Dear Cubs - don't let the Maddux option vest

[TruffleShuffle]

The guy is old now. His ERA+ the last two seasons has been 105 and 113, and if the first quarter is any indication it's not going to be any better this year. The 105 ERA+ his last year with the Braves made it a pretty lousy signing for the amount of money he got, considering that we lost a younger, better pitcher (Clement) who we could have kept for the money they're paying Maddux.

 

So bottom line, if this team is going nowhere in August and September - and even if they're contending I'd have to consider it - don't let him reach 190 innings on the year (or whatever the number is). Average pitchers generally get paid in the $3-4M range, like Woody Williams (this year) or Jeff Suppan. Why spend more than twice what we need to spend to have a guy pitch like a #4 starter? I know it might seem like the wrong thing to do to sit a future Hall-of-Famer or start giving him the early hook, but baseball is a business. The Cubs can use the extra $5M a year to upgrade the bullpen or bring in a better hitter. Don't waste money on a guy just because he was once a great pitcher.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

And how do you propose the Cubs not let Greg get to the 190+ innings he needs?

[TruffleShuffle]

And how do you propose the Cubs not let Greg get to the 190+ innings he needs?

 

Skip his starts or start pulling him after 5 innings. Maybe it would be panned by the media and considered classless, but it's better than wasting $5M of our limited resources for next season.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

And how do you propose the Cubs not let Greg get to the 190+ innings he needs?

 

Skip his starts or start pulling him after 5 innings. Maybe it would be panned by the media and considered classless, but it's better than wasting $5M of our limited resources for next season.

 

And what happens if no one takes the 5 million because they saw how the Cubs ripped off Maddux?

[VVMattVV]

Maddux as the 4th/5th starter isn't so bad. Most teams would love that. I don't understand the logic in pulling him from games to stop that option. Put more stress on the pen is something that is going to hurt the other starters and the team overrall.

 

I'd lose a lot of respect for a team that did that, no way the Cubs should or would do that.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

And how do you propose the Cubs not let Greg get to the 190+ innings he needs?

 

Skip his starts or start pulling him after 5 innings. Maybe it would be panned by the media and considered classless, but it's better than wasting $5M of our limited resources for next season.

 

And free agents will definitely start coming to the Cubs after such a move.

 

Unless Greg gets hurt, the option will kick in. I'm not pleased, but it's going to happen. It wasn't wise to put that option in in the first place, but it's too late now.

[TruffleShuffle]

And how do you propose the Cubs not let Greg get to the 190+ innings he needs?

 

Skip his starts or start pulling him after 5 innings. Maybe it would be panned by the media and considered classless, but it's better than wasting $5M of our limited resources for next season.

 

And what happens if no one takes the 5 million because they saw how the Cubs ripped off Maddux?

 

Yeah, like that's really going to happen. 95% of baseball players are motivated by money first and everything else is way down the list.

 

Let's put it this way... say a veteran major leaguer has a $10M option next year, and his team is in the playoff race. His option vests if he throws 3 more innings. His shoulder is about to fall off and he knows he's going to need surgery in the off-season, but he hasn't told the club. Does he go out and pitch three innings in his next scheduled start, thereby causing his option to vest? Or does he do the best thing for the team, sitting himself down since he would only be hurting the team by pitching injured, with the knowledge that if he does get a contract the next season it will be for much, much less than $10M? I guarantee you 95% of ballplayers would make that next start, because it's a business to them as well.

 

Anyway, if the Cubs are 5+ games out of the playoff race come mid-August I just don't think it makes sense to go ahead and hurt their chances to win next year for no reason. I see where you're all coming from, but when Maddux is putting up an ERA in the mid-4s next year and the bullpen or offense are still mediocre, don't say there wasn't another way.

[Tim]

This is the same organization that refused to let Choi get a better taste of the majors because Fred McGriff (to whom the org. owed very little) was pursuing some idiotic record.

 

There is no way, not a chance in heck that the Cubs will do that to one of their all-time greatest players. Especially a guy who is, by nearly every account, a very good individual and great team player.

[TruffleShuffle]

Maddux as the 4th/5th starter isn't so bad. Most teams would love that. I don't understand the logic in pulling him from games to stop that option. Put more stress on the pen is something that is going to hurt the other starters and the team overrall.

 

I'd lose a lot of respect for a team that did that, no way the Cubs should or would do that.

 

OK, here's another example. John Abraham, who played for the (NFL) Jets in 2004, sat out the team's playoff games, having injured his knee several weeks earlier. The team thought he could play, and he in fact said that a major factor in not playing was his impending free agency and the knowledge that reinjuring the knee would cost him millions of dollars.

