Trading Paul Maholm

[ctcf]

That's right kids, you probably knew this was coming.

 

Bruce Levine of ESPN Chicago reports that the Pirates and Royals are interested in Cubs' left-hander Paul Maholm.

Maholm limited the Marlins to one run over eight innings on Thursday and now has a 4.09 ERA and 69/29 K/BB ratio over 105 2/3 innings this season. While the 30-year-old left-hander won't make a major impact, he could draw interest from contenders and non-contenders since his contract includes a $6.5 million option for next year.

 

I would love to see what the Cubs could get for a Garza/Maholm package to KC.

[Brian]

The starting rotation could get epically bad soon ... trade Garza, Maholm and Dempster, then just shut down Shark and who could even think about taking us on for that #1 pick?

[davell]

He's been pitching great. With the option on next year, he could bring back a fairly solid return. Hell, maybe HE could bring in a borderline top 10 guy from an averagish system. Or a draft pick from someone.

[UMFan83]

Its both good and sucks that the deadline is coming at a time when the Cubs are playing so well, heavily led by the starting pitching.

 

Obviously its more good than bad, as it might increase what we can get for them, but for selfish reasons, I've really enjoyed watching the team as of late and it will suck to go back to what we saw in May.

[Guest]

Unless Dempster and Garza bring back more guys who will require MLB innings than I anticipate, I'm not seeing the benefit outweighing the risk in trading Maholm. I'm valuing the 200 average innings we can bank on more than the minimal prospect return he would command.

[Magnetic Curses]

Unless Dempster and Garza bring back more guys who will require MLB innings than I anticipate, I'm not seeing the benefit outweighing the risk in trading Maholm. I'm valuing the 200 average innings we can bank on more than the minimal prospect return he would command.

 

yes, this.

[A New Era]

Unless Dempster and Garza bring back more guys who will require MLB innings than I anticipate, I'm not seeing the benefit outweighing the risk in trading Maholm. I'm valuing the 200 average innings we can bank on more than the minimal prospect return he would command.

 

yes, this.

 

I don't know. I see value in it. Lets say they do get one guy who will slot right into the rotation. Fill the other spot with a cheap stop gap, if Maholm could net you say, a 1st round competitive balance pick. The worse rotation helps to secure #1 draft next year + another mid rounder. Oh I could see the benefit of that. If next year you could get a pick for arb on Maholm then the other team has to offer even more on top of that. Overall I agree, unless it's a return that nets more obvious assets than we'd get keeping him.

[Guest]

The starting rotation could get epically bad soon ... trade Garza, Maholm and Dempster, then just shut down Shark and who could even think about taking us on for that #1 pick?

 

Houston is 2-16 in their last 18 games and 7-23 in their last 30.

[toonsterwu]

Unless Dempster and Garza bring back more guys who will require MLB innings than I anticipate, I'm not seeing the benefit outweighing the risk in trading Maholm. I'm valuing the 200 average innings we can bank on more than the minimal prospect return he would command.

 

I largely feel that way, but the one hole I would loosely leave, and feel free to tell me if I'm off my rockers, is if they wanted to view their trades as some sort of combo package. A bit late for me to think clearly today, so let's just use an example to illustrate what I'm trying to say.

 

Say they go into the trades saying we want x number of upper level guys to fill a/b/c roles, and then we can take some gambles. If Maholm is able to bring back, say, an upper level arm* that is ready to compete for a spot next year that they like (and hopefully a bit more ... I imagine Maholm would interest some small-mid market teams), then maybe this allows them to target more upside gambles in, say, a Garza trade.

 

Maybe all this will sound ludicrous when I read it tomorrow. Of course, I starred that up there, because there is one quick counter-point to all this, which is that it is hard to imagine the Cubs getting better than a Brooks Raley/Chris Rusin type arm in the upper levels, and it's hard to imagine Maholm bringing back a big time low level upside gamble (meaning a better gamble than say, Chris Archer was when we traded for him), so the value in trading Maholm is blunted somewhat by that factor right there, unless they get better than I'm anticipating right now.

 

If davell is right and we can get back a decent-solid prospect for Maholm, then of course you make the deal and figure things out for next year this winter/September.

[toonsterwu]

Its both good and sucks that the deadline is coming at a time when the Cubs are playing so well, heavily led by the starting pitching.

 

Obviously its more good than bad, as it might increase what we can get for them, but for selfish reasons, I've really enjoyed watching the team as of late and it will suck to go back to what we saw in May.

 

I'll never cheer/hope for losses, but let's just say that I'd be fine if we struggled down the stretch and improved our positioning for next year's draft. Next year's crop isn't looking that hot, off the top, and I'd like to be in the top, particularly because of the increased pool, but also because of the talent.

[Little Slide Rooter]

The 6.5 mil option is a great value even for a back end starter. No reason to trade him unless someone gets stupid with their offer. Edited July 20, 2012 by Little Slide Rooter

[Little Slide Rooter]

The starting rotation could get epically bad soon ... trade Garza, Maholm and Dempster, then just shut down Shark and who could even think about taking us on for that #1 pick?

 

T. Wood, Germano, Volstad, Lopez, Coleman.

[tgkimmel]

Can't see any reason to move him either. He isn't a #1, but he is a legitimate major league starter, something that would probably be the ceiling for anyone you get back for him. Maybe you package him with LaHair to a small market team looking for help at a low price (monetarily anyway) but only for an overwhelming offer.

[biittner77]

The starting rotation could get epically bad soon ... trade Garza, Maholm and Dempster, then just shut down Shark and who could even think about taking us on for that #1 pick?

