Maddux's numbers as a cub and you tell me if you see a pattern: 2004: 16W 4.02 ERA 1.18WHIP .269BAA 2005: 13W 4.24 ERA 1.22WHIP .275BAA 2006: 9W 4.69 ERA 1.29WHIP .284BAA (136IP) See the pattern? Do you think his numbers are going to get better when the stats clearly show his number declining every year? You throw away the April hot streak he was on and his numbers would look far worse. No thanks to Maddux. The numbers tell one story but what happens on the field next season isn't in any of those stats. And of course if you disregard the month of April his stats will look different. If you disregard the month of August they look different. Where is the reasoning behind cherry picking stats that a player put up? He put the numbers up, he owns the numbers, he made the pitches. To state the glaringly obvious, by doing this we can make anyone look good or bad. Sorry but this type of logic is as flawed as any other type of prediction based logic. Zambrano's ERA and has gone up 3 years in a row also (his WHIP was up and down) but strangely I don't know for sure that it will do the same in 2007. Do you? Then how can you be so sure that Maddux's will.... Either way, I do agree, as you said, Mateo, Marshall and Miller would be just fine as a 5th - especially considering the cost and the experience that Mateo and Marshall would gain. But I don't agree that Maddux's stats HAVE to be worse than the previous season's just because "the numbers say so". Numbers don't bat, field, pitch or run the bases - players do. How is this logic flawed? The stats I published was him as a Cub. I really don't think it would be fair to add his stats from last year when he was in LA due to the advantage he received pitching in Dodger stadium. Clearly, his numbers are dropping and chances are he will be even worse than last year. I just don't think it's a smart investment signing a declining Maddux to be our 5th starter when we have comparable starters available to us at a much cheaper cost.