 

So basically, the guy did what was best for him at the expense of his team. Of course, the Jets cut the guy loose and nobody in the NFL wanted anything to do with such a selfish player, right? Wrong... they placed the franchise tag on him for 2005, meaning he'll make at least $6.7M this coming season.

 

The Jets franchised him because despite his sitting out the playoffs last year, he's a great player. Most professional athletes treat sports like a business and don't get criticized for it at all. Why would it be wrong for the Cubs to make a smart business decision and not let Maddux's option vest?

[CUBZ99]

Maddux has not pitched poorly and I hope the Cubs treat him with class. If I remember right he took $6M or less the first year in a back loaded contract with incentives. It is not Maddux's fault for making the deal and to treat a hall of fame pitcher in that manner would be disgraceful.

 

Other than that if the Cubs are still in the race, why would you hamstring yourself by benching him? Doesn't make any sense.

[TruffleShuffle]

Maddux has not pitched poorly and I hope the Cubs treat him with class. If I remember right he took $6M or less the first year in a back loaded contract with incentives. It is not Maddux's fault for making the deal and to treat a hall of fame pitcher in that manner would be disgrace.

Other than that if the Cubs are still in the race, why would you hamstring yourself by benching him? Doesn't make any sense.

 

It makes sense because the Cubs will save money - they're not paying a future HOF that won't pitch to that level any more. You are right that Maddux has not pitched poorly; however, he also has not pitched well. He certainly does not deserve the $9M that he will get next year if the Cubs allow him to throw 190 innings. If he were a #2 pitcher at this point in his career, I wouldn't be arguing against him so vehemently.

 

To me, it doesn't make any sense to pay a #4 starter the money that a #2 starter deserves. I'm rather disappointed in the dialogue that this thread has sparked, considering that it's a very important issue heading into next year.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I just can't see the Cubs for one doing that to Maddux, the future HOFer come home. Secondly, because Maddux is who he is, an intentional effort to stop his option from vesting would be pretty noticable and draw a lot of negative attention from the media, and ultimately other players. I really hope that the option doesn't vest, but I think the best hope for that at this point is an injury, or Maddux deciding to retire.

[emoore]

The Cubs made the commitment when they gave Maddux the contract. They knew he would probably get the required innings needed for the option. I don't think it would be wise for them to try and back out of the deal by purposely decreasing his innings. They are going to have to accept the consequences.

[CubsaredaChamps]

BOOOOOOO to the vesting option.

[TruffleShuffle]

So can we call Maddux classless for leaving the Cubs to take more money with the Braves, and then leaving the Braves to take more money with the Cubs once again? After all, a lot of people are willing to call the Cubs classless if they find a way to avoid paying Maddux $9M per year. Clearly Maddux has treated the game like a business, hasn't he?

[CubinNY]

So can we call Maddux classless for leaving the Cubs to take more money with the Braves, and then leaving the Braves to take more money with the Cubs once again? After all, a lot of people are willing to call the Cubs classless if they find a way to avoid paying Maddux $9M per year. Clearly Maddux has treated the game like a business, hasn't he?

 

 

There are two ends to a business negotiation.

 

Maddux is providing a service, albeit an expensive one, and the Cubs agreed to pay him to provide the service. If the Cubs don't want to pay the money then they should cut or trade him. To sit him on the bench or pull him is un-fair labor practice. A practice I might add that led to the fixing of games a long time ago.

 

My message to the Cubs don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

[TruffleShuffle]

So can we call Maddux classless for leaving the Cubs to take more money with the Braves, and then leaving the Braves to take more money with the Cubs once again? After all, a lot of people are willing to call the Cubs classless if they find a way to avoid paying Maddux $9M per year. Clearly Maddux has treated the game like a business, hasn't he?

 

 

There are two ends to a business negotiation.

 

Maddux is providing a service, albeit an expensive one, and the Cubs agreed to pay him to provide the service. If the Cubs don't want to pay the money then they should cut or trade him. To sit him on the bench or pull him is un-fair labor practice. A practice I might add that led to the fixing of games a long time ago.

 

I'd argue that the Cubs made their offer to Maddux with the expectation that he'd pitch with an ERA under 4.00 the last couple of years. He hasn't provided that service, so why shouldn't they keep him on the bench and prevent him from receiving the salary of a #2 starter next year?

