryu 10 starts." My point this whole time is that trading Maddux for a C level prospect is pointless. The C level prospect referred to the player they would get in return for Maddux.

 

 

do you really think they can gain more from listening to maddux talk about pitching (which he may or may not even do) than by actually pitching?

 

Who am I to say what would be best for each-it really depends upon the player. And, like I wrote earlier, I doubt that the 10 starts one of them might get would make that much of a difference anyway.

[/i]

[abuck1220]

oh, one more thing. i don't like watching maddux pitch, so that should be a reason they trade him. it overrides your liking to see maddux pitch.

[abuck1220]

if ryu/hill/guzman are such low level prospects then why do you care if maddux is around to mentor them?

 

I never wrote that. I wrote "getting a C level prospect and Ryu 10 starts." My point this whole time is that trading Maddux for a C level prospect is pointless. The C level prospect referred to the player they would get in return for Maddux.

 

 

do you really think they can gain more from listening to maddux talk about pitching (which he may or may not even do) than by actually pitching?

 

Who am I to say what would be best for each-it really depends upon the player. And, like I wrote earlier, I doubt that the 10 starts one of them might get would make that much of a difference anyway.

 

but the two months of knowledge from dean maddux will.

[Caryatid]

There's way too much gooey sentimentality in baseball.

 

"Gooey sentimentality" is what makes sports fun. My job has no gooey sentimentality, and that's why people don't pay $50 for a seat watching people file reports in cubicles.

 

I don't necessarily want a GM with too much of it, but if it didn't exist, what would be the point of watching sports? Isn't this supposed to be about fun? What's wrong with a little sentimentality?

 

it's more fun watching good teams than teams i want to hug and write poems about.

 

Feel free to prove that the Cubs would suddenly go from a team that hasn't won in 95 years to a good team by trading one guy for a "C" prospect.

 

feel free to prove how the cubs would suddenly go from a team that hasn't won in 95 years to a good team by keeping a 40 year old with a 4.70 era in the last year of his contract.

 

Answer a question with a question...hmmm....

 

Anyway, I don't have to prove that, seeing as how I never claimed it to be true. I have claimed TWO things:

 

1. Keeping Maddux would be good for Marshall, etc., because they have expressed an affinity for him and claim that he has helped them greatly.

2. Keeping Maddux would be good because I enjoy watching him pitch

 

These two things, in my opinion, outweight the cumulative value of getting some C prospect and having Ryu get 10 starts. That's what I have written.

 

You are the one who claimed you wanted to watch a "good" team, therefore the burden of proof is on you. Go ahead.

 

you got me. i can't prove the opposite of the thing that you admittedly can't prove yourself. it's like you saying unicorns exist and then saying you're right b/c i can't prove they don't.

 

well played.

 

No-you can't prove the opposite of the thing I never tried to prove in the first place. Good try, though.

[hawkeyecub]

We get it abuck. You want Maddux gone at all costs. You hate sentimentality in baseball, you think Maddux has no impact on the other pitchers and that keeping him will only hurt the team. You've made that all very clear.

 

But for crying out loud in this entire discussion you've continued to twist and exaggerate what other people are actually saying repeatedly.

[abuck1220]

There's way too much gooey sentimentality in baseball.

 

"Gooey sentimentality" is what makes sports fun. My job has no gooey sentimentality, and that's why people don't pay $50 for a seat watching people file reports in cubicles.

 

I don't necessarily want a GM with too much of it, but if it didn't exist, what would be the point of watching sports? Isn't this supposed to be about fun? What's wrong with a little sentimentality?

 

it's more fun watching good teams than teams i want to hug and write poems about.

 

Feel free to prove that the Cubs would suddenly go from a team that hasn't won in 95 years to a good team by trading one guy for a "C" prospect.

 

feel free to prove how the cubs would suddenly go from a team that hasn't won in 95 years to a good team by keeping a 40 year old with a 4.70 era in the last year of his contract.

 

Answer a question with a question...hmmm....

