MADDUX VESTING PARTY!!!

[Chocolate Milk]

It affects us, but it's not like he's Mussina, Sosa, or Wood. It's not worth all the attention it's getting around here. The Cubs have much, much, much bigger fish to fry.

 

Not worth the attention? None of this crap is worth the attention it's getting.

 

Frankly, I'd say nearly half, if not more, of the attention is coming from people who have nothing but praise for Maddux and his contribution to the team.

 

No, it's not the biggest issue. It's also not receiving the most attention.

 

I'm not saying the Cubs can't build a winner with Maddux on the team or that his contract is a club killer. It was just brought up because his option officially vested last night.

 

I don't see why his defenders have to take it so personally. It's much more an indictment on how the Cubs run the team than any sort of rip on Greg himself, and I don't see how anybody can pretend the Cubs are good at running their team.

 

Fair enough. I agree with most of that. I honestly really don't care all that much, I'm just bored at work.

[Derwood]

lousy ol' greg maddux is once again your team's leader in wins and innings pitched.

 

He's also running away with the team lead in losses. (he's only tied for the team lead in wins, not the leader)

 

As for Maddux's losses on the year.

5/20 vs. CHW - 7.0 IP, 3 ER (Cubs scored 1)

7/16 vs. PIT - 8.0 IP, 2 ER (Cubs scored 0)

8/06 vs. NYM - 7.0 IP, 2 ER (Cubs scored 0)

8/27 vs. FLA - 9.0 IP, CG, 2 ER (Cubs scored 1)

 

The other ones he probably deserved, but you can't fault the guy for no run support.

 

He also should/could have many more wins if the Cubs would hit.

4/10 vs. MIL - 3 ER, ND

4/17 vs. PIT - 2 ER, ND

4/23 vs. PIT - 2 ER, ND

7/21 vs. CIN - 3 ER, ND

7/26 vs. SF - 2 ER, ND

 

Should he have won all those games? Probably not, but he kept the Cubs in it, they just couldn't score for him.

 

Yes, sure, but the same argument can be made for Prior and Zambrano:

 

PRIOR

 

5/6 vs. PHI - 8 IP, 1 ER (ND)

5/11 vs. NYM - 7 IP, 2 ER (ND)

5/17 vs. PIT - 7 IP, 3 ER (ND)

7/29 vs. ARZ - 7.1 IP, 3 ER (ND)

8/9 vs. CIN - 7 IP, 3 ER (ND)

8/24 vs. ATL - 7.2 IP, 3 ER (Cubs scored 1)

 

 

ZAMBRANO

 

5/3 vs. MIL - 7 IP, 3 ER (Cubs scored 1)

5/21 vs. CHW - 7 IP, 1 H, 0 ER (ND)

5/26 vs. COL - 7 IP, 3 ER (Cubs scored 1)

7/3 vs. WSH - 7 IP, 2 ER (ND)

7/22 vs. STL - 9 IP, 1 ER (ND)

7/27 vs. SF - 7.1 IP, 3 ER (ND)

8/22 vs. ATL - 8 IP, 2 ER (ND)

 

So, you could argue that both these guys should have more wins, thus further adding to the fact that both are better than Maddux.

[BleedCubbieBlue81]

Oh goody, the old "he's not the only one".

Yes, he's not the only one. I'm aware that this is a thread on Maddux, but how many threads are there bashing Maddux for being overpaid as opposed to the other overpaid players we have? I think it's hilarious that people are so quick to downplay what Maddux has done and say we'd get the same productivity from guys like Hill, Rusch, Mitre, etc. When it's pretty much a fact that he's been no worse than our 3rd best starter the past two years. I'm not arguing he's overpaid. But at least he produces somewhat, compared to the other overpaids we have.

 

Listen. I'm not ragging on Greg. I'm responding to a lot of completely illogical defenses of him.

