Paul Maholm Signs With The Cubs
by Marc Normandin on Jan 10, 2012 9:01 AM EST
in News
Email
Print
The Red Sox have lost out on a starting pitcher they were looking into, as the Chicago Cubs swooped in and signed Paul Maholm this morning:
@ESPNChiCubs
Bruce Levine Breaking news; Chicago Cubs sign LHP Paul Maholm to a 1 yr 4.25 million deal with club opt 6,5 for 2013. 500k B out
FavoriteRetweet
One year at $4.25 million is an absolute steal for Paul Maholm, but that's not what this deal is. The option is likely what sealed things for Maholm, and is also likely what kept the Red Sox from matching. In 2012, Boston's rotation has two holes that need to be filled (with Daniel Bard likely taking one of them), but in 2013, that's not the case. John Lackey will be back, and given he just had Tommy John surgery, should resemble the pitcher they signed (or at least the average 2010 version) rather than what showed up on the mound in 2011. Maholm will likely have his option picked up in Chicago, given the low cost and their effort to reload. Boston isn't as much of a guarantee, and declining an option that wasn't signed in good faith -- especially if a guy performs as expected -- isn't a great business practice, either.
And that's before you add in that Maholm gets to stick in the the National League, and in the division he's accustomed to, without having to fear the bats of the American League East. I wouldn't be shocked to find out that Boston's offer was similar, or even for more money, but on a one-year deal. The combination of the option and sticking in the easier NL might have been too much for Boston to contend with without paying Maholm a little too much.
Other options remain: Joe Saunders is still out there for whenever he stops demanding three years and ridiculous money, and Hiroki Kuroda claims he is staying in the majors rather than going back to Japan. With Maholm gone, expect to see the chase for Kuroda speed up, assuming he can be had for money that makes sense (and not the $13-14 million that both the Yankees and Red Sox seem wary of paying).
93 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Boy howdy.
This is just skippy.
Un-freakin’-believable. Maybe someone should inform our FFO (Front @#$%ing Office) that we are over a @#$%ing barrel here and need some @#$%ing pitching.
PITCHING.
Get Bloggy a goddamn starting pitcher!
@#$%
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
OTM | Silver Seven
KITTY!!
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
OTM | Silver Seven
To quote Bubbles from "Trailer Park Boys":
Fuck I love kitties.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
OTM | Silver Seven
Disappointing
but Ben has to be sensible with the money. Joe Saunders would be next on my list, but if we aren’t going to be able to stay under the luxury tax threshold we might as well splash out and go all in for Kuroda. My feeling is we only have to beat the Yankees on price and he will either accept or go back home.
I don't really think the Club Option should be that much of a deal breaker
For all we know, the Cubs are hoping for a good year from him and can decline his option and collect a pick or two next offseason.
While we will probably need to make room for Lackey next year, there’s no guarantee that there won’t be any setbacks or that one of our other pitchers goes down with an injury or is completely ineffective or Bard’s transition to the rotation goes well. I wouldn’t have had any problem including a Club Option if I was the Red Sox FO.
by South Coast Ghost on Jan 10, 2012 9:15 AM EST reply actions
They would have to decline his option then offer him a much better deal before they could receive any picks under the new CBA
Forgot about the qualifying offer
Is that for all FA’s or just Type A’s?
Still, this is a deal the Sox should have and could have matched or exceeded. I’m holding out hope we hear soonish that the Sox really liked him but he wanted to stay in the NL Central.
by South Coast Ghost on Jan 10, 2012 9:18 AM EST up reply actions
Yes, exactly.
BLAAAARGH OMFG SIGN SOME STARTERS!!!
I said I’d be patient until the dominoes started to fall, but this is one. We better make a move now.
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til next year!
Or rather try to be patient...
… we all know I’ve been solidly in the OMFG camp, so I haven’t probably shown any actual patience so far.
But now I have even less…
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til next year!
