Interesting claims from Kaplan

[KingCubsFan]

 

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.

What good would that do? At least Izturis has perceived value in the baseball world

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

 

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.

What good would that do? At least Izturis has perceived value in the baseball world

 

The good would be that the Cubs aren't straddled with Izturis undeserved 4 million for next season.

[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.

What good would that do? At least Izturis has perceived value in the baseball world

 

It would mean the Cubs won't be wasting 4 million dollars on a redundent player. A player who has little value to the Cubs. If they can trade him for somthing, that would be good. But my guess is he will be the starting SS for the Cubs in 2007.

[goonys evil twin]

 

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.

What good would that do? At least Izturis has perceived value in the baseball world

 

It would mean the Cubs won't be wasting 4 million dollars on a redundent player. A player who has little value to the Cubs. If they can trade him for somthing, that would be good. But my guess is he will be the starting SS for the Cubs in 2007.

 

Not only is their a benefit of not having Izturis on the roster. But it also shows you won't just cave to a team that tries to screw you at trade time. The decision to make should always be the one that best helps the Cubs. It should not be the one that best maintains the relationship between Jim Hendry and a veteran player.

[frostwyrm]

One thing that bugs me is that Izturis is a guy who has had chronic hamstring and back problems that have put him on the DL, and this while playing in southern California. Does Hendry believe the frigid April/May weather in Chicago is therapeutic for tight hamstrings and backs?

[wastra]

The point is that there WAS Some value to keeping maddux- both as a ticket seller and a mentor to the 8,322 rookie pitchers we were carrying.

 

 

We came out of that trade looking like the ones desperate to get Izturis, not the other way around. Why make that trade at all if it doesn't help the team? that's the whole point. Swapping MAddux for Izturis was not a positive for the Cubs- it limits our flexibility and payroll next year (when we already knew we were playing for next year at the soonest).

 

Keeping Maddux would not have done that. So unless Maddux was "demanding" a trade, it was a stupid, pointless move. We did not gain payroll flexibility. We did not gain a great deal of talent, if any. We did not shore up our lineup. We did not add a missing piece of the puzzle. We did not add long term roster flexibility. And most importantly, we're probably paying more to Izturis this year than we saved by not having Maddux on the payroll for 6 weeks.

[goonys evil twin]

So unless Maddux was "demanding" a trade, it was a stupid, pointless move.

 

Even if he was demanding one, that's no reason to make the deal. And if you did cave to his demands, then you could still do it for something that doesn't hurt you in 2007.

[CubColtPacer]

The point is that there WAS Some value to keeping maddux- both as a ticket seller and a mentor to the 8,322 rookie pitchers we were carrying.

 

 

We came out of that trade looking like the ones desperate to get Izturis, not the other way around. Why make that trade at all if it doesn't help the team? that's the whole point. Swapping MAddux for Izturis was not a positive for the Cubs- it limits our flexibility and payroll next year (when we already knew we were playing for next year at the soonest).

 

Keeping Maddux would not have done that. So unless Maddux was "demanding" a trade, it was a stupid, pointless move. We did not gain payroll flexibility. We did not gain a great deal of talent, if any. We did not shore up our lineup. We did not add a missing piece of the puzzle. We did not add long term roster flexibility. And most importantly, we're probably paying more to Izturis this year than we saved by not having Maddux on the payroll for 6 weeks.

 

The good thing I see with payroll flexibility is that we did get rid of Neifi-which probably wouldn't have happened without the Izturis deal. Would people have taken Maddux and Neifi for Robinson and Izturis? At that point, I think it's at worst a lateral deal overall.

[davearm]

 

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.

What good would that do? At least Izturis has perceived value in the baseball world

Izturis certainly has value.

 

It's just not clear whether that value is positive or negative, given his pricetag.

 

If it's positive, it's not by very much. It's not difficult to argue that the Cubs (or any team) would be better off having neither the player nor the contract.

[goonys evil twin]

The good thing I see with payroll flexibility is that we did get rid of Neifi-which probably wouldn't have happened without the Izturis deal. Would people have taken Maddux and Neifi for Robinson and Izturis? At that point, I think it's at worst a lateral deal overall.

 

While it might be true that Hendry wouldn't have made the Neifi move without first getting Izturis, that is not a defense of the move. Rather, it's an indictment of his priorities. They could have not acquired Izturis and still trade away Neifi. Besides, Cesar was banged up at the time of the Neifi trade, and went on the DL shortly after. So it's not like they waited to find a stable middle infield option before dealing Neifi.

[CubColtPacer]

The good thing I see with payroll flexibility is that we did get rid of Neifi-which probably wouldn't have happened without the Izturis deal. Would people have taken Maddux and Neifi for Robinson and Izturis? At that point, I think it's at worst a lateral deal overall.

