$10M for Maddux?

by SpudV on Nov 6, 2007 12:32 PM CST

I saw this today and I'm still scratching my head over it: the Pads will give Maddux $10M for a year of his pitching service. Is this money well-spent? Yeah, he's a great clubhouse guy and can help stabilize the pitching corps, but will they be fortunate to have each of his wins cost less than a million?

If he's supposedly worth $10M, I have to wonder what kind of coin Fukudome will ask for.

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of SB Nation or Al Yellon, managing editor (unless it's a FanPost posted by Al). FanPost opinions are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable baseball fans.

Tweet Comment 16 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

if you are an above average pitcher

these days you get 10 mil, i dont know how much less he would sign for, he's still preforming at a level higher than most, and for one year id have done that deal too.

Kevin Hart Watch: IP: 11 K: 13 ERA: 0.82 WHIP: 1.00 K/BB: 3.25 a productive farm system is a wonderful thing.

by kylejo on Nov 6, 2007 12:27 PM CST reply actions

No

He's not playing at a "level" better than most. In terms of ERA+, for example, he's league average. Mind you that's acceptable, but it doesn't mean he's better than most. Quite the contrary, he's in the middle.

by frustratedfan on Nov 6, 2007 3:04 PM CST up reply actions

give me a break

the guy is an above average pitcher, you'd have to be pretty obtuse to not see that. His 4.14 era was "league average" this year, but that's only because the league average dropped like a rock this year. His 1.24 whip is clearly above average, and he's a veteran who wins games. Definitley worth 10 mil on a one year deal.

Kevin Hart Watch: IP: 11 K: 13 ERA: 0.82 WHIP: 1.00 K/BB: 3.25 a productive farm system is a wonderful thing.

by kylejo on Nov 6, 2007 3:10 PM CST up reply actions

And he still wins Gold Gloves

17th this year

"Prince Fielder Dies Of Inside-The-Park Homerun" - The Onion

by DTJchris on Nov 6, 2007 4:27 PM CST up reply actions

Maddux is also approaching histroy

He will surpass 350 wins next year and begin a climb over the next 2 years to become the #3 pitcher all time in wins (#1 in the modern era). Certainly this will bring revenue back to the Padres.

by NO100 on Nov 6, 2007 12:40 PM CST reply actions

#1 in the Modern Era

I don't think he catches Walter Johnson at 417. That's 70 away. And I think Walter Johnson is "clearly" in the modern era. He started his career in 1907. Pete Alexander is also a modern era pitcher and is 30 wins away. Maddux has a shot at him.

I understand why the Padres paid him 10 million, but it really is too much for him at this point in his career. If Maddux hangs on for three more years with a few more declines, he's going to end up with 30-40 more wins.

by frustratedfan on Nov 6, 2007 3:03 PM CST up reply actions

OK so #2 in the modern era

but Johnson had at least one foot in the old one.

Maddux deserves what he gets. Personally, I think it's actually a bit low. If you base his salary on his stats, then you have a point, but a player often gets paid for putting butts in seats. Maddux will do that as he approaches history. It will tie San Diego to a historical mark as well, which the franchise hasn't had much of in it's existence, save for Gwynn's flirtation with .400.

Based purely on numbers, you're right, but there's more business than anything else in his salary.

by NO100 on Nov 6, 2007 3:55 PM CST up reply actions

Modern Era

I don't think that Walter Johnson had a "foot" in the modern era. He was born before 1900, but his first MLB game was 1907. That's 7 years after the general consensus for the start of the modern era.
And I just don't know if you can state with certainty that he's going to get the 27 wins to catch Pete Alexander.

Warren Spahn looks like a lot better bet.

by frustratedfan on Nov 6, 2007 7:10 PM CST up reply actions

Yes...

10 million for Maddux is still great value, particularly in that home park.

As for Fukudome, I'd expect to see something in the Julio Lugo grain. 4/36, or something in that neighborhood.

by Damen Jackson on Nov 6, 2007 12:58 PM CST reply actions

Agreed.

Along with Kuroda, I'd think the Cubs could get both of them for about $13-$14M per season.

