MADDUX VESTING PARTY!!!

[neely crenshaw]

if you can assure the cubs will use the money better than, great! if we are not going to do anything more than sign steve trachesl...then i'll keep maddux.

if their was some history to the cubs to indicate they would make a bug free agent signing we could think about a buyout...but our big free agent signing under hendry is...maddux. unless you call it burnitz.

[JC]

Cuse, I don't dispute that I was on-board to bring in Maddux when the reports of his interest started circulating. Based on the team we had last year and following the playoff push, he seemed like a logical choice and a very complimentary arm to the staff. I never suspected that he would come here for one year, so it I figured he'd get at least a 2 year deal. I think it was a good two year gamble. It was the third year at $9M that later made me hostile to the contract.

[JC]

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.

 

Eh, it just seems like we are going in circles and got fed up. I don't care that people disagree. It just seems like everyone is arguing different points.

 

And, it isn't so obvious. I think it was KIL who mentioned Wood's contract and Moorecg who mentioned Patterson's contract. Those were the two that came to mind. I actually need to go re-read the thread because I don't recall a post of yours.

[CuseCubFan69]

Cuse, I don't dispute that I was on-board to bring in Maddux when the reports of his interest started circulating. Based on the team we had last year and following the playoff push, he seemed like a logical choice and a very complimentary arm to the staff. I never suspected that he would come here for one year, so it I figured he'd get at least a 2 year deal. I think it was a good two year gamble. It was the third year at $9M that later made me hostile to the contract.

 

But it was the third year that made this all happen. I never liked this deal either at any time and I just hope that Hendry has learned from it. IMO, it was a PR move as much as landing a decent starter and now it's time to pay the piper. Hendry gambled that the starters would keep the Cubs in contention and that the crud he put on the field would pick it up a notch to push the Cubs into first...he was wrong on both counts.

[thedaymen]

Hey, I'm happy Maddux is pitching allright. I'll take it. I hope he gets to 15 wins, of course, but he's going to have to end on an awfully hot streak.

 

That being said, the inconsistant nature of his performances, and I have him in a very deep fantasy league and he's killed me this year, make him the quality of a fourth starter. Whether he's actually the Cubs' #4 matters little in the discussion. You never know what you'll get out of him, its just as likely he'll pitch average, as it is he'll pitch great, as it is he'll pitch terrible. At this point in his career, he's not at the quality of Jon Lieber, or Steve Trachsel or Matt Clement, all pitchers that are solid #3 starters.

[scs_paradise]

double post Edited September 8, 2005 by scs_paradise

[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?

 

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.

 

so what exactly do you think maddux meant by "if they want me back" which is why I highlighted it, which is why I'm asking the question, it seems to open a door, I'm asking do the cubs walk through it. its not me that's putting the ball in the cubs court, its maddux....

[goonys evil twin]

so what exactly do you think maddux meant by "if they want me back" which is why I highlighted it, which is why I'm asking the question, it seems to open a door, I'm asking do the cubs walk through it. its not me that's putting the ball in the cubs court, its maddux....

 

I'm thinking he was showing off his humility, trying to play the humble card. He's leaving the door open for the Cubs to have a press conference with videotape showing Greg standing behind Speier giving fake signs to screw with the baserunners. If they want to dump him, they probably can. But it would be messy, and it's not realistic.

 

He's coming back. And he'll get his $9m one way or another. They could buy him out for $8.5 m, and he'll sign elsewhere for the rest (plus some). But basically it was a throw away line, completely meaningless.

[scs_paradise]

so what exactly do you think maddux meant by "if they want me back" which is why I highlighted it, which is why I'm asking the question, it seems to open a door, I'm asking do the cubs walk through it. its not me that's putting the ball in the cubs court, its maddux....

 

I'm thinking he was showing off his humility, trying to play the humble card. He's leaving the door open for the Cubs to have a press conference with videotape showing Greg standing behind Speier giving fake signs to screw with the baserunners. If they want to dump him, they probably can. But it would be messy, and it's not realistic.

 

He's coming back. And he'll get his $9m one way or another. They could buy him out for $8.5 m, and he'll sign elsewhere for the rest (plus some). But basically it was a throw away line, completely meaningless.

 

probably, but then his "I'd love to come back" line was throw away as well or possibly PR before he leaves so it doesn't seem like he didn't like being on two underachieving teams who whined like babies most of the time...

[Knightlife_in_Lubbock]

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.

 

See all arguments regarding Neifi's hot April. Or is it now the post-AS stats? :wink:

[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.

 

See all arguments regarding Neifi's hot April. Or is it now the post-AS stats? :wink:

 

Exactly. Those who choose to do disregard Neifi's April also tend to point to Lee's hot first half when championing him for the MVP award. Can't have it one way and not the other

[Illini Iceman]

Cuse, I don't dispute that I was on-board to bring in Maddux when the reports of his interest started circulating. Based on the team we had last year and following the playoff push, he seemed like a logical choice and a very complimentary arm to the staff. I never suspected that he would come here for one year, so it I figured he'd get at least a 2 year deal. I think it was a good two year gamble. It was the third year at $9M that later made me hostile to the contract.