 

Anyway, I don't have to prove that, seeing as how I never claimed it to be true. I have claimed TWO things:

 

1. Keeping Maddux would be good for Marshall, etc., because they have expressed an affinity for him and claim that he has helped them greatly.

2. Keeping Maddux would be good because I enjoy watching him pitch

 

These two things, in my opinion, outweight the cumulative value of getting some C prospect and having Ryu get 10 starts. That's what I have written.

 

You are the one who claimed you wanted to watch a "good" team, therefore the burden of proof is on you. Go ahead.

 

you got me. i can't prove the opposite of the thing that you admittedly can't prove yourself. it's like you saying unicorns exist and then saying you're right b/c i can't prove they don't.

 

well played.

 

No-you can't prove the opposite of the thing I never tried to prove in the first place. Good try, though.

 

kinda like how you imagined me saying that trading maddux would make the cubs a good team.

[Caryatid]

if ryu/hill/guzman are such low level prospects then why do you care if maddux is around to mentor them?

 

I never wrote that. I wrote "getting a C level prospect and Ryu 10 starts." My point this whole time is that trading Maddux for a C level prospect is pointless. The C level prospect referred to the player they would get in return for Maddux.

 

 

do you really think they can gain more from listening to maddux talk about pitching (which he may or may not even do) than by actually pitching?

 

Who am I to say what would be best for each-it really depends upon the player. And, like I wrote earlier, I doubt that the 10 starts one of them might get would make that much of a difference anyway.

 

but the two months of knowledge from dean maddux will.

 

Can you prove it won't? I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here, or why you're so angry. I think he'd be good for the young players and I like watching him pitch, which are both opinions that you can feel free to disagree with. But you can only present a counter opinion which has no more weight than my opinion here, and furthermore, is attempting to prove something that cannot. I readily accept that my opinion has at least something to do with unquantifiable emotional response. Can you?

[Laura]

Rosenthal

 

With 30 minutes remaining before the non-waiver trade deadline, the Cubs were still talking to two clubs — believed to be the Padres and Dodgers — about a trade involving right-hander Greg Maddux.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Are we done with Florida and Baltimore? Is that the new plan, ship everyone to San Diego? Edited July 31, 2006 by Ding Dong Johnson

[Caryatid]

There's way too much gooey sentimentality in baseball.

 

"Gooey sentimentality" is what makes sports fun. My job has no gooey sentimentality, and that's why people don't pay $50 for a seat watching people file reports in cubicles.

 

I don't necessarily want a GM with too much of it, but if it didn't exist, what would be the point of watching sports? Isn't this supposed to be about fun? What's wrong with a little sentimentality?

 

it's more fun watching good teams than teams i want to hug and write poems about.

 

Feel free to prove that the Cubs would suddenly go from a team that hasn't won in 95 years to a good team by trading one guy for a "C" prospect.

 

feel free to prove how the cubs would suddenly go from a team that hasn't won in 95 years to a good team by keeping a 40 year old with a 4.70 era in the last year of his contract.

 

Answer a question with a question...hmmm....

 

Anyway, I don't have to prove that, seeing as how I never claimed it to be true. I have claimed TWO things:

 

1. Keeping Maddux would be good for Marshall, etc., because they have expressed an affinity for him and claim that he has helped them greatly.

2. Keeping Maddux would be good because I enjoy watching him pitch

 

These two things, in my opinion, outweight the cumulative value of getting some C prospect and having Ryu get 10 starts. That's what I have written.

 

You are the one who claimed you wanted to watch a "good" team, therefore the burden of proof is on you. Go ahead.

 

you got me. i can't prove the opposite of the thing that you admittedly can't prove yourself. it's like you saying unicorns exist and then saying you're right b/c i can't prove they don't.

 

well played.

 

No-you can't prove the opposite of the thing I never tried to prove in the first place. Good try, though.

 

kinda like how you imagined me saying that trading maddux would make the cubs a good team.

 

Its really hard to deny something that you wrote when you quote it in your post.