Caryatid

I never wrote that. I wrote "getting a C level prospect and Ryu 10 starts." My point this whole time is that trading Maddux for a C level prospect is pointless. The C level prospect referred to the player they would get in return for Maddux. Who am I to say what would be best for each-it really depends upon the player. And, like I wrote earlier, I doubt that the 10 starts one of them might get would make that much of a difference anyway. [/i]

"Gooey sentimentality" is what makes sports fun. My job has no gooey sentimentality, and that's why people don't pay $50 for a seat watching people file reports in cubicles. I don't necessarily want a GM with too much of it, but if it didn't exist, what would be the point of watching sports? Isn't this supposed to be about fun? What's wrong with a little sentimentality? it's more fun watching good teams than teams i want to hug and write poems about. Feel free to prove that the Cubs would suddenly go from a team that hasn't won in 95 years to a good team by trading one guy for a "C" prospect. feel free to prove how the cubs would suddenly go from a team that hasn't won in 95 years to a good team by keeping a 40 year old with a 4.70 era in the last year of his contract. Answer a question with a question...hmmm.... Anyway, I don't have to prove that, seeing as how I never claimed it to be true. I have claimed TWO things: 1. Keeping Maddux would be good for Marshall, etc., because they have expressed an affinity for him and claim that he has helped them greatly. 2. Keeping Maddux would be good because I enjoy watching him pitch These two things, in my opinion, outweight the cumulative value of getting some C prospect and having Ryu get 10 starts. That's what I have written. You are the one who claimed you wanted to watch a "good" team, therefore the burden of proof is on you. Go ahead.

"Gooey sentimentality" is what makes sports fun. My job has no gooey sentimentality, and that's why people don't pay $50 for a seat watching people file reports in cubicles. I don't necessarily want a GM with too much of it, but if it didn't exist, what would be the point of watching sports? Isn't this supposed to be about fun? What's wrong with a little sentimentality? it's more fun watching good teams than teams i want to hug and write poems about. Feel free to prove that the Cubs would suddenly go from a team that hasn't won in 95 years to a good team by trading one guy for a "C" prospect. It wouldn't be sudden, but it would mostly be about giving a chance to young pitchers instead of wasting more time with him in that slot. That's the type of move that good teams make. Good teams don't make sentimental decisions, they make efficient "how does this affect the team" moves. Cubs have had rookies make more starts this year than any team in baseball aside from the Marlins-they have shown a willingness to do that already. Getting Ryu 10 starts this year would do little, in my opinion, to affect this team long-term, and as such, moving Maddux for anything other than a decent prospect is pointless. The minimal likelihood that these 10 starts change the team for the better long-term is offset by the loss of a mentor in the clubouse (which, I know, is not a statistically provable commodity, but is one that I think has more value than 10 starts + a C level prospect).

"Gooey sentimentality" is what makes sports fun. My job has no gooey sentimentality, and that's why people don't pay $50 for a seat watching people file reports in cubicles. I don't necessarily want a GM with too much of it, but if it didn't exist, what would be the point of watching sports? Isn't this supposed to be about fun? What's wrong with a little sentimentality? it's more fun watching good teams than teams i want to hug and write poems about. Feel free to prove that the Cubs would suddenly go from a team that hasn't won in 95 years to a good team by trading one guy for a "C" prospect.

"Gooey sentimentality" is what makes sports fun. My job has no gooey sentimentality, and that's why people don't pay $50 for a seat watching people file reports in cubicles. I don't necessarily want a GM with too much of it, but if it didn't exist, what would be the point of watching sports? Isn't this supposed to be about fun? What's wrong with a little sentimentality?

