Dodgers close to signing Randy Wolf

[USSoccer]

 

For 3 out of his 4 Cubs months Maddux was above 5 and had one month with an above 6 ERA. It's not as if he's a great bet to be consistent either. Given the choice between the 40 year old expensive guy who might blow up or the league minimum guy with upside that might blow up, I'll take the latter.

 

I guess I was speaking more in general than about Greg specifically. Even so, the worst case scenario with guys like Maddux, Meche and co. just aren't as bad as with our kids. Hell, we don't even know if Rich Hill is going to consistently perform next season (though I think so), much less guys like M/M/M and Guzman, who put up -lets face it - really bad numbers last year. Counting on any of those four to give you even 150 innings at even a 5.00 era is a risky proposition at best.

 

Even if the Cubs were to land Schmidt (big if), Hendry still has to acquire a cheap(ish) innings-eater with some kind of track record.

 

I consider Maddux differently than I consider Meche and the rest of the SP's out there. Meche, Lilly, Padilla-these guys all have the ability to be good. They are all around age 30, which is an age that pitchers tend to begin peaking. Maddux is going to be 41 in April, and 41 year old pitchers don't usually trend upwards.

 

If we were the Padres, or played in the NL West, which is full of pitchers parks, it's a different story. Maddux can be that effective inning eating type of 5th starter. I do not see it happening in the NL Central. If you're going to spend on a FA starter, spend on one with some upside, instead of spending for the nostalgia of a Greg Maddux.

[CUBZ99]

A mid-4 ERA can be attained by any one of our in house, league minimum options.

 

Myth.

 

How do you figure? A 23 year old has more of a change to progress than a 40 year old does.

 

Guzman, Miller, and Marshall are all decent bets to put up at least a 4.50 ERA. And it's not like 4.50 is good. It's not.

 

4.50 is alot better than your making it out to be. This is the same statement that was been thrown around when Glendon Rusch was signed to his extention. If last year proved anything, it was that young players don't necessarily translate into an improvement. In fact, the Rusch of 2005 was quite a bit better than any of the 2006 rookie starters. (Its too bad the Rusch of 2006 was horrible.)

 

Another example was Niefi Perez last year. He was widely considered the worst hitter in all of baseball, it turned out that Ronnie Cedeno may be throwing his hat in the competition.

[USSoccer]

A mid-4 ERA can be attained by any one of our in house, league minimum options.

 

Myth.

 

How do you figure? A 23 year old has more of a change to progress than a 40 year old does.

 

Guzman, Miller, and Marshall are all decent bets to put up at least a 4.50 ERA. And it's not like 4.50 is good. It's not.

 

4.50 is alot better than your making it out to be. This is the same statement that was been thrown around when Glendon Rusch was signed to his extention. If last year proved anything, it was that young players don't necessarily translate into an improvement. In fact, the Rusch of 2005 was quite a bit better than any of the 2006 rookie starters. (Its too bad the Rusch of 2006 was horrible.)

 

Another example was Niefi Perez last year. He was widely considered the worst hitter in all of baseball, it turned out that Ronnie Cedeno may be throwing his hat in the competition.

 

4.50 sucks. It's nothing worth paying a guy millions for. I'd rather have a 5.00 ERA at league minimum.

 

Young players won't necessarily improve, but 41 year olds never do. That's my point.

 

Guzman (for example) is as likely to blow up as Maddux, but the odds of Maddux having a sub-4 ERA as a Cub next season are longer than Guzman's given that last season was his first full season in a while. One is signifigantly cheaper than the other. One is signifigantly younger that the other.

 

 

 

Save the money.

[Soul]

A mid-4 ERA can be attained by any one of our in house, league minimum options.

 

Myth.

 

How do you figure? A 23 year old has more of a change to progress than a 40 year old does.

 

Guzman, Miller, and Marshall are all decent bets to put up at least a 4.50 ERA. And it's not like 4.50 is good. It's not.

 

4.50 is alot better than your making it out to be. This is the same statement that was been thrown around when Glendon Rusch was signed to his extention. If last year proved anything, it was that young players don't necessarily translate into an improvement. In fact, the Rusch of 2005 was quite a bit better than any of the 2006 rookie starters. (Its too bad the Rusch of 2006 was horrible.)

 

Another example was Niefi Perez last year. He was widely considered the worst hitter in all of baseball, it turned out that Ronnie Cedeno may be throwing his hat in the competition.

 

4.50 sucks. It's nothing worth paying a guy millions for. I'd rather have a 5.00 ERA at league minimum.

 

Young players won't necessarily improve, but 41 year olds never do. That's my point.

 

Guzman (for example) is as likely to blow up as Maddux, but the odds of Maddux having a sub-4 ERA as a Cub next season are longer than Guzman's given that last season was his first full season in a while. One is signifigantly cheaper than the other. One is signifigantly younger that the other.

 

 

 

Save the money.

 

Hmmm....I understand your point, and I think it most applies to Marshall since he was the guy who actually showed some promise at times.

 

Gooz, on the other hand, was a flaming disaster. I didn't see anything last year but a guy who has spent years & years in our system and still has no control over any of his pitches.