 

T. Wood, Germano, Volstad, Lopez, Coleman.

 

The Iowa to Chicago shuttle would be a veritable conga line since Wood is the only one that will ever make it past the 5th inning.

[Exile on Waveland]

Unless Dempster and Garza bring back more guys who will require MLB innings than I anticipate, I'm not seeing the benefit outweighing the risk in trading Maholm. I'm valuing the 200 average innings we can bank on more than the minimal prospect return he would command.

 

Strongly agree. The Cubs need someone to start for them next year. Maholm is solid and reliable, if nothing else. And since I'm expecting at least one kid obtained in the Garza/Dempter trades to earn a rotation spot next year, Maholm seems rather valuable for next year. Though I know I value boring starting pitchers more than many on this board.

[Guest]

Unless Dempster and Garza bring back more guys who will require MLB innings than I anticipate, I'm not seeing the benefit outweighing the risk in trading Maholm. I'm valuing the 200 average innings we can bank on more than the minimal prospect return he would command.

Why are you thinking there won't be another Paul Maholm on the market this winter?

[jersey cubs fan]

Unless Dempster and Garza bring back more guys who will require MLB innings than I anticipate, I'm not seeing the benefit outweighing the risk in trading Maholm. I'm valuing the 200 average innings we can bank on more than the minimal prospect return he would command.

Why are you thinking there won't be another Paul Maholm on the market this winter?

 

Maholms come and go. If you can sign one on the cheap and then trade for something with more longterm value, you do it. Then go out and try and sign one in the offseason when once again you have a buttload of money to spend.

[SouthSideRyan]

Unless Dempster and Garza bring back more guys who will require MLB innings than I anticipate, I'm not seeing the benefit outweighing the risk in trading Maholm. I'm valuing the 200 average innings we can bank on more than the minimal prospect return he would command.

Why are you thinking there won't be another Paul Maholm on the market this winter?

 

We could probably use 2 Paul Maholms on next year's team.

[23sharks]

Unless Dempster and Garza bring back more guys who will require MLB innings than I anticipate, I'm not seeing the benefit outweighing the risk in trading Maholm. I'm valuing the 200 average innings we can bank on more than the minimal prospect return he would command.

Why are you thinking there won't be another Paul Maholm on the market this winter?

 

Maholms come and go. If you can sign one on the cheap and then trade for something with more longterm value, you do it. Then go out and try and sign one in the offseason when once again you have a buttload of money to spend.

 

Agreed. The goal is to put together a winning team. If you can move Maholm for a good prospect, you do it. Who cares what the rotation looks like the rest of the season? They aren't looking to win this year anyway. Get as many prospects as you can, probably end up with a top 5 draft pick, then see what you can acquire in the offseason.

[treebird]

Unless Dempster and Garza bring back more guys who will require MLB innings than I anticipate, I'm not seeing the benefit outweighing the risk in trading Maholm. I'm valuing the 200 average innings we can bank on more than the minimal prospect return he would command.

Why are you thinking there won't be another Paul Maholm on the market this winter?

 

We could probably use 2 Paul Maholms on next year's team.

 

only if we're trying to win.

[Guest]

Unless Dempster and Garza bring back more guys who will require MLB innings than I anticipate, I'm not seeing the benefit outweighing the risk in trading Maholm. I'm valuing the 200 average innings we can bank on more than the minimal prospect return he would command.

Why are you thinking there won't be another Paul Maholm on the market this winter?

 

Sure there might, but while players who are as consistent(in terms of performance and durability) as Maholm aren't incredibly valuable, they aren't incredibly common either. I'd just as soon pass on the new #27 prospect in the system we'd get for him and have him as insurance. It's going to be difficult to get to 6 capable starters as is.

[jersey cubs fan]

Unless Dempster and Garza bring back more guys who will require MLB innings than I anticipate, I'm not seeing the benefit outweighing the risk in trading Maholm. I'm valuing the 200 average innings we can bank on more than the minimal prospect return he would command.

Why are you thinking there won't be another Paul Maholm on the market this winter?

 

Sure there might, but while players who are as consistent(in terms of performance and durability) as Maholm aren't incredibly valuable, they aren't incredibly common either. I'd just as soon pass on the new #27 prospect in the system we'd get for him and have him as insurance. It's going to be difficult to get to 6 capable starters as is.

 

Sure, if it's just a 27, pass.

[davell]

I saw an article mentioning Rudy Owens and Jeff Locke with the Pirates as possibilities. Both are borderline top 10ish guys for them, lefties, and in AAA. Unsure if they were thinking one or the other, or both. I've never seen either of them on tape. Locke is the much harder throwing of the pair, but are they considered much better than Rusin or Raley? Therw's only so many backend lefty starters a team needs, when you've already got some, as it is.

[shnsajax]

The starting rotation could get epically bad soon ... trade Garza, Maholm and Dempster, then just shut down Shark and who could even think about taking us on for that #1 pick?

 

Houston is 2-16 in their last 18 games and 7-23 in their last 30.

 

Sounds about right for a team who's lone all-star is 5'4".

[Little Slide Rooter]

Unless Dempster and Garza bring back more guys who will require MLB innings than I anticipate, I'm not seeing the benefit outweighing the risk in trading Maholm. I'm valuing the 200 average innings we can bank on more than the minimal prospect return he would command.

Why are you thinking there won't be another Paul Maholm on the market this winter?

 

We could probably use 2 Paul Maholms on next year's team.

 

More Paul Maholms means less Doug Davis', Rodrigo Lopezes, Justin Germanos, Casey Colemans, and other miscellaneous junk ballers.