 

I think the defenses of him so far have been very logical. But then again, I'm not one of the guys that would rather see a bunch of crappy minor leaguers out there that can't produce half of what Greg does.

 

Greg is grossly overpaid for the performance he provides. So is Wood. Next year, Greg will be grossly overpaid for the performance he is likely to provide. So might Wood. But then again, Wood could easily be back to his 02/03 ways, which was very good, and he could even have a career year. We don't know. Hopefully he does outperform though, the Cubs need every bit over "overperformance" they can get.

 

I hope Wood produces too. Is it likely based on the past two years? I don't know. Is Maddux likely to win 14+ games next year? Based on the previous 17 years, I'd say yes. Who's to say Greg won't win 22 games next year. No one knows how he'll pitch, same thing with Wood. Just because he's old doesn't mean he's definitely going to have a bad year next year. But to justify Wood's contract over Maddux's because "he's still young and can turn it around", is ridiculous in my opinion. Because Wood hasn't shown anyone that he can turn it around.

[goonys evil twin]

I hope Wood produces too. Is it likely based on the past two years? I don't know. Is Maddux likely to win 14+ games next year? Based on the previous 17 years, I'd say yes. Who's to say Greg won't win 22 games next year. No one knows how he'll pitch, same thing with Wood. Just because he's old doesn't mean he's definitely going to have a bad year next year. But to justify Wood's contract over Maddux's because "he's still young and can turn it around", is ridiculous in my opinion. Because Wood hasn't shown anyone that he can turn it around.

 

Good golly.

 

Wood did show people he can turn it around in 02 and 03 when he overcame the "he's always injured" stigma and had back to back solid seasons. He's got a different injury now, and I'd certainly be less inclined to show patience now that he's got the contract, but the fact is he still is young and could easily turn into a great pitcher.

 

This year people said Greg was a lock to win 15 because he did it in the past. That was absurd. First off, his win totals don't mean much. What about his loss totals? If you praise him for 12 wins, shouldn't you critique him for 11 losses? His win total isn't nearly as important as how well he pitches from April to October, on the whole.

[BleedCubbieBlue81]

Good golly.

 

Wood did show people he can turn it around in 02 and 03 when he overcame the "he's always injured" stigma and had back to back solid seasons. He's got a different injury now, and I'd certainly be less inclined to show patience now that he's got the contract, but the fact is he still is young and could easily turn into a great pitcher.

 

This year people said Greg was a lock to win 15 because he did it in the past. That was absurd. First off, his win totals don't mean much. What about his loss totals? If you praise him for 12 wins, shouldn't you critique him for 11 losses? His win total isn't nearly as important as how well he pitches from April to October, on the whole.

 

I'm not saying Greg has been amazing this year. The fact of the matter is, he hasn't been. No one here is arguing that. I just think he's being overly criticized for being our 2nd or 3rd best starter, overpaid or not.

 

Yep, Wood turned it around... and ended up right back on the DL for two years. His unwillingness (if that's what it is) to change his mechanics is possibly going to keep him there too. Yeah, he had decent seasons is 2002 and 2003 (12-11, 3.67 ERA/ 14-11, 3.19 ERA - both of which aren't bad), but until he finds a way to fix his faulty mechanics (if that is the cause of this), he's going to keep winding up right where he is now.

[katway]

As fans of a losing team with a hefty payroll, should we be harse on a hall of fame winning pitcher and demand he forgo his tour of the league? :roll: Seems to me that way too much is being made of Maddux getting $9 mil next year. :-({|= That was the deal and the team has to live with it, move on.

[JC]

That was the deal and the team has to live with it, move on.

 

Move on? What a great philosophy! Living with an overpaid player instead of critiquing the value of the deal or the competency of the decision does make for a more enjoyable Cub fan experience.

 

I mean, why would it at all be material to a Cubs board to create a post denoting that its aging pitcher with deteriorating skills just vested an option making him one of the highest paid player on the team?