Hypothetically
what’s stopping a GM from putting a team option on a contract in bad faith? “Red Sox decline 7 year, $450 million team option on Roy Oswalt.”
I would think team options don’t hold a ton of persuasive power for a free agent.
by dennet on Jan 10, 2012 9:19 AM EST via mobile reply actions
Hypothetically, either nothing could stop them or Selig would
I guess it would depend on why you included the option. If it was to try and circumvent the AAV somehow like we did with Beltre, Selid would probably void the contract. Otherwise, it could just potentially turn other FA’s off of your GM/team when dealing with them in the future.
by South Coast Ghost on Jan 10, 2012 9:23 AM EST up reply actions
I really thought Maholm would have been a great fit
with more money than that and two years… but whatever. I’m disappointed that he was as cheap as he was and we didn’t get him.
As others have said, the club option is more of a benefit for the club than it is for the player- think of it as a $4.75 million one year deal instead, and it’s still a damn good deal for him.
This is exactly how I see it.
$4.75 million for 2012, and if he does well, $10.75 million over two years (does that option mean this has an AAV effect of $5.5 million or so??)…
For the love of God, we better have offered him at least that much. If he chose the Cubs to stay in the NL, against familiar hitters… fine. If we offered less than that, though, I’m going to wonder if our FO sees our rotation in as much shambles as we all do.
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til next year!
no, the AAV for this year is $4.75
because it’s the amount guaranteed. If they picked up his option next year, then next year, his AAV would be $6.5
Seriously.
This pisses me off so much.
With what we know of the budget, I feel like $4.75 million this year would have been worth paying him $6.5 in 2013. (Lord knows we’re going to need another SP next year, no matter what we think we’ve got now…)
And if we wouldn’t swing this deal for Maholm, who do we think we’re getting and what are they willing to pay him?
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til next year!
It's a sad day when not signing Paul Maholm causes this much angst
Mholm was a good fit for Boston, but he was hardly a fix-all. The back-end of this rotation is going to depend on Bar or Aceves converting to a starter and someone stepping up and taking the fifth slot out of Spring training. I still think we need to sign one more guy and it would be great if that was Oswalt or Kuroda, but that might not happen. Regardless, I can only get so upset at missing out on Paul Maholm.
- Matt Sullivan
"I would change policy, bring back natural grass and nickel beer. Baseball is the belly-button of our society. Straighten out baseball, and you straighten out the rest of the world." Bill "Spaceman" Lee
www.overthemonster.com
www.spacemanspancakes.wordpress.com
yeah it wasn't a fix all
but it would’ve been a nice, cheap, effective way to make it so we’re only relying on Bard OR Aceves to convert, rather than both
If Bard/Ace is our plan for FOURTH starter...
we are in a lot of @#$%ing trouble.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
OTM | Silver Seven
He wasn't a fix all
But noone wanted him expecting that from him. They wanted a solid #4 who could throw 180 innings at something not as bad as John Lackey. He fit the hole we have (in my opinion, of course)
Not the end of the world, I agree. But for $4 million bucks?
by The Name is Dalton on Jan 10, 2012 11:54 AM EST up reply actions
Right... if we weren't willing to give him $11 million over two years...
… exactly how much are we willing to spend on someone else for 2012?
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til next year!
Watch this whole thing be an elaborate smokescreen...
The interest in/pursuit of Maholm, all just to get Joe Saunders to reduce his asking price.
by South Coast Ghost on Jan 10, 2012 9:29 AM EST reply actions
Ugh
what seems like a steal for Paul Maholm also seems like the absolute ceiling that Saunders should make.
Whatever, when Kuroda makes his decision, that’s when I’ll be getting worried.
Agreed
I’m hoping for a one year deal with Kuroda or Oswalt, Maholm never got me twitterpated.
Quantum Woodworking: Hand crafted pens, bottle stoppers, bowls and more.
Check out our blog
by brogshan on Jan 10, 2012 9:42 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I like Maholm plenty
But as you said, there’s no reason to worry too much until the other options are off the board.
