How about some props for Maddux

[Transmogrified Tiger]

You wouldn't pay that much for 3 seasons of 15+ wins? Wow, considering we're paying Wood MORE for ZERO seasons of 15+ wins.

 

He was old last year when he led the team in wins. He's old this year while he's leading the team in wins. He was old in Atlanta when he was leading the team in wins. I don't see the logic in wanting to play younger guys who won't win as much. It might just be me, but I thought the point of baseball was to WIN GAMES.

 

Wins mean next to nothing. They really do, they are a team statistic. There are too many influences outside the pitcher's control that affect whether or not they get a win to make them valuable in evaluating performance. If Wood pitches like he has his entire career and gets 2 wins, it won't matter to me, because he will be the unluckiest pitcher ever. On the other hand, if Maddux wins 24 games with a 4+ ERA, he'll be the luckiest pitcher ever, and I'd still rather replace him next year.

[Chocolate Milk]

Add in the fact that there is a 9 million dollar disparity between them, and I'd say that the team is better off with the young guys.

 

You honestly believe that even with the fact that Maddux's ERA, though rising the past few years, is still better than those two guys? And the fact that's he's well on his way to another 15+ win season while those two can't put back to back good starts together? You'd honestly feel more comfortable in our chances of winning with them on the mound than Greg Maddux? I don't even know why I'm still in this discussion. It's bordering on insanity.

 

Yes, I do feel more comfortable with those 2, because they aren't going to be much worse(if not better) than Maddux, while we have 9 million more to improve elsewhere. That's the difference between a J.D. Drew, and a Danny Bautista, to pull 2 names out of thin air.

 

JD Drew is being paid MORE than Maddux to underproduce. Are you sure you don't want to rethink that?

 

The point is, do you want Maddux and Denny Bautista, or Mitre/Hill/Williams and Drew?

 

Considering we can have both, I'm not sure what the point of this question is.

[imb]

You wouldn't pay that much for 3 seasons of 15+ wins? Wow, considering we're paying Wood MORE for ZERO seasons of 15+ wins.

 

He was old last year when he led the team in wins. He's old this year while he's leading the team in wins. He was old in Atlanta when he was leading the team in wins. I don't see the logic in wanting to play younger guys who won't win as much. It might just be me, but I thought the point of baseball was to WIN GAMES.

 

The point of pitching is to keep people from scoring, something that the group of Hill/Williams/Mitre can do much more economically.

 

Well, when those guys start doing that, let me know. For now, we're going to have to agree to disagree.

 

Disagree all you want, it's true. It would be helpful for the team next year if those guys pitched instead of Maddux. Dont believe it if you dont want to, but it's true. And this is coming from a huge Maddux fan.

[BleedCubbieBlue81]

I'd take Maddux and Bautista.

 

Mitre/Hill/Williams/Drew - Two guys who aren't pitching that great, one guy who was just pushed back to the minors, and one guy who is being paying $9,400,000 to underproduce.

 

Basically the argument there is would I rather have Maddux or Drew. We already have MItre, Hill, and WIlliams along with Maddux. And since Drew isn't doing as well as Maddux, I'll take Maddux.

[imb]

Add in the fact that there is a 9 million dollar disparity between them, and I'd say that the team is better off with the young guys.

 

You honestly believe that even with the fact that Maddux's ERA, though rising the past few years, is still better than those two guys? And the fact that's he's well on his way to another 15+ win season while those two can't put back to back good starts together? You'd honestly feel more comfortable in our chances of winning with them on the mound than Greg Maddux? I don't even know why I'm still in this discussion. It's bordering on insanity.

 

Yes, I do feel more comfortable with those 2, because they aren't going to be much worse(if not better) than Maddux, while we have 9 million more to improve elsewhere. That's the difference between a J.D. Drew, and a Danny Bautista, to pull 2 names out of thin air.

 

JD Drew is being paid MORE than Maddux to underproduce. Are you sure you don't want to rethink that?

 

The point is, do you want Maddux and Denny Bautista, or Mitre/Hill/Williams and Drew?

 

Considering we can have both, I'm not sure what the point of this question is.