[CaliforniaRaisin]

So can we call Maddux classless for leaving the Cubs to take more money with the Braves, and then leaving the Braves to take more money with the Cubs once again? After all, a lot of people are willing to call the Cubs classless if they find a way to avoid paying Maddux $9M per year. Clearly Maddux has treated the game like a business, hasn't he?

 

 

There are two ends to a business negotiation.

 

Maddux is providing a service, albeit an expensive one, and the Cubs agreed to pay him to provide the service. If the Cubs don't want to pay the money then they should cut or trade him. To sit him on the bench or pull him is un-fair labor practice. A practice I might add that led to the fixing of games a long time ago.

 

I'd argue that the Cubs made their offer to Maddux with the expectation that he'd pitch with an ERA under 4.00 the last couple of years. He hasn't provided that service, so why shouldn't they keep him on the bench and prevent him from receiving the salary of a #2 starter next year?

 

Because no free agent will sign with the Cubs again? He's not pitching that bad this year, there aren't pitchers who can replace him and do better. The Cubs shouldn't have offered the option but they did.

[TruffleShuffle]

So can we call Maddux classless for leaving the Cubs to take more money with the Braves, and then leaving the Braves to take more money with the Cubs once again? After all, a lot of people are willing to call the Cubs classless if they find a way to avoid paying Maddux $9M per year. Clearly Maddux has treated the game like a business, hasn't he?

 

 

There are two ends to a business negotiation.

 

Maddux is providing a service, albeit an expensive one, and the Cubs agreed to pay him to provide the service. If the Cubs don't want to pay the money then they should cut or trade him. To sit him on the bench or pull him is un-fair labor practice. A practice I might add that led to the fixing of games a long time ago.

 

I'd argue that the Cubs made their offer to Maddux with the expectation that he'd pitch with an ERA under 4.00 the last couple of years. He hasn't provided that service, so why shouldn't they keep him on the bench and prevent him from receiving the salary of a #2 starter next year?

 

Because no free agent will sign with the Cubs again? He's not pitching that bad this year, there aren't pitchers who can replace him and do better. The Cubs shouldn't have offered the option but they did.

 

On the other hand, there are pitchers who would pitch just as well and cost much less simply because they wouldn't have an irrelevent Hall of Fame legacy behind them. I guarantee you if the Cubs were to throw an extra million per year at a good bullpen arm, he wouldn't be so concerned about the Cubs' "classless" treatment of Maddux.

 

 

Like I said, Maddux has treated the game like a business and so have most major league ballplayers. I don't understand the indignation with the Cubs if they were to do the same.

[erik316wttn]

Granted, we don't have the Greg Maddux of old. Yes, he's more hittable now, and yes, he's at the end of his career. But I can live with him for one more year after this one as a 4th or 5th starter. Yes, he'll be overpaid next year (and this year) and probably won't produce up to his paycheck, but there are far worse options.

[VicCub]

Despite the fact that he is on my favorite team, Greg Maddux is my least favorite player in baseball. Lets just say that the last 2 years are a nightmare from 1992 come true.

 

Whatever business decisions needs to be made about Maddux, this club should not consider his feelings or his past performance whatsoever.

 

If benching him is in the best interest of the club, then he should be benched.

[frostwyrm]

I'm not happy about the situation but both ethical and practical considerations prohibit deliberately sabotaging Maddux's chance for the option.

[sandberg23]

I'm not happy about the situation but both ethical and practical considerations prohibit deliberately sabotaging Maddux's chance for the option.

 

This is true. I read (or saw) where if a team sits a player in Maddux's position (re: vesting options) with no valid reason, that player can then go the union and through some legal stuff, get the money he would have made had he been able to play the assumed amount of innings he normally would have played had the team not benched him. So, more than likely, the Cubs would have to pay him anyway.

[VicCub]

The Cubs would have plenty of valid reasons for benching him. His performance has been below average. He is old and unless we get in the race in a hurry, our club will want to look at younger players.

 

If we are out of the race, Maddux must sit in the best interest of the Cubs.

[cubs dane]

The Cubs must take the high road on this one. They must play and pay Maddux as if there is nothing at stake.

 

What is at stake is the clubs trust, their image, plus its the right thing to do. The clubs must stand by their decisions when they signed the player, like the Sosa decision, right or wrong. To Job a HOFer, would be tragic. Dont nickel and dime the situation, because the Cubs would be Dollar foolish. I not saying Maddux is worth it at this point in his career, Im saying the Cubs cut the deal, now live with it!

 

BTW, you never know, Maddux is such a classy guy, it wouldnt surprise me that he could work out something to not hurt the club. I have a very high image of Greg, maybe I naiive, IMO.