 

It provides no insight into the organization's skills in evaluation and negotiation. Having locked up another rotation spot has no bearing on the offseason pursuit of free agents or the promotion of farm hands.

 

I don't know where my head was. Perhaps I, too, can find some sand to bury it in.

[Knightlife_in_Lubbock]

That was the deal and the team has to live with it, move on.

 

Move on? What a great philosophy! Living with an overpaid player instead of critiquing the value of the deal or the competency of the decision does make for a more enjoyable Cub fan experience.

 

I mean, why would it at all be material to a Cubs board to create a post denoting that its aging pitcher with deteriorating skills just vested an option making him one of the highest paid player on the team?

 

It provides no insight into the organization's skills in evaluation and negotiation. Having locked up another rotation spot has no bearing on the offseason pursuit of free agents or the promotion of farm hands.

 

I don't know where my head was. Perhaps I, too, can find some sand to bury it in.

 

What about the highest paid guy? What does it say about the organization when they drop that kind of money on "the possiblities"? I agree that Maddux wasn't the pitcher he was 5 or 6 years ago when the Cubs signed him to this deal. But to say that Wood's contract wasn't a bigger gamble at it's current rate is a bit nearsighted (no offense to those members who are). He (Wood) has been a injury waiting to happen again and the Cubs knew that when they inked that deal and got burnt.

 

Even if Wood comes back and say wins 25 games next year does that make his deal even a decent one?

[JC]

 

What about the highest paid guy? What does it say about the organization when they drop that kind of money on "the possiblities"? I agree that Maddux wasn't the pitcher he was 5 or 6 years ago when the Cubs signed him to this deal. But to say that Wood's contract wasn't a bigger gamble at it's current rate is a bit nearsighted (no offense to those members who are). He (Wood) has been a injury waiting to happen again and the Cubs knew that when they inked that deal and got burnt.

 

Even if Wood comes back and say wins 25 games next year does that make his deal even a decent one?

 

Did Wood have an option that vested last night? This isn't about Wood and his contract. People are bemoaning the fact that this topic was brought up, that too big a deal is made of it. Well, its relevant due to the current circumstances, and its relevant because this is a Cubs' message board.

 

Listen, your points regarding Wood may be valid. Lord knows that this organization doesn't limit itself to one mistake a year. An argument may have merit that Wood's contract is a bigger drag on the organization. Fine. That doesn't eliminate the fact that Maddux's option vested and, therefore, is ripe for discussion without the lamenting that the issue was raised.

[moorecg]

 

What about the highest paid guy? What does it say about the organization when they drop that kind of money on "the possiblities"? I agree that Maddux wasn't the pitcher he was 5 or 6 years ago when the Cubs signed him to this deal. But to say that Wood's contract wasn't a bigger gamble at it's current rate is a bit nearsighted (no offense to those members who are). He (Wood) has been a injury waiting to happen again and the Cubs knew that when they inked that deal and got burnt.

 

Even if Wood comes back and say wins 25 games next year does that make his deal even a decent one?

 

Did Wood have an option that vested last night? This isn't about Wood and his contract. People are bemoaning the fact that this topic was brought up, that too big a deal is made of it. Well, its relevant due to the current circumstances, and its relevant because this is a Cubs' message board.

 

Listen, your points regarding Wood may be valid. Lord knows that this organization doesn't limit itself to one mistake a year. An argument may have merit that Wood's contract is a bigger drag on the organization. Fine. That doesn't eliminate the fact that Maddux's option vested and, therefore, is ripe for discussion without the lamenting that the issue was raised.

 

I haven't read the whole thread so if this has been discussed, sorry...but for all the complaining about the topic, it should be noted that there is a darn good chance that Maddux will lead the team in wins and innings pitched this year, he did the exact same thing last year, and there no real reason to think he won't put up similar numbers next year...he's probably a bit overpaid, but I'd say we're getting more out of that money than we are Patterson and his contract is not even in the top 10 of things we have to worry about.

[JC]

Wins?