[USSoccer]

 

4.50 sucks. It's nothing worth paying a guy millions for. I'd rather have a 5.00 ERA at league minimum.

 

Young players won't necessarily improve, but 41 year olds never do. That's my point.

 

Guzman (for example) is as likely to blow up as Maddux, but the odds of Maddux having a sub-4 ERA as a Cub next season are longer than Guzman's given that last season was his first full season in a while. One is signifigantly cheaper than the other. One is signifigantly younger that the other.

 

 

 

Save the money.

 

Hmmm....I understand your point, and I think it most applies to Marshall since he was the guy who actually showed some promise at times.

 

Gooz, on the other hand, was a flaming disaster. I didn't see anything last year but a guy who has spent years & years in our system and still has no control over any of his pitches.

 

To be fair to Guzman, his changeup was probably his best pitch, and that's a pitch that requires a lot of work to get a feel for how to throw it.

 

His big problem was command. He walked way too many hitters, and that's a sign of rust from a guy who had really good command at every level in the minors. His stuff was great, and it he gets his command back, he's still the pitcher with the highest upside that's ML ready.

 

Of all the guys that started last season (Walrond and O'Malley don't count) I was the least impressed with Marshall. His stuff seemed pretty pedestrian, and his command is pretty spotty. Nothing about him really stood out in a positive way. I don't see him as a viable, longterm rotation solution, but I'd certainly give him a chance to prove me wrong over bringing Maddux back.

Edited December 1, 2006 by USSoccer

[Soul]

 

4.50 sucks. It's nothing worth paying a guy millions for. I'd rather have a 5.00 ERA at league minimum.

 

Young players won't necessarily improve, but 41 year olds never do. That's my point.

 

Guzman (for example) is as likely to blow up as Maddux, but the odds of Maddux having a sub-4 ERA as a Cub next season are longer than Guzman's given that last season was his first full season in a while. One is signifigantly cheaper than the other. One is signifigantly younger that the other.

 

 

 

Save the money.

 

Hmmm....I understand your point, and I think it most applies to Marshall since he was the guy who actually showed some promise at times.

 

Gooz, on the other hand, was a flaming disaster. I didn't see anything last year but a guy who has spent years & years in our system and still has no control over any of his pitches.

 

To be fair to Guzman, his changeup was probably his best pitch, and that's a pitch that requires a lot of work to get a feel for how to throw it.

 

His big problem was command. He walked way too many hitters, and that's a sign of rust from a guy who had really good command at every level in the minors. His stuff was great, and it he gets his command back, he's still the pitcher with the highest upside that's ML ready.

 

I hope so, because he'll be 25 in a few days and has been with us for many years. He has yet to ROI in any meaningful way. I won't hide that I'm pretty disappointed in him. At times last year he even seemed a little lethargic or apathetic.

[USSoccer]

 

4.50 sucks. It's nothing worth paying a guy millions for. I'd rather have a 5.00 ERA at league minimum.

 

Young players won't necessarily improve, but 41 year olds never do. That's my point.

 

Guzman (for example) is as likely to blow up as Maddux, but the odds of Maddux having a sub-4 ERA as a Cub next season are longer than Guzman's given that last season was his first full season in a while. One is signifigantly cheaper than the other. One is signifigantly younger that the other.

 

 

 

Save the money.

 

Hmmm....I understand your point, and I think it most applies to Marshall since he was the guy who actually showed some promise at times.

 

Gooz, on the other hand, was a flaming disaster. I didn't see anything last year but a guy who has spent years & years in our system and still has no control over any of his pitches.

 

To be fair to Guzman, his changeup was probably his best pitch, and that's a pitch that requires a lot of work to get a feel for how to throw it.

 

His big problem was command. He walked way too many hitters, and that's a sign of rust from a guy who had really good command at every level in the minors. His stuff was great, and it he gets his command back, he's still the pitcher with the highest upside that's ML ready.

 

I hope so, because he'll be 25 in a few days and has been with us for many years. He has yet to ROI in any meaningful way. I won't hide that I'm pretty disappointed in him. At times last year he even seemed a little lethargic or apathetic.

 

Oh, trust me, I've been dissapointed in him as well. I even got into it with Ron Potesta in the minor league forum last year because I was sick of hearing about Guzman's potential, and thought he'd be best used in the pen.

 

After seeing how he got through 2006 healthy, and after seeing his stuff, I'm willing to advocate that the 5th spot is his to lose in ST, depending on other moves.

[b_wiggy_66]

Jon Heymans latest says that Wolf turned down 3-year offers from the Phillies, D-Backs, and Cubs to go to the Dodgers so he could be at home and around his mom.

 

Good to see the Cubs threw their hat in on him at least. Hendry must be looking for that pitching

[USSoccer]

Jon Heymans latest says that Wolf turned down 3-year offers from the Phillies, D-Backs, and Cubs to go to the Dodgers so he could be at home and around his mom.

 

Good to see the Cubs threw their hat in on him at least. Hendry must be looking for that pitching

 

As well he should be. We pretty much have 3 open rotation spots right now.