Interesting claims from Kaplan

[RichHillIsABeast]

I tuned into Sports Central to catch the Piniella interview and heard some interesting things.

 

Kaplan said that MacPhail, not Hendry, wrote the contract that gave Aramis his opt out clause. Aramis was also granted an NTC for those two years, meaning that Hendry couldn't have traded him (as the rumors at this past trade deadline indicated).

 

 

Hendry also never thought of Izturis as the Cubs #2 hitter of the future. He simply got Izturis b/c he needed something of value for a guy (Maddux) who wouldn't be here next season.

[BigbadB]

He simply got Izturis b/c he needed something of value for a guy (Maddux) who wouldn't be here next season.

 

We're still waiting. What was this thing of value Hendry got in return for Maddux?

[A New Era]

He simply got Izturis b/c he needed something of value for a guy (Maddux) who wouldn't be here next season.

 

We're still waiting. What was this thing of value Hendry got in return for Maddux?

 

He got a magic glove that can drive in RUNS!!!

[Balsa]

Wow that's some wild stuff if it's true.

[CubsWin]

Wow that's some wild stuff if it's true.

Maybe to some, sure. But I, for one, never thought Hendry thought Izturis was the great savior at SS. People who think Hendry is an idiot and a bad GM will look at the simplest of post-trade news conference quotes and turn them into more fodder for hating Hendry. What else is the guy supposed to say at the "I just traded Greg Maddux" news conference? That the guy we got in return isn't what we hoped he would be? Yeah, welcome to Chicago, Cesar.

 

The reaction to that trade on this board was mind-boggling to me.

 

As far as the Aramis NTC, I certainly had no idea if he had one back then. But if its true, it just goes to show how many of the opinions we carry are really only based on what we think we know instead of the whole truth.

[YearofDaCubs]

Wow that's some wild stuff if it's true.

Maybe to some, sure. But I, for one, never thought Hendry thought Izturis was the great savior at SS. People who think Hendry is an idiot and a bad GM will look at the simplest of post-trade news conference quotes and turn them into more fodder for hating Hendry. What else is the guy supposed to say at the "I just traded Greg Maddux" news conference? That the guy we got in return isn't what we hoped he would be? Yeah, welcome to Chicago, Cesar.

 

The reaction to that trade on this board was mind-boggling to me.

 

As far as the Aramis NTC, I certainly had no idea if he had one back then. But if its true, it just goes to show how many of the opinions we carry are really only based on what we think we know instead of the whole truth.

Umm ok, that's exactly why people give Hendry a hard time because he is the GM and he was the one that got garbage for Maddux. Considering how important it is to Hendry having players that can catch the ball I put the blame squarely on his shoulders.

[CubsWin]

Wow that's some wild stuff if it's true.

Maybe to some, sure. But I, for one, never thought Hendry thought Izturis was the great savior at SS. People who think Hendry is an idiot and a bad GM will look at the simplest of post-trade news conference quotes and turn them into more fodder for hating Hendry. What else is the guy supposed to say at the "I just traded Greg Maddux" news conference? That the guy we got in return isn't what we hoped he would be? Yeah, welcome to Chicago, Cesar.

 

The reaction to that trade on this board was mind-boggling to me.

 

As far as the Aramis NTC, I certainly had no idea if he had one back then. But if its true, it just goes to show how many of the opinions we carry are really only based on what we think we know instead of the whole truth.

Umm ok, that's exactly why people give Hendry a hard time because he is the GM and he was the one that got garbage for Maddux. Considering how important it is to Hendry having players that can catch the ball I put the blame squarely on his shoulders.

Did you intend to be condescending? Your "umm, ok" does nothing for your argument.

 

What did you expect the Cubs to get for two months of a 40-year-old pitcher who is only moderately effective? Andy LaRoche? That was a pipe dream.

 

Some guys are saying bring Maddux back in '07, but only as a 4th or 5th starter. Personally, I don't want him back. So the Cubs traded away two months of a 4th or 5th starter that they had no use for given the sad state of their won-loss record for a former all-star SS with injury problems.

 

That's no great trade, but Izturis is far from, as you and many others on this board like to put it "garbage". As a 24-year-old, he posted a .330 OBP and played gold glove defense at a defensive position, SS, so he's got some upside. He's got a ton of question marks. He is far from a safe bet to reproduce his '04 numbers, but he is in his prime, so its far more likely to happen now than later. He's not the answer any of us want at SS, but he is not "garbage".