 

But it was the third year that made this all happen. I never liked this deal either at any time and I just hope that Hendry has learned from it. IMO, it was a PR move as much as landing a decent starter and now it's time to pay the piper. Hendry gambled that the starters would keep the Cubs in contention and that the crud he put on the field would pick it up a notch to push the Cubs into first...he was wrong on both counts.

 

I guess I still don't understand the doom and gloom about the $9M next year and why there is this perception he now has to "pay the piper". His budget is in good shape for next year and he can pretty much afford to do whatever he wants in the offseason. I am sure he took into account that Remlinger, Sosa, etc came off the books in 2006 when he decided to give Maddux the extra year knowing that there would be plenty of wiggle room even with that $9M. If you go back to 2004 the Cubs had added Barrett, Lee, Walker, a full year of ARam, and Hawkins to a team that was just in the NLCS - not exactly "crud". Maddux may have also been good PR, but he primarily looked like a nice addition that would push the team over the edge toward finally winning a championship. Keep in mind that otherwise Mitre was the likely 5th starter. I hope Hendry did not "learn his lesson" if the lesson is that the next time the team seems to be on the cusp of a championship he should not extend and possibly overpay a bit to get a guy that could be the missing piece.

For all the general whining about the Tribune and Hendy not spending money and going all out to win I find it illogical that they are also getting ripped for spending "too much" in this case when it was IMO clearly a move meant to solidy a championship run.

[TruffleShuffle]

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.

 

We certainly have some good "picking and choosing" going on in this thread. Like pointing out how Maddux has the most innings and wins, but not the most losses and earned runs. The above is another example... I can point out these games:

 

4/10 vs. MIL - 3 ER in 5 IP (ND)

5/5 vs. MIL - 4 ER in 6 IP (ND)

5/15 vs. WAS - 4 ER in 5 IP (ND)

6/4 vs. SD - 3 ER in 6 IP (W)

6/20 vs. MIL - 3 ER in 6 IP (W)

7/21 vs. VIN - 3 ER in 5 IP (ND)

 

 

There are 4 games in which he was average to below average, but didn't lose any games. You can present the argument any way you want, but in the end it boils down to Maddux being a durable pitcher who is putting up average numbers. Next year he will be mediocre again, and so will the Cubs.

[Laura]

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?

 

I figured you'd get your second wind. :D

 

With Maddux, at best, they paid for past performance, which bothers me, at worst, they paid for nostalgia, which just ticks me off.

 

=; But getting emotional is reserved ONLY for Maddux supporters!

 

 

Ha, that said, I'm pleading for a time-out. I'm too tired to post anything of merit tonight. BBT.

[Brian]

not sure if this has beeen brought up but this article

 

http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20050908&content_id=1202764&vkey=news_chc&fext=.jsp&c_id=chc

 

makes it sound like the option isn't automatic, as if Maddux could decline it rather easilly.

 

Always modest, Maddux said after the game that he did not want to come back unless the Cubs want him to return based on his performance, not just because his contract says that he can.

[Laura]

It's hard to explain here that the Maddux streak is actually pretty damn cool.

 

Even though it's just wins.

 

Even though it's just more wins strung out than say, Cy Young.

 

Even though wins suck and they don't count, even though every pitcher you ever talk to says they want to win, and even though they might not get the win, they want the team to win, but they just don't know any better, obviously. They should be getting all worked up over their WHIP and BABIP and whatever else.

 

The point to getting Maddux always was that he wins games. That's what he does. He wins. And he's won.

 

There's a big disconnect between internet fans and chicagoland fans on that point.

 

I'm on Maddux's side. Sorry. He's delivered more than I've seen ya'll deliver.

[TruffleShuffle]

I'm on Maddux's side. Sorry. He's delivered more than I've seen ya'll deliver.

 

If that's the criteria, then you should also side with Gary Scott and Jeff Pico.

[Larry Horse]

It's hard to explain here that the Maddux streak is actually pretty damn cool.

 

Even though it's just wins.

 

Even though it's just more wins strung out than say, Cy Young.

 

Even though wins suck and they don't count, even though every pitcher you ever talk to says they want to win, and even though they might not get the win, they want the team to win, but they just don't know any better, obviously. They should be getting all worked up over their WHIP and BABIP and whatever else.

 

The point to getting Maddux always was that he wins games. That's what he does. He wins. And he's won.

 

There's a big disconnect between internet fans and chicagoland fans on that point.

 

I'm on Maddux's side. Sorry. He's delivered more than I've seen ya'll deliver.

 

Amen Serena

 

Maddux 2004-5 28 wins 407 IP 62 games started

Prior 16 wins, 262 IP and 44 games started.

Kid K 11 wins, 206 IP and 32 games started.

 

Maddux shows up every start and more often than not wins.