 

Hahah, really? Because I see Dubois and Hollandsworth sucking it up right now. Next year, 9 million dollars is going to go into Maddux's pocket. That is likely to be around 1/10th of our payroll.

 

Are you ok with spending 1/10th of our payroll on a 4+ ERA, when we could get the same thing for 900k from the trio of kids? I'm not.

[BleedCubbieBlue81]

You wouldn't pay that much for 3 seasons of 15+ wins? Wow, considering we're paying Wood MORE for ZERO seasons of 15+ wins.

 

He was old last year when he led the team in wins. He's old this year while he's leading the team in wins. He was old in Atlanta when he was leading the team in wins. I don't see the logic in wanting to play younger guys who won't win as much. It might just be me, but I thought the point of baseball was to WIN GAMES.

 

Wins mean next to nothing. They really do, they are a team statistic. There are too many influences outside the pitcher's control that affect whether or not they get a win to make them valuable in evaluating performance. If Wood pitches like he has his entire career and gets 2 wins, it won't matter to me, because he will be the unluckiest pitcher ever. On the other hand, if Maddux wins 24 games with a 4+ ERA, he'll be the luckiest pitcher ever, and I'd still rather replace him next year.

 

Yes, I'm well aware that wins are an inflated statistic, but you can't tell me that Maddux just got lucky with run support 312 times while Wood hasn't. The fact that he keeps winning should prove that he does have something to do with getting those wins.

[BleedCubbieBlue81]

Hahah, really? Because I see Dubois and Hollandsworth sucking it up right now. Next year, 9 million dollars is going to go into Maddux's pocket. That is likely to be around 1/10th of our payroll.

 

Are you ok with spending 1/10th of our payroll on a 4+ ERA, when we could get the same thing for 900k from the trio of kids? I'm not.

 

I see your point. But why is everyone complaining about Maddux's huge contract and not Kerry Wood's? Maddux is the one delivering, while Wood sits on the DL and makes his 9.5 mil a year. If you have a problem with one, you should have a problem with both of them making that much.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I'd take Maddux and Bautista.

 

Mitre/Hill/Williams/Drew - Two guys who aren't pitching that great, one guy who was just pushed back to the minors, and one guy who is being paying $9,400,000 to underproduce.

 

Basically the argument there is would I rather have Maddux or Drew. We already have MItre, Hill, and WIlliams along with Maddux. And since Drew isn't doing as well as Maddux, I'll take Maddux.

 

The names aren't important. The point is the guy we can get with the saved 9 million will be better than the guy we would've gotten there. The difference between those two players is greater than the difference between Maddux and the kids, nevermind the fact that it's likely they will outproduce Maddux.

[goonys evil twin]

Yes, I'm well aware that wins are an inflated statistic, but you can't tell me that Maddux just got lucky with run support 312 times while Wood hasn't. The fact that he keeps winning should prove that he does have something to do with getting those wins.

 

Maddux has been a very good pitcher for a very long time. Wood hasn't been around near long enough to bring up in a debate about their respective win totals. Wood hasn't won 312 because he just turned 28.

 

Of course Maddux has a lot to do with getting those wins. But the goal in baseball is for your team to get wins, not a specific pitcher. Maddux's win totals are not important. What is important is how well he pitches over the entire season. And overall, he's not pitching nearly as well as he once did, and will not pitch well enough to justify making $18 million in 2005 and 2006.

[BleedCubbieBlue81]

I'm curious what impact players you think we could get with that 9 million that would give this team a chance to win every time they go out there. What guys do you know that would sign for a small amount, and would be almost guaranteed to be a success to help the team? Everyone said that we didn't need Alou this year because Dubois was ready to help the team, and he was cheaper. Well, he hasn't panned out yet. So who is out there, that would sign with the Cubs and give them a better chance to win than Maddux would? And don't say Mitre, Hill, and Williams, because it's already been proven that even the three of them combined aren't capable of what he's done for this team.

[Chocolate Milk]

Add in the fact that there is a 9 million dollar disparity between them, and I'd say that the team is better off with the young guys.