[C.C.]

Wow that's some wild stuff if it's true.

Maybe to some, sure. But I, for one, never thought Hendry thought Izturis was the great savior at SS. People who think Hendry is an idiot and a bad GM will look at the simplest of post-trade news conference quotes and turn them into more fodder for hating Hendry. What else is the guy supposed to say at the "I just traded Greg Maddux" news conference? That the guy we got in return isn't what we hoped he would be? Yeah, welcome to Chicago, Cesar.

 

The reaction to that trade on this board was mind-boggling to me.

 

As far as the Aramis NTC, I certainly had no idea if he had one back then. But if its true, it just goes to show how many of the opinions we carry are really only based on what we think we know instead of the whole truth.

Umm ok, that's exactly why people give Hendry a hard time because he is the GM and he was the one that got garbage for Maddux. Considering how important it is to Hendry having players that can catch the ball I put the blame squarely on his shoulders.

 

What did you expect to get for Maddux? Just curious?

[USSoccer]

I tuned into Sports Central to catch the Piniella interview and heard some interesting things.

 

Kaplan said that MacPhail, not Hendry, wrote the contract that gave Aramis his opt out clause. Aramis was also granted an NTC for those two years, meaning that Hendry couldn't have traded him (as the rumors at this past trade deadline indicated).

.

 

First of all, I find it really, really unlikely that this is true. There's no way a NTC goes unreported, nor do I think the fact that MacPhail wrote the contract would go unreported before this offseason.

 

However, this fits in somewhat nicely with my theory about the Tribune media laying the groundwork for Ramirez not being signed. By Blaming Andy for the opt-out clause AND a supposed NTC that prevented him from being moved in July, Hendry has some cover now and a scapegoat in case anyone's upset Ramirez walks and we get nothing for him.

 

So you now have all your bases covered. Those that have no clue will read all the stories about his "loafing" and think that the Cubs got rid of a lazy bum. Those that actually have the ability to think critically will blame MacPhail, and not Hendry, for not getting anything for him, and for allowing for the opt out in the first place.

 

/takes off tinfoil hat.

[UK1679666180]

What did you expect the Cubs to get for two months of a 40-year-old pitcher who is only moderately effective? Andy LaRoche? That was a pipe dream.

 

This is a question that would be better asked to Bruce Miles, I thought the Cubs had a choice to get someone from the Dodgers minor league system (assuming the Dodgers created a list of minor league players as well as the Cubs creating one) or getting someone who can help now and the Cubs decided to get someone who can help now.

 

Given the Cubs current state and the possibility of getting someone from the Dodgers, I think they would've been better off exploring a prospect rather than someone like Izturis.

[YearofDaCubs]

Wow that's some wild stuff if it's true.

Maybe to some, sure. But I, for one, never thought Hendry thought Izturis was the great savior at SS. People who think Hendry is an idiot and a bad GM will look at the simplest of post-trade news conference quotes and turn them into more fodder for hating Hendry. What else is the guy supposed to say at the "I just traded Greg Maddux" news conference? That the guy we got in return isn't what we hoped he would be? Yeah, welcome to Chicago, Cesar.

 

The reaction to that trade on this board was mind-boggling to me.

 

As far as the Aramis NTC, I certainly had no idea if he had one back then. But if its true, it just goes to show how many of the opinions we carry are really only based on what we think we know instead of the whole truth.

Umm ok, that's exactly why people give Hendry a hard time because he is the GM and he was the one that got garbage for Maddux. Considering how important it is to Hendry having players that can catch the ball I put the blame squarely on his shoulders.

Did you intend to be condescending? Your "umm, ok" does nothing for your argument.

 

What did you expect the Cubs to get for two months of a 40-year-old pitcher who is only moderately effective? Andy LaRoche? That was a pipe dream.

 

Some guys are saying bring Maddux back in '07, but only as a 4th or 5th starter. Personally, I don't want him back. So the Cubs traded away two months of a 4th or 5th starter that they had no use for given the sad state of their won-loss record for a former all-star SS with injury problems.

