JC

Shouldn't Connor Jackson also be in that mix?

Only if Darrin has bulked up and can push Neifi and Macias off to clear some space.

Which boss? Rothschild was brought in pre-Dusty. I don't know that there is any particularly strong relationship between the two. Dusty's guy is Pole, who could easily slide into the pitching coach's job. Further, I don't know how much Rothschild is enjoying himself. I could see him searching for greener pastures.

I think it was Raisin and Raw who took me to task on Mitre much earlier in the season. They made good points. I've just never seen enough to get excited. Of course, I also carried the Bobby Brownlie banner until he gutted me with its flag pole.

I just wondered about the atmosphere at the Cubs Convention in another thread. I should have opened this one first.

BP sure does love Dusty and the boytoys. I wonder what it will be like at the Cubs Convention next year? If they didn't screen questions in the past, they may consider it this year. While I don't doubt that Hendry will provide a vague, canned answer and Dusty will regail the room with stories of striped bass stealing his girlfriend away, it still wouldn't be a pleasant atmosphere if they were bombarded by tough questions from the crowd.

They must be. Maddux's option just vested. :twisted:

I think it depends on the player. I had a kid marred in a slump and had him drop a drag bunt and he hit 600 after that. It gets you out of that mental slump sometimes. I would not try that with ARam though.....Drew, why not depending on the situation. I agree. I thought the booth guys were being way too harsh considering the circumstances and the person at the plate. JD Drew bunting for a basehit is considerably different than ARam sacrificing.

Last year when JD Drew was with the Braves, he tried to bunt. At the time, he was mired in a pretty bad slump. He was also hitting clean-up. I can't remember which on-air team it was, but the announcers were beside themselves that he was bunting. Mind you, he was bunting for a hit, not a sacrifice. It could have even been Skip or Don Sutton. Does anyone recall watching that game?

I'm curious as to how many runs he has given up in those games and how these totals compare to others in the league. Go for it. That is too ambitious for me. EDIT: I deleted the remainder of my post as it didn't really convey what I wanted it to.

In response to an earlier post regarding run support, in 2005 the Cubs have scored an average of: -7 runs per Maddux win -3.64 runs per Maddux loss -4.4 runs per Maddux no-decision

Probably. The option vesting was discussed at the time of the signing, and then even during last season. Ah, I wasn't here then. It just kinda seemed like some "ARGH IM FRUSTRATED AND WE SUCK" venting, which is completely ok and natural.. especially when we are frustrasted and do suck. Just curious. Well, if you're feeling ambitious(or bored)....The Granddaddy of Maddux threads :shock: It kind of just spiralled into a lot of sniping and mod testing at the end.

I think it would merit discussion. However, if we were in the midst of a playoff push, I'd think it would be tabled for offseason debate.

Run support, like most statistics, has its flaws. But, what do you make of the fact that 19 of the the top 24 run support receiving pitchers have at least 12 wins? Are we supposed to ignore that? Are correlations not supposed to be even attempted? Maddux has certainly had his good days, particularly down the stretch, when run support wasn't needed. But, even if an individual breakdown of his wins and losses demonstrates that the bulk of his run support came during losses in which he was shelled, does that not detrimental to the argument that his contract was a good one? If your team scores 6,7,8, or 9 runs behind you, shouldn't you be winning those on a regular basis? If you aren't, wouldn't you agree that there is a problem that needs addressed at $9M?

Why does it have to be characterized as whining? Because it has taken up so many pages? Because it is contrary to how you feel about the situation? I find it ironic how most of the times when people describe another set of posts as "whining", that it is in fact there post that comes across as such. Your key point is that we have more pressing problems than Greg Maddux. That doesn't mean it is, in fact, the key point.

That's kinda my point though... we score more runs for Maddux, so who cares what his ERA is? That is an alarming position to me. Do you think we score more runs just because Maddux is on the hill? I doubt you do. If so, there ought to be an investigation why the Cub offense can so easily turn it on and off, and why the hell it isn't turned on all the time! If Greg continues his streak this year, it will largely be due to circumstances beyond his control. At least, beyond his control moreso than any other year. I'm not trying to diminish his feat, though there is an amount that is incidental to this discussion. What I am trying to do is emphasis that he is overpaid and that the justifications for that overpayment are not in the best interests of the Cubs. The issue and/or problem here is not Maddux. Rather, it is the organization and its evaluation process for FA's. As we approach the FA signing period, it is relevant to discuss the organization's history and approach to FA's in terms of both compensation and length of contract. I'm sorry to repeat myself, but with Maddux's option vesting this week, I thought it was ripe to discuss it. Thus, the thread.

One final point about wins. Maddux is 24th in the majors in run support for qualified starters at 5.51. Of the 23 players ahead of him, all of them have at least 12 wins (Maddux's total) except 5. Those include: -2 Devil Rays starters -Kris Benson with 9 wins -Jamie Moyer with 11 wins for Seattle -Chris Young with 11 wins for Texas. Thus, I would argue it is telling that 19 of the the top 24 pitchers in the majors in terms of run support have the same number of wins as Maddux, or more. It certainly lend support to the idea that wins are a team statistic rather than a pitching stat. For what its worth, Prior was at 4.69 and Z was at 4.71.

I didn't say we did. In fact, I don't. I just noted his possible availability since this is the transactions forum.

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.

It looks like Kyle might be available this offseason. If you want him, that is. Apparently, he went into a tirade after getting pulled from a game recently. I wasn't aware that he had a strained relationship with the Twins, but that seems to be the case from the article.

"Dude, I totally played a quarterback FBI agent... Totally awesome!" http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y168/m_scafide/099d5630.jpg Johnny Utah was no Shane Falco Shane Falco couldn't hold a candle to John Constantine.

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.

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.

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.

Wins? Innings? Justifying Maddux's contract vs. other underperforming players? Jesus Christ, I give up.