And from what I've heard, they have room in the budget for this.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al Yellon on Nov 6, 2007 1:11 PM CST up reply actions

It is funny

how after several years, a contract that looked terrible at signing no longer looks so bad after inflation. So many people screamed and moaned over the Marquis deal. Yes, it was backloaded but compared to what a FA pitcher like Silva might get, Marquis' deal doesn't look so bad now.

by rlpete on Nov 6, 2007 2:56 PM CST up reply actions

Inflation?

Its not inflation. Its idiotic signings. No, the Marquis contract does not "look better". In the third year of the deal Marquis is getting nearly 10 million dollars for the season. To support this as an "average" salary (which is what an "average" player would receive) would require a team payroll of $250 million. And this is for a player that a good and smart team would replace with a rookie. Its assine signings like Marquis that keep the Cubs from actually competing. They have a bunch of "dead weight" that's just going to get worse.

Marquis, by himself, would be paid nearly as much as the entire pitching staff of the Washington Nationals got for 2007.

by frustratedfan on Nov 6, 2007 7:17 PM CST up reply actions

"Keep the Cubs from actually competing"?

So what was that last year? A mirage?

I'm not necessarily defending the money they gave Marquis -- it was way too much. But the Cubs made the playoffs. They ARE "competing", to use your word.

Your comparison to the Nats starting staff is meaningless. 13 pitchers started at least one game for Washington in 2007. Of those, only four (Simontacchi, Williams, Patterson and Redding) had had even ONE full season as a major league starter BEFORE 2007. Of course they're going to get paid less.

Either Marquis or Dempster, now that he's been named a starter, is probably going to be moved this offseason.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al Yellon on Nov 7, 2007 4:16 AM CST up reply actions

Marquis contract is high

but it's not looking that bad considering it is only two more years. Don't be surprised if Silva signs a deal for more than Marquis'. As for the Cubs competing, he actually helped the Cubs last year. What would have happened if they relied on the kids from 2006 than you proposed like Guzman, Mateo and Marmol in the rotation? In addition to having a hole in the rotation, the Cubs may never have realized that Marmol's home is in the pen.

by rlpete on Nov 7, 2007 7:56 AM CST up reply actions

$10 Million because

He never misses a start and nearly always keeps you
in the game. I predicted this exact contract in an e mail to
friends three weeks ago because it was a no brainer. Since
Maddux pitched 198 innings and he would have automatically
gotten 10 million if he had pitched 200 it was pretty easy for Boras to show a few games where he was pulled early ( and there
more than a few). The Padres were in no position to lose their number 3 starter and both Black and Towers have states several
times he is worth his weight in gold for what he can show their
young pitchers.

17th and record GOLD GLOVE !!!

Damn I miss him but no he is happier where he is.

"It's the Cubbies. There's always a vibe. It's the greatest vibe in baseball." Greg Maddux on Cub fan's optimism even after the 06 debacle.

by jessica on Nov 6, 2007 4:39 PM CST reply actions

I Had a Hunch ...

you (Jessica) would leave a comment about your favorite player. Yeah, he's worth his weight in gold and all that, it just seems like alot of money for a #3 (or 4) pitcher on the downside of his career, even if it is a HOF career. Maybe I'm not used to the coin being thrown around for MLB talent. It's amazing that he can still get hitters out with a fastball that's lucky to get into the mid-80's.

You're the first one to say you miss him on the Cubs, which brings up another point. If he had a few years left in the tank, then why did the Cubs let him go? At the time it seemed to be a numbers issue, where the Cubs had plenty of young prospects they wanted to put in the starting rotation. As it turned out, the Cubs brought in a few arms and eventually ended up near the top of the league in team ERA (last season) after the toothpicked-one cleaned out his locker.

Now it seems more like Maddux was at a point in his career where he could set his own terms on where he wanted to play. You don't see that much any more.

Pie, Fontenot, Theriot and Soto up the middle ... yippie oh, oh, oh!

by SpudV on Nov 7, 2007 9:04 AM CST up reply actions