 

While it might be true that Hendry wouldn't have made the Neifi move without first getting Izturis, that is not a defense of the move. Rather, it's an indictment of his priorities. They could have not acquired Izturis and still trade away Neifi. Besides, Cesar was banged up at the time of the Neifi trade, and went on the DL shortly after. So it's not like they waited to find a stable middle infield option before dealing Neifi.

 

Cesar was playing relatively well at the time Neifi was dealt. It was actually the day Neifi was traded that Cesar got hurt. He played the next day, and then went on the DL after he left in the 5th inning. Sure, it's not a defense of the move. What I'm saying is that it worked out. Izturis coming here most likely allowed Neifi to be traded, because he likely would not have been traded while starting at second base. Izturis then getting hurt allowed Theriot to play at second instead of having Izturis and Cedeno there the whole year. I'm just saying I'd rather have what happened with Robinson in our system, Izturis here, and a useful utility player in Theriot then have not traded Maddux, had an extra spot blocked in the rotation for the young players, with Cedeno and Neifi playing short and second for the rest of the year and both on this year's roster.

[goonys evil twin]

What I'm saying is that it worked out. Izturis coming here most likely allowed Neifi to be traded, because he likely would not have been traded while starting at second base. Izturis then getting hurt allowed Theriot to play at second instead of having Izturis and Cedeno there the whole year. I'm just saying I'd rather have what happened with Robinson in our system, Izturis here, and a useful utility player in Theriot then have not traded Maddux, had an extra spot blocked in the rotation for the young players, with Cedeno and Neifi playing short and second for the rest of the year and both on this year's roster.

 

But none of this required Izturis to be acquired in the first place. And if a starting pitcher can be traded on July 31st of a losing season, then the starting 2B could have been traded on August 20 of a losing season.

[CubColtPacer]

What I'm saying is that it worked out. Izturis coming here most likely allowed Neifi to be traded, because he likely would not have been traded while starting at second base. Izturis then getting hurt allowed Theriot to play at second instead of having Izturis and Cedeno there the whole year. I'm just saying I'd rather have what happened with Robinson in our system, Izturis here, and a useful utility player in Theriot then have not traded Maddux, had an extra spot blocked in the rotation for the young players, with Cedeno and Neifi playing short and second for the rest of the year and both on this year's roster.

 

But none of this required Izturis to be acquired in the first place. And if a starting pitcher can be traded on July 31st of a losing season, then the starting 2B could have been traded on August 20 of a losing season.

 

Agreed. None of it was required to, but realistically, that's what had to happen. Hendry's biggest weakness is his love for middle infielders that are of this type. He seems to believe strongly that a team needs one, and a veteran one at that. I'm just saying that in Hendry's mind I think it's either or. It's either Izturis or Neifi, or some other player like that. I just happen to think that the current setup has benefited the Cubs more than the previous one. Neither one is ideal, but I know this is a big point of Hendry's weaknesses, and so I'm thinking of how to make this weakness cause the least damage, and I think the way it turned out is better than the way that it probably would have otherwise, which in hindsight makes the deal look better for me. Now, that deal does not look better as far as Hendry goes for me (the only way it will look better is if Izturis comes out and has a good to great year for him), but it does look better for minimizing that weakness he has and allowing the Cubs to be able to win otherwise.

[frostwyrm]

The point is that there WAS Some value to keeping maddux- both as a ticket seller and a mentor to the 8,322 rookie pitchers we were carrying.

 

 

We came out of that trade looking like the ones desperate to get Izturis, not the other way around. Why make that trade at all if it doesn't help the team? that's the whole point. Swapping MAddux for Izturis was not a positive for the Cubs- it limits our flexibility and payroll next year (when we already knew we were playing for next year at the soonest).

 

Keeping Maddux would not have done that. So unless Maddux was "demanding" a trade, it was a stupid, pointless move. We did not gain payroll flexibility. We did not gain a great deal of talent, if any. We did not shore up our lineup. We did not add a missing piece of the puzzle. We did not add long term roster flexibility. And most importantly, we're probably paying more to Izturis this year than we saved by not having Maddux on the payroll for 6 weeks.

 

The good thing I see with payroll flexibility is that we did get rid of Neifi-which probably wouldn't have happened without the Izturis deal. Would people have taken Maddux and Neifi for Robinson and Izturis? At that point, I think it's at worst a lateral deal overall.

 

Exchanging Neifi for Izturis was a downgrade. Neifi has similar skills to Izturis' but he makes less money and seldom gets hurt. If the Tigers offered me a straight up Neifi-for-Izturis trade I'd take it, although I'd have to hold my nose while signing the paperwork.