 

That's no great trade, but Izturis is far from, as you and many others on this board like to put it "garbage". As a 24-year-old, he posted a .330 OBP and played gold glove defense at a defensive position, SS, so he's got some upside. He's got a ton of question marks. He is far from a safe bet to reproduce his '04 numbers, but he is in his prime, so its far more likely to happen now than later. He's not the answer any of us want at SS, but he is not "garbage".

I expected to not get a bad contract for him as that's what we got when we traded for Izturis. I didn't expect much for Maddux to be honest but getting a bad contract back wasn't a good idea on Hendry's part.

[Pinktermite]

Just curious how we should "know" that someone has a NTC? Are the contracts made public? If we didn't intend to TRADE Aramis, then how would we "know" that he had an NTC?

 

I doubt there's any way we know exactly what goes on behind the scenes. And how is it the Dodgers would have given up anything close to "value" for Maddux? There's no way we'd get something of value for a 40 year old pitcher on his last legs. Am I missing something here?

[UK1679666180]

I contend they could've rec'd something more of value or at least something off the books for '07. While it has been reported that Hendry asked high originally, no team would give that much for Maddux. But, I don't think a player in the 25-40 range (using BA's subjective analysis) would've been too much for a btm of the rotation starter. I do believe that a mid-level player in the Dodgers system would rank much higher in the Cubs system.

[Bruce Miles]

What did you expect the Cubs to get for two months of a 40-year-old pitcher who is only moderately effective? Andy LaRoche? That was a pipe dream.

 

This is a question that would be better asked to Bruce Miles, I thought the Cubs had a choice to get someone from the Dodgers minor league system (assuming the Dodgers created a list of minor league players as well as the Cubs creating one) or getting someone who can help now and the Cubs decided to get someone who can help now.

 

Given the Cubs current state and the possibility of getting someone from the Dodgers, I think they would've been better off exploring a prospect rather than someone like Izturis.

 

They did explore a prospect (prospects, actually) and were told flat-out no.

[UK1679666180]

What did you expect the Cubs to get for two months of a 40-year-old pitcher who is only moderately effective? Andy LaRoche? That was a pipe dream.

 

This is a question that would be better asked to Bruce Miles, I thought the Cubs had a choice to get someone from the Dodgers minor league system (assuming the Dodgers created a list of minor league players as well as the Cubs creating one) or getting someone who can help now and the Cubs decided to get someone who can help now.

 

Given the Cubs current state and the possibility of getting someone from the Dodgers, I think they would've been better off exploring a prospect rather than someone like Izturis.

 

They did explore a prospect (prospects, actually) and were told flat-out no.

 

The reports I gathered that the Cubs asked for a top prospect and a second tier type and were denied and then it went from that to Izturis w/out anything in-between as Hendry had talked about Izturis in the past and went from there, once his initial and outrageous off was declined?

 

I just wonder if a lesser prospect would've been more manageable for LA or did they have no intention of trading a prospect regardless of his ceiling?

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

What did you expect the Cubs to get for two months of a 40-year-old pitcher who is only moderately effective? Andy LaRoche? That was a pipe dream.

 

This is a question that would be better asked to Bruce Miles, I thought the Cubs had a choice to get someone from the Dodgers minor league system (assuming the Dodgers created a list of minor league players as well as the Cubs creating one) or getting someone who can help now and the Cubs decided to get someone who can help now.

 

Given the Cubs current state and the possibility of getting someone from the Dodgers, I think they would've been better off exploring a prospect rather than someone like Izturis.

 

They did explore a prospect (prospects, actually) and were told flat-out no.

 

Bruce, can you confirm or deny any of Kaplan's other claims?

[BigbadB]

I doubt there's any way we know exactly what goes on behind the scenes. And how is it the Dodgers would have given up anything close to "value" for Maddux? There's no way we'd get something of value for a 40 year old pitcher on his last legs. Am I missing something here?

 

Yes, you are missing something here. Teams in the playoff hunt must give up something to get something. The Cubs could have held out for a prospect or just kept Maddux. Why give Maddux away to a team who is obviously trying to lowball the team into parting with him for someone like Izturis, who didn't even have a spot on the end of the Dodgers bench anymore.

 

The only way a Maddux/Izturis deal has any legs is if Hendry was using this deal to set up future deals with the Dodgers.

 

The Dodgers overpaid for Lugo and underpaid for Maddux when I compare the two trades.

