abuck1220

"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. you got me. i can't prove the opposite of the thing that you admittedly can't prove yourself. it's like you saying unicorns exist and then saying you're right b/c i can't prove they don't. well played. No-you can't prove the opposite of the thing I never tried to prove in the first place. Good try, though. kinda like how you imagined me saying that trading maddux would make the cubs a good team. Its really hard to deny something that you wrote when you quote it in your post. yeah, except i didn't. feel free to quote where i said trading maddux would make the team good.

i guess this argument can be summed up as: you think it is more beneficial for the young cubs to watch/listen to maddux for the next two months and i think it is more beneficial for the young cubs to actually pitch for the next two months. neither of us can prove we're right. the end.

"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. you got me. i can't prove the opposite of the thing that you admittedly can't prove yourself. it's like you saying unicorns exist and then saying you're right b/c i can't prove they don't. well played. No-you can't prove the opposite of the thing I never tried to prove in the first place. Good try, though. kinda like how you imagined me saying that trading maddux would make the cubs a good team.

meh.

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. but the two months of knowledge from dean maddux will.

oh, one more thing. i don't like watching maddux pitch, so that should be a reason they trade him. it overrides your liking to see maddux pitch.

"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. you got me. i can't prove the opposite of the thing that you admittedly can't prove yourself. it's like you saying unicorns exist and then saying you're right b/c i can't prove they don't. well played.

"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). if ryu/hill/guzman are such low level prospects then why do you care if maddux is around to mentor them? do you really think they can gain more from listening to maddux talk about pitching (which he may or may not even do) than by actually pitching?

"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.

"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.

i'm actually still holding out hope that hill gets traded.

what's gained by keeping maddux? you may not be able to evaluate hill in that time, but you'll have a better chance to evaluate him if he starts than you will if he rots in AAA or on the bench.

marshall and marmol's inconsistencies and recent struggles are more telling to the amount of help maddux has provided than what they say he has provided. come to think of it, i don't really recall either one of those guys (or hill, or guzman) heaping praise on maddux much this year.

I think we have different definitions of this word. yeah, we must. for instance, i think a 1.17 whip and a 4.20 era is good. Yes and I consider an ERA+ of 97 to be below average. fine, he's horrendous and i wish he were dead. a 1.17 whip is good, and i didn't take the time to draft a thesis on the finer points of his statistics. i thought he'd be a decent 3/4 for the brewers (despite his woefully inadequate ERA+) given the fact that the brewers are a mid-market team. \You need to lighten up. I disagree that he's good, no need to get your panties all in a bunch. Take a deep breath. well, i guess it depends on how you view good. my point was that he's more than a mere inning eater, which is how someone described him. he's no, say, jered weaver, or anything.

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. I realize that. At the same time Greg Maddux is perhaps my favorite player of all-time and if we can't get anyone of any quality in return for him, I'd like to see him pitch 6 or 7 more times. I'm not saying it's going to be wonderful or I'll look back at these last two months with the fondest of memories. But I'd rather see him a few more times than seeing J.K. Ryu called up to get bombed. I guess I also think that people are overstating the importance of opening up a rotation slot for a youngster. Who is really knocking down the door to get opportunities to start in the majors right now? Who do we have that we need to evaluate for a starting spot next year other than Hill, Marmol (both getting starts right now) and Marshall? Furthermore, I don't think you gain a ton of information in your evaluation of a young pitcher based on 5 starts in the majors. and i think you're overstating the importance of getting to see your favorite pitcher pitch for your favorite team a few more times.

I think we have different definitions of this word. yeah, we must. for instance, i think a 1.17 whip and a 4.20 era is good. Yes and I consider an ERA+ of 97 to be below average. fine, he's horrendous and i wish he were dead. a 1.17 whip is good, and i didn't take the time to draft a thesis on the finer points of his statistics. i thought he'd be a decent 3/4 for the brewers (despite his woefully inadequate ERA+) given the fact that the brewers are a mid-market team.

I think we have different definitions of this word. yeah, we must. for instance, i think a 1.17 whip and a 4.20 era is good.

are we sure he's exempt? his cbs profile shows him w/ the big league team in 2003, though he didn't bat. did he get called up and not play?

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.

confused.

And my reliable fifth starter is....Kelvim? Billingsley? Wood? well, you can't have five aces, i guess. your starting pitching is certainly better than mine, regardless of who your #5 is.

i wouldn't mind lidge. dempster + prospect for lidge.

yeah, your starting pitching sucks...oswalt, halladay, liriano and webb. eww...

a team in contention doesn't need inning eaters. that's about the lamest attribute a guy can bring any team, actually. They do if they have a weak bullpen. that's gonna have to be a really weak bullpen if you'd rather throw a guy with a 4.70 era out there for an extra inning instead of going to the pen. i've just never understood the fascination with inning eaters. can't anyone be an inning eater if quality is irrelevant? I recall some on this very board several months ago calling for a signing of Jeff Weaver because he was an innings eater. For the most part, I agree with you that it's a worthless quality by itself. However, Maddux's 4.70 ERA and the hopes that his wisdom will rub off on younger pitchers looks attractive to teams with guys in the bullpen sitting around that same 4.70 who are 25 and have only a year or so of time in the bigs. i'm not saying he doesn't have value, but if kemp/guzman were to be traded, they would be the biggest prospects moved so far. and you'd think that if those guys were available, the dodgers could do better than maddux. i thought weaver would be a good sign for the brewers prior to the season b/c he was good last year, not b/c he ate innings.

tick, tick, tick... am i the only one who enjoys trading or was my team just so terrible that i had the most upgrading to do? i've been involved in 5 of the last 6 trades made in this league!