[CubColtPacer]

The point is that there WAS Some value to keeping maddux- both as a ticket seller and a mentor to the 8,322 rookie pitchers we were carrying.

 

 

We came out of that trade looking like the ones desperate to get Izturis, not the other way around. Why make that trade at all if it doesn't help the team? that's the whole point. Swapping MAddux for Izturis was not a positive for the Cubs- it limits our flexibility and payroll next year (when we already knew we were playing for next year at the soonest).

 

Keeping Maddux would not have done that. So unless Maddux was "demanding" a trade, it was a stupid, pointless move. We did not gain payroll flexibility. We did not gain a great deal of talent, if any. We did not shore up our lineup. We did not add a missing piece of the puzzle. We did not add long term roster flexibility. And most importantly, we're probably paying more to Izturis this year than we saved by not having Maddux on the payroll for 6 weeks.

 

The good thing I see with payroll flexibility is that we did get rid of Neifi-which probably wouldn't have happened without the Izturis deal. Would people have taken Maddux and Neifi for Robinson and Izturis? At that point, I think it's at worst a lateral deal overall.

 

Exchanging Neifi for Izturis was a downgrade. Neifi has similar skills to Izturis' but he makes less money and seldom gets hurt. If the Tigers offered me a straight up Neifi-for-Izturis trade I'd take it, although I'd have to hold my nose while signing the paperwork.

 

Similar yes, but Izturis will probably put up 50-80 points better in OPS than Neifi does next year, if not more. Also, if you think he hurts the ballclub with being in there, wouldn't you want that player to be hurt more to allow other players to get that playing time?

[YearofDaCubs]

Bottom line having Neifi or Izturis on our team is a bad idea and never was a good idea for them to be here in the first place.

 

btw, firefox 2's built-in spell checking is awesome.

[frostwyrm]

The point is that there WAS Some value to keeping maddux- both as a ticket seller and a mentor to the 8,322 rookie pitchers we were carrying.

 

 

We came out of that trade looking like the ones desperate to get Izturis, not the other way around. Why make that trade at all if it doesn't help the team? that's the whole point. Swapping MAddux for Izturis was not a positive for the Cubs- it limits our flexibility and payroll next year (when we already knew we were playing for next year at the soonest).

 

Keeping Maddux would not have done that. So unless Maddux was "demanding" a trade, it was a stupid, pointless move. We did not gain payroll flexibility. We did not gain a great deal of talent, if any. We did not shore up our lineup. We did not add a missing piece of the puzzle. We did not add long term roster flexibility. And most importantly, we're probably paying more to Izturis this year than we saved by not having Maddux on the payroll for 6 weeks.

 

The good thing I see with payroll flexibility is that we did get rid of Neifi-which probably wouldn't have happened without the Izturis deal. Would people have taken Maddux and Neifi for Robinson and Izturis? At that point, I think it's at worst a lateral deal overall.

 

Exchanging Neifi for Izturis was a downgrade. Neifi has similar skills to Izturis' but he makes less money and seldom gets hurt. If the Tigers offered me a straight up Neifi-for-Izturis trade I'd take it, although I'd have to hold my nose while signing the paperwork.

 

Similar yes, but Izturis will probably put up 50-80 points better in OPS than Neifi does next year, if not more. Also, if you think he hurts the ballclub with being in there, wouldn't you want that player to be hurt more to allow other players to get that playing time?

Fragility is never desirable, especially in a player who make $4.45M. Izturis may have a slightly higher OPS when he plays, which may not be very often. I'll take sturdy Neifi at $2.5M over glassbody Cesar at $4.45M.

[Warren Brusstar]

 

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.

What good would that do? At least Izturis has perceived value in the baseball world

 

 

The good would be that the Cubs aren't straddled with Izturis undeserved 4 million for next season.

 

Exactly. Even if we accept as true that the Dodgers were unwilling to give up a prospect, the right move would have been to look elsewhere, not bend over and take a bad contract from the Dodgers.

 

Let's put it this way: I would like that trade better if they had gotten a bucket of balls instead of a $4.5 million commitment to a bad player.

[CubColtPacer]

The point is that there WAS Some value to keeping maddux- both as a ticket seller and a mentor to the 8,322 rookie pitchers we were carrying.

 

 

We came out of that trade looking like the ones desperate to get Izturis, not the other way around. Why make that trade at all if it doesn't help the team? that's the whole point. Swapping MAddux for Izturis was not a positive for the Cubs- it limits our flexibility and payroll next year (when we already knew we were playing for next year at the soonest).