 

You honestly believe that even with the fact that Maddux's ERA, though rising the past few years, is still better than those two guys? And the fact that's he's well on his way to another 15+ win season while those two can't put back to back good starts together? You'd honestly feel more comfortable in our chances of winning with them on the mound than Greg Maddux? I don't even know why I'm still in this discussion. It's bordering on insanity.

 

Yes, I do feel more comfortable with those 2, because they aren't going to be much worse(if not better) than Maddux, while we have 9 million more to improve elsewhere. That's the difference between a J.D. Drew, and a Danny Bautista, to pull 2 names out of thin air.

 

JD Drew is being paid MORE than Maddux to underproduce. Are you sure you don't want to rethink that?

 

The point is, do you want Maddux and Denny Bautista, or Mitre/Hill/Williams and Drew?

 

Considering we can have both, I'm not sure what the point of this question is.

 

Hahah, really? Because I see Dubois and Hollandsworth sucking it up right now. Next year, 9 million dollars is going to go into Maddux's pocket. That is likely to be around 1/10th of our payroll.

 

Are you ok with spending 1/10th of our payroll on a 4+ ERA, when we could get the same thing for 900k from the trio of kids? I'm not.

 

Why not? At least he plays. No one seems to be angry about paying 1/5 of our payroll for 2 guys who don't even play (one not even on the team and the other on the DL for 2/3rds of every season).

 

You're angry about Dubois? Which side of this argument are you on? You'd rather bring in an expensive underachiever rather then let Dubois play for much cheaper and give him a chance to devlop into a equal player?

 

If you think Maddux is the reason we didn't sign JD Drew, I don't even know what to say to you.

 

I think it's hilarious that people think Maddux is some sort of cash sucking albatross that is easily replaced by unproven rookies and keeping us from signing a LFer. I don't see why we would take away something that isn't a problem because he is mythically keeping us from signing left fielders.

[Chocolate Milk]

I'd take Maddux and Bautista.

 

Mitre/Hill/Williams/Drew - Two guys who aren't pitching that great, one guy who was just pushed back to the minors, and one guy who is being paying $9,400,000 to underproduce.

 

Basically the argument there is would I rather have Maddux or Drew. We already have MItre, Hill, and WIlliams along with Maddux. And since Drew isn't doing as well as Maddux, I'll take Maddux.

 

The names aren't important. The point is the guy we can get with the saved 9 million will be better than the guy we would've gotten there. The difference between those two players is greater than the difference between Maddux and the kids, nevermind the fact that it's likely they will outproduce Maddux.

 

I will considering it is far from fact.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I'm curious what impact players you think we could get with that 9 million that would give this team a chance to win every time they go out there. What guys do you know that would sign for a small amount, and would be almost guaranteed to be a success to help the team? Everyone said that we didn't need Alou this year because Dubois was ready to help the team, and he was cheaper. Well, he hasn't panned out yet. So who is out there, that would sign with the Cubs and give them a better chance to win than Maddux would? And don't say Mitre, Hill, and Williams, because it's already been proven that even the three of them combined aren't capable of what he's done for this team.

 

When did this happen? They could be better, they could be worse, odds are they'll be pretty similar.

 

To throw names out there, with the financial flexibility, you could make a run at Giles or Damon, you could attempt to make trades for Klesko, Huff, Dunn, Stewart, Gonzalez, A. Jones, Floyd, etc.

[UK1679666180]

Maddux hasn't been worth the salary he is being paid, Wood hasn't been the worth the deal signed after '03. They're both at diff. stages of their career with different reasons behind why they haven't earned the dollar amount of their contracts.

 

The logic behind signing Wood was better than Maddux, the execution of correcting/miscalculating his mechanics was not. They paid Maddux for what he has done in his career, the Cubs were going to pay Wood for what he was going to do during the prime of his career.

Edited June 27, 2005 by UK

[Chocolate Milk]

Ok, I am really done now.

 

!

 

It's 3:50! I have to get some work done!

 

:x

[BleedCubbieBlue81]

I'm with you on this one. I need to get a ton done soon so I can leave on time for once. It's been fun guys, but it's time to get back to work.

[goonys evil twin]

I see your point. But why is everyone complaining about Maddux's huge contract and not Kerry Wood's? Maddux is the one delivering, while Wood sits on the DL and makes his 9.5 mil a year. If you have a problem with one, you should have a problem with both of them making that much.

