goonys evil twin

$9 million good? If he wanted to come back at $750,000 to be that 5th starter, fine, but the problem is Hendry feels obligated to pay him for what he used to be, as opposed to what he is currently. And people will worry about the "slight" of offering what he's actually worth. Waste several million on Maddux and you are going to have a tough time filling the many other needs this team has to fill. Just like wasting money on Rusch and Neifi makes it difficult to find actual producers.

I'd rather the Cubs think about 2007 and beyond, which means finding rotation spots for young guys now to both gauge what they can bring to the table, and let them work through whatever struggles they are inevitably going to encounter. Maddux's last 8 starts with Chicago will be meaningless when all is said and done. None of them will have any playoff implications (for the Cubs). In 2 years nobody is going to look back on Maddux's career and think about how wonderful it was that he got to start another handful of times in August and September 2006, when the team was 20 games under .500 and a pathetic joke across the league.

Where was he with all the other young pitchers the past 3 years? I think it's more myth than anything else that Maddux has coached any of these guys into being better pitchers than they'd be without him. Marshall is simply developing along the lines that he was in the past. He's not lighting the world on fire. He's not doing anything special. He's been pretty much mediocre for the season, with a couple nice starts, a few bad ones and a bunch of ho-hum starts. I can't see any justification for claiming Maddux's influence has made him better than he would have been, because if Marshall was significantly worse he'd be pathetic. Maddux had a great April. But he's sucked ever since. Quality starts is a crap stat that doesn't mean a thing. 6 IP and 3 ER is not good. Maddux has far too many disaster starts this year, when he doesn't give his team a chance to win, and he's done that too much since rejoining the team. He's not a good pitcher anymore. And to top it off he's way overpaid. He's a horrible value at this point because you are paying for the name, and what he did in Atlanta, more than what he is capable of doing for this team. Maddux on the 2007 Cubs would be horrible. People have to get over their emotional attachment to the guy, because his past ties to the team and success in Atlanta is not relevant to the future. What matters is winning and Greg just doesn't help this team do that very much, and he just looks to keep getting worse. It's time to get past the thought that Greg Maddux is still good, because he's not.

I think it's pointless to look back and try and find good moves and bad moves. What matters is the big picture. A general manager's job is big picture. If the team sucks, it's his fault. You can't really get pissed at a GM who builds a 91 win team that falls a game short. But when you have an upper echelon payroll and build two consecutive horrible teams, you've done a horrible job. Trying to look at a deal or two that weren't all that bad on the surface is pointless.

The mark on him is the fact that the 2005 and 2006 Cubs have sucked. The Pierre trade is hardly the only blemish. It's a big picture problem that started long ago and is tied directly to his philosophies. And no, faltering prospects will not make him smell like roses.

It's not like if he opts out he's definitely gone. The Cubs would still be the favorites to get him. The one thing they have is money to spend, they just don't have many good free agents to go out and get.

I don't think trading Oswalt helps them down the stretch. It just might be a good move for the future though, both in terms of talent returned and not needing to sign his oft-injured body to a longterm deal. They should trade Clemens if they can.

Rusch has a career ERA of 4.88, not much worse than what Maddux has done this year. But team's have done stupid things for name pitchers (like the contract Hendry gave Maddux) If somebody think he's got 6 more really good starts in him, they might bite. But the fact is Maddux isn't that good, the hope is just that no better pitchers are available.

I didn't have a particular definition in mind (this is a poll taken from cubs.com, not my own). I think I'd consider an impact player to be a starting position player, or for a pitcher, a starter, setup man, or closer. I would not consider a setup man an impact player. I think an impact player would have to be somebody who is good enough to start for several years while being above average.

Indeed. The arrival of "veggie dog" can't be too far away :roll: I'm pretty sure I've already read about PETA, or somebody similar, petitioning them to add a veggie dog, or tofu.

Of course they'll retire 42 -- it's already been done by MLB (Jackie Robinson). I have a question, How come Mariano Rivera wears #42? Was he "grandfathered in" because he already had the number? Yes, Mariano, and others, were allowed to keep the number until they retired.

Cot's says he did, but it was just 2 years. Roy Oswalt p 2 years/$16.9M (2005-06) avoided arbitration 2/05 ($7.8M-$6M) 05:$5.9M, 06:$11M Cy Young incentive ($0.5M for 1st, $0.35M for 2nd, $0.25M for 3rd) contract also re-worked 10/05 to allow Houston owner Drayton McLane to give Oswalt a bulldozer for winning Game 6 of the 2005 NLCS 1 year/$3.25M (2004), avoided arbitration 1/04 1 year/$0.5M (2003) 2/03 1 year/$0.3M (2002) drafted 1996 (23-684) agent: Robert Garber ML service: 4.149 (free agent after 2007 season)

Bad idea for the team - great idea for the player. If he has a bad 2006 he still gets his money for 2007-2008. If he has a good 2006 he can opt out and have a chance at even more and longer money. From the player's perspective it's a great idea. Also, it's a negotiating point. The Cubs didn't just throw it in because they didn't understand how it works. Without the opt-out clause he would have cost more in guaranteed money. Or may have gone to free agency after 2005.

