Transmogrified Tiger

If the DH enters the field, the pitcher has to hit for himself. In this case, it would mean removing Pujols from the game.

I didn't say it was fair. I'm only talking about public perception, which is the only thing that really matters from a PR standpoint. The media and other players aren't going to care about Maddux treating the game as a business, they're just seeing "the Cubs ripped off Maddux".

I just can't see the Cubs for one doing that to Maddux, the future HOFer come home. Secondly, because Maddux is who he is, an intentional effort to stop his option from vesting would be pretty noticable and draw a lot of negative attention from the media, and ultimately other players. I really hope that the option doesn't vest, but I think the best hope for that at this point is an injury, or Maddux deciding to retire.

Skip his starts or start pulling him after 5 innings. Maybe it would be panned by the media and considered classless, but it's better than wasting $5M of our limited resources for next season. And what happens if no one takes the 5 million because they saw how the Cubs ripped off Maddux?

Have you read this thread? These arguments have gone in cycles every several pages, you'll likely find the rebuttals to your arguments already posted.

Me neither. Although the more I think about the situation, the more upset I am with Sisco.

I don't think that last year's second hand numbers are at all relative to the debate. IMO, the all-star game is about rewarding the best players that year. Predicting what they will do after the game, or going on performance prior to this year isn't fair. If I had to pick which one I wanted on my real team, I'd obviously pick Pujols, but that's not what the All-Star game is, to me at least.

I hate it when 3rd basemen bobble those 6-4 fielder's choice. Let the shortstop take it already! :D

He didn't have a choice. There was no other OF available to replace Hollandsworth in the OF, unless you want to put Ronny Cedeno at third and Macias in LF. Unfortunately the Cubs are playing with a short bench right now, and while you'll usually score with 1st and 2nd, none out, you can't just go for broke and have a terrible defensive setup if you don't score there. Meaning, maybe, just maybe, that he shouldn't have brought Holla into the game in the first place. If you don't have enough confidence in Holla to hit, and that spot is due up 4th in the bottom of the 9th, maybe the slight defensive edge Holla would provide in a 1-run game isn't worth letting Dubois play 9 full innings for once in his Cub career.

and again... wow

wow

Have you read any of this thread?

Right here. It sucks that we're going to lose Sisco, but I still say it was the right move to make at the time. Its never a right move when you can lose any of your top prospects. Trading away Justin Jones was the wrong move? I think he meant for nothing in return.

Right here. It sucks that we're going to lose Sisco, but I still say it was the right move to make at the time. Its never a right move when you can lose any of your top prospects. Okay. I've argued this topic too many times, my points have been made. It can go both ways, I would've done it, you wouldn't have. Fair enough.

Right here. It sucks that we're going to lose Sisco, but I still say it was the right move to make at the time.

Dubois hasn't been gaining any PT, there's just been an abnormal amount of LH starters lately. Dubois only has 4 AB's v. RH pitching this year. Compare that to 11 v. LH for Holla, and the fact that Macias and others have come in for Dubois when a RH was up.

I don't want to nitpick, but Fox is only making 575k this year. I can understand being upset that Dusty brought in Fox(I know I was), but how are we blaming him for the injury?

It's such a contradiction. He plays Neifi and hits him 2nd because he's hot, yet has him bunt often because he knows that Neifi isn't good.

ARGH! :wall:

I'm convinced now Dusty plays by his own rules. He'll go with the righty/lefty matchup religiously to get Macias out there. Then the L/R comes around tonight, and he refuses to take out Hollandsworth for Dubois, despite doing the same thing after Dubois had been doing well in that game(Holla was doing well last night too). Just stick to something Dusty.

That is just a hard one for me to swallow. You aren't the only one who has speculated that Sisco would just be the same old mess this year. I suppose some will think this is ironic, but I'm more optimistic that it was simple immaturity that he could grow out of. Zambrano is afforded growing pains. Sisco should have be allowed the same, IMO. I don't think he's implying that Sisco would be some egomaniacal jerk his entire career, just that his turnaround from this offseason to this season wouldn't have happened had he not been left unprotected. :thumright: I understand what you were saying, Tim. I just think in your original post which had a number of good objective points in it, that your subjective opinion about Sisco not being able to have the same results as a Cub didn't really fit. Who's to say? Perhaps it was just his time to mature? Perhaps it started to "click" for him in the offseason, notwithstanding what team he was on? I could've sworn I read something that said the Cubs not protecting Sisco was his primary motivation in his reformed attitude/work ethic/weight/whatever.

That is just a hard one for me to swallow. You aren't the only one who has speculated that Sisco would just be the same old mess this year. I suppose some will think this is ironic, but I'm more optimistic that it was simple immaturity that he could grow out of. Zambrano is afforded growing pains. Sisco should have be allowed the same, IMO. I don't think he's implying that Sisco would be some egomaniacal jerk his entire career, just that his turnaround from this offseason to this season wouldn't have happened had he not been left unprotected.

The difference is something versus nothing. The Cubs are likely to get absolutely nothing out of a huge asset, that's indefensible, and inexcusable. The option clock thing is a cop-out. You don't just let a guy go for nothing when he was so highly regarded. You know he has value. So he had a setback. Big deal. Few prospects avoid setbacks. 3 years isn't exactly a brief moment in time. If you couldn't develop him into somebody who could stick, at least in the pen, in 3 years, then maybe you should look at your developmental people. The fact is the Cubs screwed up. It isn't the first time and it won't be the last. Hopefully they can overcome this screwup, and win without that asset under their control. But that still wouldn't negate the fact that it was a screw up. After last season, do you honestly think Sisco would stick on a ML roster all year?

Holy hyperbole, Hendry isn't a fool. He took a calculated gamble that doesn't look like it is going to pay off. Some wouldn't have made that gamble in the first place, myself I would have. And that gamble will cost us one of our top prospects. Protecting him might have ultimately lost him too, it's not a one-way street. I don't understand what you are getting at here. All players are subject to being lost at some point during their tenures with organizations, in various ways. Protecting Sisco is just an easier way of saying "ensuring future control" over him. Yes, it would have started his option clock, but that still provides years of control at minimum cost. The option clock thing is pretty big. Sure they control him, but he has 3 years to go thru AA, AAA, and stick in the Majors. It's not uncommon for HS power pitchers to take a long time in developing, so he wouldn't be a non-prospect by the time that he made it if he took longer. By keeping him and putting him on this accelerated schedule, you likely are not going to be able to get the best value you can out of Sisco. Sure, at some point you could deal him for something, but then people would still argue we got a poor return on a big investment on the farm. With the number of pitching prospects above him that were already further along(Guzman, Pinto, Brownlie, Mitre, Nolasco, etc.), and coming off a decidedly average campaign where questions arose about his work ethic and weight, it's not a huge stretch to think he won't stick in the Majors a full year, therefore getting another year of development out of him without having to put him on track to have to stick in the Majors. Unfortunately, Sisco took that as a slight, shaped up, and is performing admirably for KC. It's a mistake in hindsight, but at the time, it wasn't a no-brainer by any means.

Holy hyperbole, Hendry isn't a fool. He took a calculated gamble that doesn't look like it is going to pay off. Some wouldn't have made that gamble in the first place, myself I would have. And that gamble will cost us one of our top prospects. Protecting him might have ultimately lost him too, it's not a one-way street.