 

Plenty of people have complained about Wood's deal. It's different than Maddux, however, because he was young and still developing when he signed the deal, and had not yet even reached his peak. Maddux was well past his peak, and pretty clearly on the decline. Also, Maddux was a guy they went out and recruited. They went out of their way to overpay him. Wood's situation was somewhat forced on the Cubs. Despite the criticism of his win total, Kerry was in the process of putting it all together when he signed that deal. He was throwing 200+ innings a year, and throwing well. And he was still several years away from when you'd assume he'd hit his peak.

 

I do have a problem with Wood making what he's making right now, and not pitching. But the fact remains, there is a light at the end of the tunnel with Wood. Maddux doesn't provide that hope for the future though. With him, you have to assume he'll just keep declining, and if that's the case, he won't live up to the deal. Would anybody really be surprised if Kerry came out and dominated next year? I wouldn't. But with Maddux I would be very surprised if he came out next year and consistently pitched well enough to justify his deal. He'll throw some gems, I have no doubt. But he'll have too many stinkers as well, just like 2004, just like 2005.

[Knightlife_in_Lubbock]

I see your point. But why is everyone complaining about Maddux's huge contract and not Kerry Wood's? Maddux is the one delivering, while Wood sits on the DL and makes his 9.5 mil a year. If you have a problem with one, you should have a problem with both of them making that much.

 

Plenty of people have complained about Wood's deal. It's different than Maddux, however, because he was young and still developing when he signed the deal, and had not yet even reached his peak. Maddux was well past his peak, and pretty clearly on the decline. Also, Maddux was a guy they went out and recruited. They went out of their way to overpay him. Wood's situation was somewhat forced on the Cubs. Despite the criticism of his win total, Kerry was in the process of putting it all together when he signed that deal. He was throwing 200+ innings a year, and throwing well. And he was still several years away from when you'd assume he'd hit his peak.

 

I do have a problem with Wood making what he's making right now, and not pitching. But the fact remains, there is a light at the end of the tunnel with Wood. Maddux doesn't provide that hope for the future though. With him, you have to assume he'll just keep declining, and if that's the case, he won't live up to the deal. Would anybody really be surprised if Kerry came out and dominated next year? I wouldn't. But with Maddux I would be very surprised if he came out next year and consistently pitched well enough to justify his deal. He'll throw some gems, I have no doubt. But he'll have too many stinkers as well, just like 2004, just like 2005.

 

Based on '04 and '03 Greg's Pre-AS numbers this year's numbers are the same, if not slightly better, than the past 2 seasons.

 

          ERA        IP    H         HR          BAA
'03     4.63      126.1   135      17           .276
'04     4.51      111.2   129      20           .293 
'05     4.56       96.2   106      15           .280

 

Based on Post AS numbers for the last 2 years:

 

'03     3.03      92     90       7          .256
'04     3.48      101    89       15         .241

 

His numbers based on the past will drop after the AS break.

[UK1679666180]

I'll assume that Goony was speaking of declining in terms of an annual basis, rather than taking an individual season and breaking them down at the AS break.

 

Maddux might pitch better in the second half, that doesn't eliminate the below avg. 1st halves and the overall decline a pitcher will have as he enters his late 30s as Maddux is currently going thru.

[Knightlife_in_Lubbock]

I'll assume that Goony was speaking of declining in terms of an annual basis, rather than taking an individual season and breaking them down at the AS break.

 

Maddux might pitch better in the second half, that doesn't eliminate the below avg. 1st halves and the overall decline a pitcher will have as he enters his late 30s as Maddux is currently going thru.

 

Yes his numbers have slipped over the last 3 years but his 2nd halves have been pretty good even in those years. IMO, Wood is being overpaid more at this point of his career than Maddux. He (Wood) has yet to post an ERA below 3.20 ever in a season while Greg had 5 seasons of sub 3.20 ERA before the age of 29. Wood's 2nd halve ERAs over the last 3 years (02-04) 3.21, 3.21, & 4.27. While Greg's 2nd have ERAs over the same time 2.42, 3.03, & 3.48.