The clock is ticking for these players even more than it is for the teams looking to sign them. We’re what, five weeks from spring training?
Twitter: @Marc_Normandin
by Marc Normandin on Jan 10, 2012 9:48 AM EST up reply actions
YAY for ST countdowns!!
NBA Officiating - Corrupt? Incompetent? Which is worse? Does it matter? It sucks.
However, this is one of our options gone.
And we’re not the only team out there looking… not sure how much longer we can afford to wait with the rotation we have right now.
If the Yankees sign Kuroda or Oswalt before we sign a starter, what’s that going to do to our bargaining position?
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til next year!
At least Saunders eats innings
Maholm was a bad idea. He:
a)had inflated success due to being a lefty in a big left field park.
b)Can’t K anyone.
c)Averages about 180 innings a year.
Saunders:
a)had inflated success last year due to a high strand rate.
b)Can’t K anyone.
c)Threw 212 innings last year.
Saunders is one of those guys who has systematically overperformed his peripherals each full season (about 800 straight innings). What we want in the back end is a league average type pitcher who can eat innings. I don’t see Saunders as being really any worse of a pitcher than Maholm (at least not in any dramatic way) and he is likely to give you about 20-30 more innings. If he can be brought in cheap, then he is fine.
My dislike of Saunders
is probably completely irrational (but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist). He’s not a good pitcher at all, though is likely to be better than Lackey if they get him.
When him and Lackey were with the Angels, I always thought of Saunders as Lackey’s left-handed mini-me. If we had both on the team, I might cry.
Saunders is as good as Maholm
and pitches more. In fact if you look at this year’s James projections Saunders ERA-4.20, Maholm, 4.22. I would take the guy with the ability to eat more innings. It is true that Maholm is a slightly better GB pitcher, but I think overall his HR supression was a function of a cavernous LF in his home park (you can see it in his career splits).
Maholm's career HR/9 on the road is 1.02
And is really just hurt by his 2007 season. Saunders’ career HR/9, either at home or on the road, can’t beat that.
by South Coast Ghost on Jan 10, 2012 10:18 AM EST up reply actions
Eh
While neither are aces waiting to happen, I think Saunders actually CAN do worse than Maholm next year.
Before only throwing 160 innings last year Maholm was almost as much of an innings eater as Saunders was. He DOES do better at home than on the road, but his FIP/xFIP differences between the two aren’t that large. Saunders is also helped on the road by pitching in parks like AT&T, PETCO and Dodger Stadium, all bigger ballparks home to paltry offenses. On average the offenses in the NL Central are definitely better than those in the NL West. Even when he was on the road Maholm gave up less HR/9 than Saunders did on the road. Maholm has a pretty good career GB% and with a better infield defense can do better. He strikes out more people than Saunders and only walks a tiny bit more.
Also not sure about him “systematically overperforming” his peripherals each full season. Definitely last year and 2008, otherwise, his ERA isn’t too far off of his FIP/xFIP
by South Coast Ghost on Jan 10, 2012 10:15 AM EST up reply actions
Disagree
Saunders pitched half his games in a launching pad. Maholm has a career increase of 0.4 HR/9 on the road, Maholm has exceed 200 innings once, Saunders averages 200 innings over his last 4 years, Saunders always overperforms his peripherals, Maholm usually underperforms them, Saunders has pitched in the AL, Maholm not.. there is no rational argument that Moholm would be worth more to the Sox than Saunders. To only rational argument is that they are a wash at best.
Maholm has pitched in front of terrible, terrible Pittsburgh defenses.
Saunders has often had good help behind him.
That helps explain a good bit of that.
Saunders, meanwhile, is a lefty in Fenway with fringe-average GB rates and worse peripherals.