At this point, I think it comes down to the issue of entertainment. I watch the game because its fun. If the question is between seeing Maddux pitch a few more times and seeing the Cubs get some worthless prospect, as a fan-I'll take the enjoyment of watching Maddux pitch. If its a question of seeing Maddux pitch 6 more times or getting a worthwhile prospect that will help this ballclub win in the future, I'll take the prospect. But, seeing as how ABOVE all else, this is entertainment, I'll take what I can for entertainment in this horrible season.

confused. Simple: if causation cannot be quantified by statistics (and they are not in this case), you must accept the word of those who are affected by his presence. They are as close as you can get to primary information. no way, no way, no way. you can't take guys for their word on that. they get asked all the time, what's maddux doing to help you? what have you learned from maddux? do you really think you can take them for their word when they say he's been a help? how do you expect them to answer? that is in no way close to primary information. You certainly cannot prove any causation or lack thereof from statistics, either, so this is as close as you can get to primary information. And its enough for me to say that his intangible value to the club is more than that of a "C" prospect. At this point, its a value judgment either way, as I believe that there is no quantifiable way to prove he's NOT helping the young players (as there is minimal foolproof evidence to prove he is), and as such, there's no real factual high ground here.

Kevin Youklis.

confused. Simple: if causation cannot be quantified by statistics (and they are not in this case), you must accept the word of those who are affected by his presence. They are as close as you can get to primary information. It doesn't change my argument in the least.

I thnk this recent hot streak should be recognized for what it is: a total destruction of the excuse given by Baker at the beginning of the year. He has the exact same players he had throughout most of the year (no Lee, minimal Prior, no Wood), and the team is winning-clearly it was capable of doing it throughout the year, and did not. Please, Baker--never, ever, ever ever try to use that excuse again.

If this is true (although his last two starts belie this), then there's no reason to trade him for a minimal prospect. What he brings to the team in terms of the clubhouse is not really worth a minimal prospect. If its a A or B prospect, however... What does Maddux bring to the clubhouse? 3 years of his veteran poise certainly hasn't produced the predicted mentoring effect on the other pitchers and if he stays he'll take away starts from rookies. And he sucks. At this point Maddux has NOTHING to offer the Cubs. You can't quantify this statement whatsoever. You can't say what he has or has not brought to the other pitchers, or what they'd be if he weren't there. There is no evidence to do so, other than the words of those pitchers who universally agree that he has had a positive effect upon them. As such, you can't say he has nothing to offer the Cubs. That said, let me make something clear: I am not against trading Maddux for a REAL prospect. I am against trading him for some roster-filler at AAA or AA, because its a pointless act that removes someone with debatable skills for the major league club and replaces him with someone who will never bring skills to the major league club. BTW-I would actually prefer that he take away starts from someone like Marshall right now, because I'd rather not see him ruined by Baker-if Maddux staying allows for the young players to get experience, but not arm-ruination, I'm happy with that.

If this is true (although his last two starts belie this), then there's no reason to trade him for a minimal prospect. What he brings to the team in terms of the clubhouse is not really worth a minimal prospect. If its a A or B prospect, however...

Prior and Wood aren't Santana and Liriano.

Is it possible to give all the NL awards to the AL this year? They could certainly make a case that the guy who finishes second in virtually every major award probably is having a better year than the guy in the NL.

Over-under on the number of posts before someone uses this to go on an Bill O'Reilly style rant using the phrase "political correctness" as some evidence of a great evil in the United States: 5.

That would be funny if it weren't so likely.

No, it's the date, after which the Cubs won't be making any meaningful trades. You don't trade perceived low end pieces after the deadline, you trade actual low end pieces for crap minor leaguers that don't do anything, just like he did last year. If you want the Cubs to make a significant trade, you better hope it's before July 31. The jist of the thread Gooney is this. Posters thoughout Blogland think Hendry is going to build a World Series Champion by trading Nevin, and Niefi among others, which is completely unrealistic. I believe what Hendry needs to do is to try and fill his most pressing need now. Even one trade, the rest of the season could achieve this. By doing so he can fill in the blanks through FA siging on the off season. He could trade for prospects and try to rebuild the farm system too. No he's not going to make a blockbuster trade. BUT, during the season is the best time to nab someones good prospect for your older vet because teams are trying to make the post season and load up on talent for the WS. So it can improve the team for next year in a way trading in the off-season can't. Think about guys we likely won't resign. Maddux, Nevin, ect. . If you can just get a couple decent prospects for them, you are actually getting something for nothing, because you won't have those players to trade in the off-season. Yeah! Someone get's it. Embrace the nothing!!!!! Obviously you don't get it. If you want to trade for meaningful prospects you better do it before the deadline. Gooney, take a step back and bearth a minute. Yes a trade before the deadline would be a great thing. Hip hip hurry, but don't count on it and don't get bent over the fact if Hendry does nothing. I'm not hoping he does nothing. I'm just not going to cry in my beer because he did nothing. Good deal's have been worked out past the deadline. Which appearently you don't agree with. Fine. Could you name some?