[UK1679666180]

Greg isn't the same pitcher as he was before the age of 29, why compare them? Wood is being overpaid more at this stage, b/c of an inability to stay healthy.

 

I fail to see why you would choose to compare 2nd half numbers of Wood and Maddux. That's selective stats when there is a better picture, like the entire season.

 

His 1st halves have been poor, his 2nd halves have been good, that has led him to be an avg, starting pitcher for a competitive club. (#3 on most teams expecting a playoff spot).

[goonys evil twin]

I'll assume that Goony was speaking of declining in terms of an annual basis, rather than taking an individual season and breaking them down at the AS break.

 

Maddux might pitch better in the second half, that doesn't eliminate the below avg. 1st halves and the overall decline a pitcher will have as he enters his late 30s as Maddux is currently going thru.

 

Yes his numbers have slipped over the last 3 years but his 2nd halves have been pretty good even in those years. IMO, Wood is being overpaid more at this point of his career than Maddux. He (Wood) has yet to post an ERA below 3.20 ever in a season while Greg had 5 seasons of sub 3.20 ERA before the age of 29. Wood's 2nd halve ERAs over the last 3 years (02-04) 3.21, 3.21, & 4.27. While Greg's 2nd have ERAs over the same time 2.42, 3.03, & 3.48.

 

You are advocating paying a player for what he did before, not for what he will hopefully do in the future. The Cubs didn't sign Maddux to be good in just July and August.

 

I don't see why Wood is even part of this debate. Nobody is claiming Wood is outplaying his contract. It's a pretty weak statement of support for Maddux when people have to say he's not as overpaid as somebody else. Who cares? He's overpaid, it doesn't justify it if somebody else is more overpaid.

[UK1679666180]

I'll assume that Goony was speaking of declining in terms of an annual basis, rather than taking an individual season and breaking them down at the AS break.

 

Maddux might pitch better in the second half, that doesn't eliminate the below avg. 1st halves and the overall decline a pitcher will have as he enters his late 30s as Maddux is currently going thru.

 

Yes his numbers have slipped over the last 3 years but his 2nd halves have been pretty good even in those years. IMO, Wood is being overpaid more at this point of his career than Maddux. He (Wood) has yet to post an ERA below 3.20 ever in a season while Greg had 5 seasons of sub 3.20 ERA before the age of 29. Wood's 2nd halve ERAs over the last 3 years (02-04) 3.21, 3.21, & 4.27. While Greg's 2nd have ERAs over the same time 2.42, 3.03, & 3.48.

 

You are advocating paying a player for what he did before, not for what he will hopefully do in the future. The Cubs didn't sign Maddux to be good in just July and August.

 

I don't see why Wood is even part of this debate. Nobody is claiming Wood is outplaying his contract. It's a pretty weak statement of support for Maddux when people have to say he's not as overpaid as somebody else. Who cares? He's overpaid, it doesn't justify it if somebody else is more overpaid.

 

It incorrectly tries to justify the Maddux signing as anything but a poor signing?

[CubinNY]

Really, UK, Goony, JC, all you guys.

 

You kill me. Outside of Zambrano, Maddux has only been the most consistently good pitcher the Cubs have had since his signing. The Cubs are 9 games over .500 when he pitches (in 49 starts) and he is likely to pitch another 200 innings this year. You can hang your hat on ERA all you want but the name of the game is wins, team wins.

 

Can you honestly say that the same outcome would have occurred if Mitre, Guzman, Welly, would have started those games?

 

Before you mention Rusch, since the Maddux signing Rusch has started 27 games going 9 and 6. In that time he has 12 ND and the team has won 5 and lost 7 in those games. The Cubs are one game over .500 when he pitches.

 

But if it makes you feel better about lamenting over money that the Cubs don't seem to be concerned about go right ahead.

[TruffleShuffle]

I'm not going to get into the wins debate because it's been rehashed 100 times. I will point out that Jerome Williams had a better ERA+ in 2003-2004 than Maddux did, and even in his supposedly terrible 2004 campaign, his ERA+ was only 8 points (113-105) lower than that of Maddux. He hasn't been much worse than Maddux this year, either. I'll take him at $8M less than Maddux and expect him to outpitch Greg next year.