Innings?

Justifying Maddux's contract vs. other underperforming players?

 

Jesus Christ, I give up.

[neely crenshaw]

the argument has been that maddux has not been our second best pitcher. that's where it started. it really wasn't even factoring in who is overpaid. that should be on hendry...

z has been our best pitcher the last 2 years..no argument

wood should not even be in the discussion. he has missed 30+ starts in 2 years. if he had 10 no hitters in his other games he still wouldn't be in the discussion.

rusch,hill, mitre,williams? no chance over the last 2 seasons . so it comes down to prior and maddux. no doubt that at this point prior has more talent but he has not outperformed greg. he will also have missed 16-18 starts in 2 years. his stats are not as good. i am sorry to point this out, no matter how many games you list, prior is not throwing real well over the last 2 months and has been heading down since may.

2004-05 prior= 16-9 3.85 era

maddux= 28-22 4.14 era

if you take away prior's april, which right now looks like a fluke...they have the basically same era while prior has 18 fewer starts. with his era steadily rising, more starts would hurt prior's stats, not help.

how can anyone say that a pitcher who has fewer wins, a slightly better era and has missed 18 starts has been a better or more valuable pitcher? you can not just overlook the missed starts to help your argument.

[Laura]

Wins?

Innings?

Justifying Maddux's contract vs. other underperforming players?

 

Jesus Christ, I give up.

 

If the salary (next year and over the duration of the contract) is the main point of discussion -- which it appears to be -- it would seem difficult to discuss the salary without any reference points regarding the salaries and performances of other pitchers, Cubs and non-Cubs. :?

 

Of course, I doubt that there will be widespread agreement on what arguments are legit and non-legit.

 

I opted out of most of these discussions throughout the season because picking through game-by-game data to evaluate a 3-yr contract seems an exercise in futility. The option vesting certainly is worthy of discussion, though.

[scs_paradise]

From KFFL

 

Sep 8 The Chicago Tribune's Paul Sullivan reports Chicago Cubs SP Greg Maddux surpassed 400 combined innings in 2004 and 2005 to vest a $9 million player option for 2006. "If they want me, I'd love to come back," said Maddux, who beat the St. Louis Cardinals 2-1 on Sept. 7.

 

 

With the talk from Dusty a month ago of retirement, do you think the cubs let maddux walk?

[Garwilly]

From KFFL

 

Sep 8 The Chicago Tribune's Paul Sullivan reports Chicago Cubs SP Greg Maddux surpassed 400 combined innings in 2004 and 2005 to vest a $9 million player option for 2006. "If they want me, I'd love to come back," said Maddux, who beat the St. Louis Cardinals 2-1 on Sept. 7.

 

 

With the talk from Dusty a month ago of retirement, do you think the cubs let maddux walk?

 

The Cubs have no say in the matter.

[Chocolate Milk]

Wins?

Innings?

Justifying Maddux's contract vs. other underperforming players?

 

Jesus Christ, I give up.

 

Relax. Just because other's don't agree that this is the gravest of situations doesn't mean you have to "give up."

 

Since you were obviously refering to me about the above, it may behoove you to actually read what I wrote. I brought up the other contracts to see what the typical preformer like Maddux was earning. It wasn't just underpreformers there were some overpreformers in there as well. I found that he was over-paid by about double what he's making. I concluded that overpaying Maddux by 4 million dollars for one year when we have 40 million to spend isn't going to have a noticable impact on the team. What's wrong with that? You may disagree with it, but I'm not pulling it out of my arse either. I certianly never justified his contract.

[scs_paradise]

From KFFL

 

Sep 8 The Chicago Tribune's Paul Sullivan reports Chicago Cubs SP Greg Maddux surpassed 400 combined innings in 2004 and 2005 to vest a $9 million player option for 2006. "If they want me, I'd love to come back," said Maddux, who beat the St. Louis Cardinals 2-1 on Sept. 7.