Over the Monster -- SB Nation's Resident Red Sox Site
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Jan 10, 2012 10:41 AM EST up reply actions
a 46% GB is far from "fringe"
and while agree about the defensive difference between the teams the 2 have played on, it is a bit of a leap to correlate that strongly with how well a given pitcher does or does not do with respect to peripherals. Saunders certainly has worse peripherals, but he has also played the majority of his year in the AL where you should see worse peripherals, you know-that pitcher thing. Even so-their career xFIPs are not very different (e.g. 0.3 where you expect that to be about the difference in AL/NL).
What?
Last 4 years of Saunders – ~200 innings per season
Last 4 years of Maholm – ~187 innings per season
I also disagree about Saunders ALWAYS overperforming his peripherals. His ERA was just about where his FIP/xFIP where in 2010, in line with his xFIP in 2008, and actually slightly higher in 2007
by South Coast Ghost on Jan 10, 2012 11:02 AM EST up reply actions
Right-
13 innings means something. Get 13 innings from each of your starters and that is one less relief pitcher. Maholm’s better peripherals are simply a function of the NL/AL difference-at least a large part is. They are a wash aside from the innings.
Last year WAR had Maholm about 1 win better than Saunders in about 50 less innings
If you want to argue Maholm is a bit of a gamble because of his injury last year, sure, I’ll give you that.
Last year they were both in the NL and Saunders had one of his worse K/9 rates. He should have theoretically had BETTER K/9 numbers, not worse now that he had to face a pitcher.
Career numbers: ERA/FIP/xFIP
Saunders: 4.16/4.65/4.52
Maholm: 4.36/4.21/4.22
Given that they’ll likely cost around the same amount, I’d rather take the gamble that Maholm does better than Saunders due to an improved defense instead of those 13 extra innings. If there were on the same team I’d even wager good money on Maholm being better.
by South Coast Ghost on Jan 10, 2012 11:13 AM EST up reply actions
Besides
wouldn’t your 4/5 guys have to pitch less innings anyhow, given that the Top 3 would (hopefully) get more starts?
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
OTM | Silver Seven
Also
Just how desperate/bored do we have to be to argue the merits of Paul Maholm versus Joe Saunders?
That said, I’d take those 187 innings of 4.22 ERA (his career xFIP) over 200 innings of 4.52 ERA. But that’s just me.
And I’m probably biased considering Saunders a) was an Angel at one point in his life and b) was overrated early in his career due to the run support he got and all those WINZ!
by South Coast Ghost on Jan 10, 2012 11:24 AM EST up reply actions
Seems to me one of the first discussions I got actively involved in here at OTM
was a Joe Saunders discussion.
MEMORIES
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
OTM | Silver Seven
I agree
about no need to argue-my whole point is that Maholm is not in any significant way better than Saunders. The “whopping” 0.3 better xFIP largely accountable to park difference, league difference, is noise.
However, the association with Lackey...
… as mentioned above… also makes me not want Saunders. Didn’t Lackey already do enough damage?
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til next year!
Hey, I thought they were compelling arguments.
At the moment, both are better than the guy we have in the #4 spot, in my opinion.
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til next year!
?
His career ERA-FIP is -0.5. Why? It looks like Saunders is a significantly lower babip pitcher than Maholm who has a better ability to strand runners. Is this just noise? I have no idea, but that is what their careers look like when viewed both on average and year by year.
I think it's because
Maholm has played in front of Pittsburgh defenses which have been absolutely terrible.
Had a hard time coming home from class
there was so much sky falling my windshield wipers couldn’t keep up.
You build on failure. You use it as a stepping stone. Close the door on the past. You don't try to forget the mistakes, but you don't dwell on it. You don't let it have any of your energy, or any of your time, or any of your space.
-Johnny Cash
How about Ryan Dempster?
He is underrated starter.
I like him if Cubs will eat some of his salary.
However I can’t say Low-cost option.
I think Theo probably knows what he has in Dempster.
Over the Monster -- SB Nation's Resident Red Sox Site
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Jan 10, 2012 10:57 AM EST up reply actions
I'm starting to think
that the “compensation for Theo” will end up being a box of cigars.
“I’ll send ya over a box of cigars.”