If only he hustled more-that's all that you need! Hit .220, get an OBP of .260, but try real hard...then we'll win the World Series! Don't forget scrappy guys. We need more of those! A few gritty ones too! Just like Aramis' lack of hustle shouldn't be considered one of the top few problems of this team, I don't think we should have these same sarcastic replies every time it's brought up. I wasn't the #1 fan of Augie Ojeda. I don't want a team of Doug Dascenzo's. But I also don't think we or anyone in the organization should accept a lack of hustle or poor attitude at times just because someone produces. There is some middle ground there and some in this thread have done a good job of defending that. Had the original post in the thread been less sarcastic, I believe the replies would have followed suit.

Just a side note: The A's are last in the AL in OBP. Kinda interesting.

Dude. D'Agostino's is terrible. The only people I've ever known to stomach it are from out of town. And to the original question, I know you're parking at your hotel, but if you are planning on getting there early enough to watch BP, you can find a parking space for free within a couple blocks at most. Also, if you scanned the first 30 pages looking for this topic, that is mighty impressive. Enjoy the game! I actually like some of D'Agostino's thin crust pizzas. This might be waaay old, but Do NOT dis D'Ag's. I live upstairs from there the first three years I lived in Chicago and literally lived on that stuff. It was like crack. They would actually just deliver it upstairs to us. With the $5 pitchers we got, many a night was forgotten there.

If only he hustled more-that's all that you need! Hit .220, get an OBP of .260, but try real hard...then we'll win the World Series!

One more thing: Pierre's career Pitches per plate appearance is 3.43. That means he's swinging early and swinging often. That doesn't bode well for this change in walk rate.

yes.. I definitely do NOT want the Pierre we saw in the first half, and what makes you say he will never start walking?? it isnt like he is striking out 50+ times a season. the most k's he had in any one season was 52 in 2002 with Colorado and he only had one other season where he k'ed more then 40 times. Just because you don't strike out that much doesn't mean you're a selective hitter. Quite the opposite, actually. A player who strikes out looking a lot shows that he has a pretty good command of the strike zone, and probably is getting called out on borderline pitches. A guy who doesn't strike out very much and doesn't have a .360 AVG is showing that, while he is good at making contact with the baseball, he isn't necessarily good at selecting the best pitch and hitting it to the appropriate spot. Pierre has never shown an ability to be selective at the plate and draw walks. His lack of strikeouts doesn't really pertain to whether or not he's selective.

When was that productivity exactly? Was that when the club needed him to step up and be a leader, when DLee was out. This guy has a history of not caring, making bad decisions and not hustling. Just like Kerry Wood, I expect the highest paid players on the team to do produce and be a leader. Not too much to ask. He has produced hugely every year he has been here. He's not a centerpiece player-does that mean he shouldn't be here? Why do people expect that anyone who has talent needs to fit some kind of hero role? There are second-tier players in the game that are incredibly valuable-Ramirez is one of them. Just because he doesn't root, root, root for the home team doesn't mean he's not incredibly valuable. This whole "leadership" junk is unbelievably overrated. Too many people would prefer a team full of Juan Pierre's (guys who aren't very talented but try really hard) to a team full of Aramis Ramirez's. One of those teams would win 80 times out of 100, and it ain't the team full of Juan Pierres.

Sorry, Pierre isnt below avg... nor is Jones. Rowand cant bat lead off... so I wouldnt want to give up Pierre to get him...On the other hand, Murton is below average... but he is also still in his first FULL year as a major leaguer.....so I am not ready to give up on him just yet unless it means getting a big name powerhitter to take his spot in left. Pierre's career OPS+ says otherwise. Pierre is mediocre at his very best. Jones, however, has a career OPS+ of 101, which is just barely above average, so you're right on that one.