I'd understand next season if they were out of contention, but this season seems pretty odd. It's not like Houston is a legit contender. They are 3-7 in their last 10, and closer to the Cubs in the standings than the Cardinals (both in terms of place and games back). They are 7th in the WC standings and have not improved at all since Clements came on. Plus, Roy could make $15m in his final arbitration year this offseason and the team is really old and in line for a major overhaul (only Berkman and Ausmus are signed through 2007).

Casey is nothing special. He's about a 100 career OPS+, influenced heavily by a way out of the ordinary 2004 season. Otherwise he's been mediocre or worse since 2002. I think baseballreference.com lists Dmitri Young and Troy O'Leary among the most similar hitters. Actually Rusty Greer is his most similar. Detroit was getting an OPS over 800 from 1B this year. Are they expecting a guy who had a sub 800 OPS in a more hitter friendly park to really make them better? Yes, his OBP is an improvement, but it's not like he's got a Bobby Abreu OBP.

The Dodgers would be insane to trad Guzman, Kemp or LaRoche for Maddux. Yes, but here is a situation where Colletti's utmost devotion (some may call it blind devotion) to Maddux could really work out in the Cubs favor. I keep hearing the Cubs want 2 top prospects from LA. I'm holding out hope that he's still got that lovin' feeling for Maddux.

I doubt that. Attendance is up this year because there are more tickets available to be sold. And they were sold in the preseason, when some people were fooled into thinking 2005 was the fluke year. Remember, the Cubs enjoyed a huge spike in ratings and attendance after 1998, but when the team went back in the tank, that shrunk considerably. 2003 provided an enormous boost, and 2004's much played up achievement of back to back winning seasons convinced the vast majority that this was the group that was going to change everything. Contrary to popular opinion, the Cubs have not always sold out despite the record. Back in the 70's and early 80's, I believe, attendance was pathetic. They got boosts following the 1984 and 89 teams. But in the 90's it was very easy to walk up and get good seats for almost any game, including bleachers. It was also very easy to buy tickets when they went on sale in February over the phone or internet. The preseason sell-out phenomenon is very new. But it won't last if the losing continues. The tickets were already sold for this year, so people are going to use them. But ratings and attendance will fall if this continues. A drastic cut in payroll will also lead to a reduction in faith by fans that things will get better. Something they can't afford. The whole thing is based on people not wanting to miss out on the team that finally wins it. They saw how hard it is to get seats when they are winning, so they don't want to risk giving them up. But if ownership gives up, the fans will as well, and eyeballs will wander.

I think it was something to do with the fact that Ramirez gave up his first year of free agency by signing that deal. I believe he could have been a free agent after last offseason, had he just done the one year at a time arbitration thing. So, the opt-out was an incentive to delay the start of free agency by a year.

The biggest thing he'd want is more guaranteed years. It would be virtually impossible for him to make less per year. He could easily eclipse his current salary, but he would definitely get more years, and that is what all ballplayers want in their deals, more guaranteed years.

That's a big if. And a bad bet.

He probably thought the coach was too drunk to make the call. Win totals are an awful way to judge a pitcher.

I think it's pretty stupid to say you can see in their eyes that they want it, and the reason Hill has struggled is becasue he doesn't want it. Nothing but a bunch of predetermined jibberish. I don't have a problem bringing up some player on the Cubs, unless of course there's intent to stir the pot. Yeah, I think it's predetermined jibberish. But my point is there are tons of predetermined jibberish on these boards that aren't policed, so why is it some are and some aren't policed? I think the mods did a decent job of explaining their stance on this issue. But anyway, what the heck just happened to the offense. When was the last 6 run inning.

Yep. That being said, I'd include him in a deal if another team showed interest. I'd include any Cubs prospect in a deal, especially if it nets an impact bat. If he's not traded, he needs to start every 5th day.

Carlos Marmol?

I think it's pretty stupid to say you can see in their eyes that they want it, and the reason Hill has struggled is becasue he doesn't want it. Nothing but a bunch of predetermined jibberish. I don't have a problem bringing up some player on the Cubs, unless of course there's intent to stir the pot.