[CubinNY]

I doubt there's any way we know exactly what goes on behind the scenes. And how is it the Dodgers would have given up anything close to "value" for Maddux? There's no way we'd get something of value for a 40 year old pitcher on his last legs. Am I missing something here?

 

Yes, you are missing something here. Teams in the playoff hunt must give up something to get something. The Cubs could have held out for a prospect or just kept Maddux. Why give Maddux away to a team who is obviously trying to lowball the team into parting with him for someone like Izturis, who didn't even have a spot on the end of the Dodgers bench anymore.

 

The only way a Maddux/Izturis deal has any legs is if Hendry was using this deal to set up future deals with the Dodgers.

 

The Dodgers overpaid for Lugo and underpaid for Maddux when I compare the two trades.

 

IMO, Maddux was traded becuase of Hendry respect/manlove for him. However, the said manlove has nothing to do with taking back an all-glove-no bat throwback from the Ozzy Smith mold of SS. And having his contract around for 1.5 years. Of all the bone-headed moves Hendry has made (40 man roster stuff included) this has to be the cherry on top of the turd Sundae.

[goonys evil twin]

Wow that's some wild stuff if it's true.

Maybe to some, sure. But I, for one, never thought Hendry thought Izturis was the great savior at SS. People who think Hendry is an idiot and a bad GM will look at the simplest of post-trade news conference quotes and turn them into more fodder for hating Hendry. What else is the guy supposed to say at the "I just traded Greg Maddux" news conference? That the guy we got in return isn't what we hoped he would be? Yeah, welcome to Chicago, Cesar.

 

The reaction to that trade on this board was mind-boggling to me.

 

As far as the Aramis NTC, I certainly had no idea if he had one back then. But if its true, it just goes to show how many of the opinions we carry are really only based on what we think we know instead of the whole truth.

Umm ok, that's exactly why people give Hendry a hard time because he is the GM and he was the one that got garbage for Maddux. Considering how important it is to Hendry having players that can catch the ball I put the blame squarely on his shoulders.

Did you intend to be condescending? Your "umm, ok" does nothing for your argument..

 

Who is being condescending?

 

People who think Hendry is a bad GM do so because they are capable of looking at the standings and stat sheets and see what a bad team he has put together.

[katway]

Aramis's contract is the product of negotiation. It's obvious that a team would not simply throw in an out clause if the player hadn't demanded it in the negotiations. So, really don't see how the Cubs could be blamed for this when it was part of an overall negotiated deal.

 

As for Maddux, the LA Dodgers had a a little more leverage since Maddux had to sign-off on the deal and he wasn't going to do that for just any team. In the end, LA was one of the few teams we could trade him to and that gave them leverage to decrease Maddux's trade value.

[Derwood]

He simply got Izturis b/c he needed something of value for a guy (Maddux) who wouldn't be here next season.

 

We're still waiting. What was this thing of value Hendry got in return for Maddux?

 

He got a magic glove that can drive in RUNS!!!

 

|

|

|

|

V

[CubinNY]

 

As for Maddux, the LA Dodgers had a a little more leverage since Maddux had to sign-off on the deal and he wasn't going to do that for just any team. In the end, LA was one of the few teams we could trade him to and that gave them leverage to decrease Maddux's trade value.

 

All of the above could be true but it still does not explain taking on another all-glove-no-bat middle infielder for anohter year and a half.

 

I'd rather they not traded Maddux or gotten a couple of AA level roster fillers.

[UK1679666180]

Is Izturis worth the 4.45 mil owed to him next year? (That includes the 300K buyout, unless the Cubs pick up his 5+ mil option for '08)

[goonys evil twin]

I'd rather they not traded Maddux

 

The sad thing is, had they decided to hold onto Maddux, there is a decent chance that Rich Hill wouldn't have received the opportunity he got after the trading deadline.

 

Hill was recalled on the 27th and had a bad outing, then came back with a good one on Aug 1st. The rotation after that went Marmol, Mateo, Zambrano, Prior. If Maddux was still there, would they have kept Hill around? Their previous usage of Hill suggests no. They were calling guys up left and right to avoid recalling Hill as long as possible.

 

And now he's the Cubs #2 starter.

[goonys evil twin]

Is Izturis worth the 4.45 mil owed to him next year? (That includes the 300K buyout, unless the Cubs pick up his 5+ mil option for '08)

 

Questions that don't need an answer for $1000 Alex.