abuck1220

don't worry everybody, plesac used the word "proven" 43 times in describing izturis. i don't know if that's "proven" as in "juan pierre's a proven leadoff hitter," but let's cross our fingers that it is.

that's true, but i'd rather have two A ball prospects with 56.66 era's than have izturis' awful contract around the cubs' neck for 2007. and hendry's already pumped about having him around in '08.

and to avoid a repeat of this season he traded for exactly the same type of player that he built this debacle around -- speedy, good D, low obp, no pop.

nearly 9 mil for rusch, neifi and izturis next year. 9 mil gets you a good player.

hendry turned down "high-level prospects" (that's plural) for a crummier, more expensive version of neifi. he's the laughing stock of baseball right now.

well, sometimes you have to cut corners when you're a small market team. oh wait, we have the second highest payroll in the league.

i love the fact that hendry says they discussed top prospects, but they said they needed them for lugo, so hendry just accepts that and takes a horrendous contract off their hands. what a pushover. top prospects or a guy with 6 mil left to pay and a career .678 OPS...same thing.

Getting nothing back would literally have been better. Thats a joke. I rather get something, rather than nothing for him. well, then you should be disappointed b/c they did get nothing for him.

he seriously did not say that.

he's closer to being an outstanding MILF.

of course not. he'll just walk away at the end of the season with the cubs getting nothing for him. oh, and the infield will be neifi-cedeno-izturis-lee.

agreed. if you come back, i will make a beautiful scrapbook detailing the rest of your starts in a cub uniform...complete with ticket stubs, newspaper clippings, the works...i miss you, greg!

has anyone ever seen isiah thomas and jim hendry in the same room before?

wow, this guy never learns. how did the catch-tastic strategy work for you this year, jimmy?

oh, you gotta be kidding me. only hendry could do a deadline dump for a guy who's contract is expiring and still manage to make next year's team worse.

"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.