 

Keeping Maddux would not have done that. So unless Maddux was "demanding" a trade, it was a stupid, pointless move. We did not gain payroll flexibility. We did not gain a great deal of talent, if any. We did not shore up our lineup. We did not add a missing piece of the puzzle. We did not add long term roster flexibility. And most importantly, we're probably paying more to Izturis this year than we saved by not having Maddux on the payroll for 6 weeks.

 

The good thing I see with payroll flexibility is that we did get rid of Neifi-which probably wouldn't have happened without the Izturis deal. Would people have taken Maddux and Neifi for Robinson and Izturis? At that point, I think it's at worst a lateral deal overall.

 

Exchanging Neifi for Izturis was a downgrade. Neifi has similar skills to Izturis' but he makes less money and seldom gets hurt. If the Tigers offered me a straight up Neifi-for-Izturis trade I'd take it, although I'd have to hold my nose while signing the paperwork.

 

Similar yes, but Izturis will probably put up 50-80 points better in OPS than Neifi does next year, if not more. Also, if you think he hurts the ballclub with being in there, wouldn't you want that player to be hurt more to allow other players to get that playing time?

Fragility is never desirable, especially in a player who make $4.45M. Izturis may have a slightly higher OPS when he plays, which may not be very often. I'll take sturdy Neifi at $2.5M over glassbody Cesar at $4.45M.

 

So it would have been better for the Cubs if Rusch (before his medical condition) had stayed healthy all year and pitched for the Cubs? When talking about players like that, sometimes it's better for them to not be healthy than healthy, as horrible as that sounds. Neifi staying healthy simply meant that he got in for more at bats to hurt the team.

[dalgreen]

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.

 

.

 

Actually, I prefer to look at the teams he has built and his baseball philosophy as reasons why I think he's a bad GM for my favorite baseball team. If he were the Cardinals' GM, I would think he was brilliant. The trade for Maddux didn't make me dislike him more.

[CuseCubFan69]

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?

 

You'll see when Hendry trades Izturis. Be patient grasshopper.

[Blueheart05]

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.

 

I've heard the rumor that MacPhail, and not Hendry, agreed to the opt-out clause on The Score (Murph and Boers) as well as on ESPN AM 1000.

[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..

 

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.

Yeah, you're right. The Cubs were playing at full strength last season. No injuries to top players whatsoever. Standings tell the whole story.

 

Look, I have no problem with people thinking that Hendry has done a bad job. There is plenty of evidence. I could put together a pretty strong argument for how he has failed. I could also put together a pretty strong argument for how he has improved this team since taking over in July of '02. So, I have respect for people who hold both opinions.

 

What I do have a problem with is people who take quotes that are otherwise meaningless, like talking up the newly acquired Izturis at the post-trade press conference, and make them mean that Hendry thinks Izturis is the long term answer and savior at SS.

 

I also have a problem with taking a former all-star and gold glove caliber SS who at the age of 24 posted an OBP of .330 and had steadily improved every year until getting injured and labeling him as "garbage". Izturis is in his prime and was once promising. Injuries have changed a lot of that, however. That's about what one could expect to get in return for two months of an inconsistent 4th starter caliber 40-year-old pitcher who is going to the HOF. Isn't it?

 

I also have a problem with people who hold their opinions so dear that they have little room for others to hold their's and feel the need to ridicule or condescend to anyone who disagrees with them. So those "who think Hendry is a bad GM because they are capable of looking at the standings" ought also to be able to see that there opinion is just that and have room for others to have their's without ridiculing or condescending to them.

[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.

 

.

 

Actually, I prefer to look at the teams he has built and his baseball philosophy as reasons why I think he's a bad GM for my favorite baseball team. If he were the Cardinals' GM, I would think he was brilliant. The trade for Maddux didn't make me dislike him more.

Never said that it did.

 

And I think you have every right to hold that opinion. It is well-supported. All I was saying is that some people who already dislike Hendry will take an otherwise meaningless quote and run with it drawing all sorts of baseless conclusions from it like Hendry thinks Izturis is the long-term answer at SS. That claim has been made over and over again and used as criticism of his GMing abilities a lot on this board. I think that criticism is baseless. There are several other criticisms of him that aren't baseless. Creating more things to criticize him about is unnecessary.

[BigbadB]

[ All I was saying is that some people who already dislike Hendry will take an otherwise meaningless quote and run with it drawing all sorts of baseless conclusions from it like Hendry thinks Izturis is the long-term answer at SS. That claim has been made over and over again and used as criticism of his GMing abilities a lot on this board. I think that criticism is baseless. There are several other criticisms of him that aren't baseless. Creating more things to criticize him about is unnecessary.

 

Who made the comment after the 2005 season that he liked players who can catch the ball? I rest my case.