 

The true injustice is the obscene salary Wood will make next year, not that Maddux will make 9 million. At least you can count on Maddux taking the hill.

 

I would think the three things to look at regarding a pitcher are:

1. Does he show up on his scheduled day?

2. Can he pitch a lot of innings?

3. Does he win?

 

Maddux fits the bill on all three, much more than the supposed "Big 2" of Prior and Wood.

Edited September 9, 2005 by Larry Horse

[Peoriaman]

"wins don't mean anything"?

 

That's why the moneyball guys lose me. Yup, I'd rather have "whip" than "wins". Sigh.

[waffle]

Maddux doesn't whine.

Maddux is comfortable with his teammates

Maddux works with the other pitchers

he's a pretty good hitter

A gold glove fielder

Maddux can still eat up the innings

He's been remarkably healthy

 

Sure he isn't the pitcher he was, and $9 million is not cheap, but I think we got exactly what we were expecting out of him and I will be happy if he feels like he can still be productive and joins us again next year.

[ConstableRabbit]

It's hard to explain here that the Maddux streak is actually pretty damn cool.

 

Even though it's just wins.

 

Even though it's just more wins strung out than say, Cy Young.

 

Even though wins suck and they don't count, even though every pitcher you ever talk to says they want to win, and even though they might not get the win, they want the team to win, but they just don't know any better, obviously. They should be getting all worked up over their WHIP and BABIP and whatever else.

 

The point to getting Maddux always was that he wins games. That's what he does. He wins. And he's won.

 

There's a big disconnect between internet fans and chicagoland fans on that point.

 

I'm on Maddux's side. Sorry. He's delivered more than I've seen ya'll deliver.

 

Way to go Serena. Great post.

 

Look, I've read Moneyball, it's a great book, but context is very important - that book is about building a team, and when you're looking for a new pitcher, you're not going to look at wins as much as youre going to look at a stat such as WHIP or ERA. I think we can almost all agree on that. However, to say that wins don't matter during the course of a season (or 2) with a team is foolish in my opinion. I could honestly care less if a guy had a low ERA and BAA but didn't win. Does that mean that the pitcher with the most wins is the best pitcher in the league? that he's the automatic Cy winner? No. But one thing is clear to me Maddux is a winner, he always will be a winner, and despite the fact that yes, he is a little bit overpaid, he's probably the least of our problems.

[Peoriaman]

But one thing is clear to me Maddux is a winner, he always will be a winner, and despite the fact that yes, he is a little bit overpaid, he's probably the least of our problems.

 

 

 

Now that was well said.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

"wins don't mean anything"?

 

That's why the moneyball guys lose me. Yup, I'd rather have "whip" than "wins". Sigh.

 

It's not that wins don't mean anything. That's missing the point entirely. Wins are extremely important as it is the goal, but that is a team goal. What sabermetrics would assert is that wins is a poor metric to judge a pitcher's individual performance.

 

While I put little stock in wins as a way to measure the contributions of the pitcher, I still think 300 wins is a great accomplishment. To reach such a milestone, a pitcher has to be very good for a very long period of time.

 

Of course, as a fan all we should care about is whether the team got the win. Whip and ERA among other stats tell whether the pitcher is effectively doing his part to accomplish that goal.

[JC]

It's hard to explain here that the Maddux streak is actually pretty damn cool.

 

Even though it's just wins.

 

Even though it's just more wins strung out than say, Cy Young.

 

Even though wins suck and they don't count, even though every pitcher you ever talk to says they want to win, and even though they might not get the win, they want the team to win, but they just don't know any better, obviously. They should be getting all worked up over their WHIP and BABIP and whatever else.

 

The point to getting Maddux always was that he wins games. That's what he does. He wins. And he's won.

 

There's a big disconnect between internet fans and chicagoland fans on that point.

 

I'm on Maddux's side. Sorry. He's delivered more than I've seen ya'll deliver.

 

I didn't even know that Maddux had a side in this. Who is dumping on Maddux? Nobody faults him for signing the most lucrative contract available to him.

 

I love Maddux. I think the guy is a consumate professional. I still harbor a somewhat unhealthy grudge that the man was ever let go. I supported bringing him back and even argued that the risk was low that he would deteriorate too badly if they brought him back for a couple of years.

 

I really don't understand where this post is coming from with respect to the balance of this thread. I freely admit that he has contributed more to Cub wins than I have, or, frankly, any other person on this board. But, how in the world is that relevant?

 

Finally, I think it is inaccurate, and a little unfair, to suggest that just because people don't live in Chicago that they are disconnected with the Maddux signing. If you and/or others have received an emotional boost or nostalgic attatchment from Maddux's return, good for you. Criticism of the deal or lamenting of his declining numbers shouldn't take anything away from that. At least thats not my design or intention.

[Peoriaman]

Vance, I am not missing the point. I think the moneyball guys are. They go way to far in stat analysis. Stats aren't everything.

 

Again, Greg Maddux is the least of our problems.