 

 

With the talk from Dusty a month ago of retirement, do you think the cubs let maddux walk?

 

The Cubs have no say in the matter.

 

did you not see the bold quote??? it appears maddux is giving the cubs an out...obviously with a buyout so which would you take, a buyout or maddux?

[abuck1220]

From KFFL

 

Sep 8 The Chicago Tribune's Paul Sullivan reports Chicago Cubs SP Greg Maddux surpassed 400 combined innings in 2004 and 2005 to vest a $9 million player option for 2006. "If they want me, I'd love to come back," said Maddux, who beat the St. Louis Cardinals 2-1 on Sept. 7.

 

 

With the talk from Dusty a month ago of retirement, do you think the cubs let maddux walk?

 

The Cubs have no say in the matter.

 

did you not see the bold quote??? it appears maddux is giving the cubs an out...obviously with a buyout so which would you take, a buyout or maddux?

 

depends on how much the buyout is and how hill and mitre perform in their last four starts of the season. oh wait, they're not getting starts.

[Garwilly]

From KFFL

 

Sep 8 The Chicago Tribune's Paul Sullivan reports Chicago Cubs SP Greg Maddux surpassed 400 combined innings in 2004 and 2005 to vest a $9 million player option for 2006. "If they want me, I'd love to come back," said Maddux, who beat the St. Louis Cardinals 2-1 on Sept. 7.

 

 

With the talk from Dusty a month ago of retirement, do you think the cubs let maddux walk?

 

The Cubs have no say in the matter.

did you not see the bold quote??? it appears maddux is giving the cubs an out...obviously with a buyout so which would you take, a buyout or maddux?

 

 

I read the quote, and I read it in he Suntimes this morning. Regardless, the Cubs have no say in the matter. There is no buy out. Maddux certainly has the right to retire, but the Cubs are in no position to make a unilateral move to keep him from the 2006 roster.

 

You asked if the Cubs let Maddux walk, and it is quite simple, it is not their call.

[scs_paradise]

From KFFL

 

Sep 8 The Chicago Tribune's Paul Sullivan reports Chicago Cubs SP Greg Maddux surpassed 400 combined innings in 2004 and 2005 to vest a $9 million player option for 2006. "If they want me, I'd love to come back," said Maddux, who beat the St. Louis Cardinals 2-1 on Sept. 7.

 

 

With the talk from Dusty a month ago of retirement, do you think the cubs let maddux walk?

 

The Cubs have no say in the matter.

did you not see the bold quote??? it appears maddux is giving the cubs an out...obviously with a buyout so which would you take, a buyout or maddux?

 

 

I read the quote, and I read it in he Suntimes this morning. Regardless, the Cubs have no say in the matter. There is no buy out. Maddux certainly has the right to retire, but the Cubs are in no position to make a unilateral move to keep him from the 2006 roster.

 

You asked if the Cubs let Maddux walk, and it is quite simple, it is not their call.

 

well I read it two hours ago, this morning, and last night....WHAT??

 

anyway, the cubs could certainly talk to maddux about restructuring, retirement, or a buyout. 2 out of those three the cubs would have a 50% call in....that is what I'm asking about, why so snooty?

[JGalt73]

Wins?

Innings?

Justifying Maddux's contract vs. other underperforming players?

 

Jesus Christ, I give up.

 

Relax. Just because other's don't agree that this is the gravest of situations doesn't mean you have to "give up."

 

Since you were obviously refering to me about the above, it may behoove you to actually read what I wrote. I brought up the other contracts to see what the typical preformer like Maddux was earning. It wasn't just underpreformers there were some overpreformers in there as well. I found that he was over-paid by about double what he's making. I concluded that overpaying Maddux by 4 million dollars for one year when we have 40 million to spend isn't going to have a noticable impact on the team. What's wrong with that? You may disagree with it, but I'm not pulling it out of my arse either. I certianly never justified his contract.

