abuck1220

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!

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?

a team in contention doesn't need inning eaters. that's about the lamest attribute a guy can bring any team, actually.

in a heartbeat. i gotta think maddux is staying. i don't see any way that the dodgers are that crazy, and hendry's foolish stubborness will keep him from dealing maddux for nothing.

so....i guess i'm putting all my guys on waivers???

why's that? just because you say it? he's got a decent whip, but he's got a 4.70 era, and his era is well over 6 since april...that's fifth starter material.

Glad to be of service. :D much appreciated! the bulbs put up a good fight as well...fourth highest point total in the league this week. but i'm finally starting to get some good starting pitching, and my bullpen outscored his 35 to -3. i now have the top three RP in the league!

man, hendry is dreaming if he thinks he's going to get something good for a borderline 5th starter. it'd be just like the cubs to keep throwing maddux out there for the rest of the season for senimental reasons.

wow, great week for me. that three way tie is broken w/ losses for buddiga and HBC (assuming points don't change too drastically over night). not only that, but i racked up 370 points on the week, gaining about 100 points on both buddiga and HBC, which could be huge for tiebreakers. oh, and i traded for the #1 2b and the #2 3b. :D

i don't get the 'might as well keep him' idea. what possible benefit can come from him staying? even if the cubs give him away, at the very least it opens a rotation spot for hill/guzman. nothing can be gained by keeping him.