 

$4M is the difference between Aramis Ramirez and Jeremy Burnitz or Johnny Damon and Burnitz. While $4M is only 4% of a $100M payroll, it can be a difference maker. Are there other problems, yes. Is $4M still $4M that could get from Burnitiz to Aramis (for example), yes.

[CuseCubFan69]

Here's what was said many moons ago:

 

http://www.northsidebaseball.com/PremiumForum/viewtopic.php?t=5214&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

[JC]

Wins?

Innings?

Justifying Maddux's contract vs. other underperforming players?

 

Jesus Christ, I give up.

 

If the salary (next year and over the duration of the contract) is the main point of discussion -- which it appears to be -- it would seem difficult to discuss the salary without any reference points regarding the salaries and performances of other pitchers, Cubs and non-Cubs. :?

 

But, does anyone argue that $9M for a starting pitcher is top of the rotation money? 61 starting pitchers have lower ERAs than Maddux, but only 6 of them get paid better.

 

If its wins and innings, then:

 

Only 5 of the 47 starters with 12 or more wins make more than him.

 

Only 3 of the 21 starters who have thrown more than 189 innings make more than him.

 

While I do not concede that wins and innings are particularly relevant measures for a pitcher, Maddux is sure getting paid a premium compared to efforts from the rest of the league.

 

Thus, what we know, what is not in dispute, is that Maddux is getting paid as if he were an elite pitcher, which he is not anymore.

 

Should there be discussions about the worst problems facing the Cubs and the priority of addressing each? Absolutely. But, ought not we digest Maddux's contract in the context of the organization's philosophy and evaluation of available free agents with the time to sign those available quickly approaching?

 

The Cubs may indeed have failed to realize the value of Kerry's contract. At least, IMO, they were looking partially forward based on the timing of the deal. With Maddux, at best, they paid for past performance, which bothers me, at worst, they paid for nostalgia, which just ticks me off.

[Garwilly]

From KFFL

 

Sep 8 The Chicago Tribune's Paul Sullivan reports Chicago Cubs SP Greg Maddux surpassed 400 combined innings in 2004 and 2005 to vest a $9 million player option for 2006. "If they want me, I'd love to come back," said Maddux, who beat the St. Louis Cardinals 2-1 on Sept. 7.

 

 

With the talk from Dusty a month ago of retirement, do you think the cubs let maddux walk?

 

The Cubs have no say in the matter.

did you not see the bold quote??? it appears maddux is giving the cubs an out...obviously with a buyout so which would you take, a buyout or maddux?

 

 

I read the quote, and I read it in he Suntimes this morning. Regardless, the Cubs have no say in the matter. There is no buy out. Maddux certainly has the right to retire, but the Cubs are in no position to make a unilateral move to keep him from the 2006 roster.

 

You asked if the Cubs let Maddux walk, and it is quite simple, it is not their call.

 

well I read it two hours ago, this morning, and last night....WHAT??

 

anyway, the cubs could certainly talk to maddux about restructuring, retirement, or a buyout. 2 out of those three the cubs would have a 50% call in....that is what I'm asking about, why so snooty?

 

No snoot on my part. You came up with "did you not see the bold quote??? "

 

The point is Maddux doesnt have to talk to them at all. It is up to him if he wishes to do that favor for the Cubs. It has nothing to do with your original question, which is what I answered.

 

Can the Cubs let Maddux walk? Again, no.

 

Can Maddux voluntarily give up money for next season? Well sure.

 

Do not be confused as to whose court the ball is in though.

[Derwood]

if you take away prior's april, which right now looks like a fluke...they have the basically same era while prior has 18 fewer starts. with his era steadily rising, more starts would hurt prior's stats, not help.

how can anyone say that a pitcher who has fewer wins, a slightly better era and has missed 18 starts has been a better or more valuable pitcher? you can not just overlook the missed starts to help your argument.

 

Ah, the old "if you take away stat X" argument. You can make any point by taking away any inconvenient stats.