The longer it drags on, the more I think that the box of cigars will be Century Sams.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
OTM | Silver Seven
We'll get to Spring Training and Theo will send over some of these
You build on failure. You use it as a stepping stone. Close the door on the past. You don't try to forget the mistakes, but you don't dwell on it. You don't let it have any of your energy, or any of your time, or any of your space.
-Johnny Cash
by TheLoneDavid on Jan 10, 2012 12:12 PM EST up reply actions
There's glow-in-the-dark tattoos inside!!
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
OTM | Silver Seven
uh-oh! Kitties, now STICKERS!
This is Bloggy’s DAY!
Garza
this may signal a Garza move
Cubs have: Garza, Maholm, Dempster, Wells, Wood, Sonnastine, Volstad all vying for rotation slots
No need to apologize
I bet even some Cubs fans get confused when they see “Wood” in the rotation
by South Coast Ghost on Jan 10, 2012 11:28 AM EST up reply actions
Is that
German Red Sox Fan??
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
OTM | Silver Seven
So Theo hates us. That's about the gist of this offseason so far.
I am Sandy's bitch.
Penn State Forever
Like I said in my fanshot
My main concern with this is not so much losing Maholm, but that now the price for the remaining SPs has gone up even more. This isn’t looking good.
Could be a couple in that range or just below
Saunders, Francis, Gardland, maybe Joel Pineiro, Brad Penny, or Livan Hernandez.
For a bit more you get to Kuroda and Oswalt and maybe Jackson depending on how long he wants to wait this out.
by South Coast Ghost on Jan 10, 2012 1:02 PM EST up reply actions
So...
Can we rule out Penny or Pineiro as tried and failed already?
I guess I wouldn’t mind Garland in that bunch, and Livan seems to pull innings out of his ass (purely anecdotal)… how old is that guy now?
My kingdom for an Oswalt, though I’d be as happy with a Kuroda.
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til next year!
I'm not sure the price goes up
They need employment as bad, if not worse, than the teams need to sign someone. Clock is ticking.
Twitter: @Marc_Normandin
by Marc Normandin on Jan 10, 2012 1:24 PM EST up reply actions
Sox need a veteran, inning-eating starter
Even if Bard and Aceves do well, I can’t expect either of them ot pitch more than 170 innings. In reality, I would prefer leaving one of them, probably Aceves, in the bullpen.
I’m not sure why the Sox would be afaid of a two year deal, they are going to need a replacement for Dice-K in 2013. I don’t expect Dice-K to contribute in 2012, except maybe a couple of spot starts late in the season.
Yeah, at this price... I really don't see why the two year deal was a bad one.
Again, if we offered him $11/$12 million structured somewhat differently, and he opted for the Cubs due to the NL Central thing… fine.
If we offered him $5 million or less on a one year deal, I’m really concerned on where we go from here.
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til next year!
"and declining an option that wasn't signed in good faith"
Screw that… with where we sit today, $4.25 million for a #4 and paying the same guy $6.25 million in 2013 is more than fine with me. We absolutely should have offered a similar deal to Maholm… $4.25 million for 2012 might even have left us enough to sign a Kuroda/Oswalt on a one year deal for $10 million and put Bard and Aceves back in the bullpen.
Now this one really pisses me off. Thanks, Theo!
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til next year!
Jab
Didn’t see this above, but what do you think the premium is for a pitcher to come to the fried chicken center of the baseball universe?
I mean, if the cubs offer a worthwhile pitcher like Maholm $4.5M, do we have to offer $8M just to get in the game now?
by Z3rogs on Jan 10, 2012 7:39 PM EST via mobile reply actions
Well, we do have to offer all the fried chicken he can eat.
You build on failure. You use it as a stepping stone. Close the door on the past. You don't try to forget the mistakes, but you don't dwell on it. You don't let it have any of your energy, or any of your time, or any of your space.
-Johnny Cash
by TheLoneDavid on Jan 10, 2012 11:27 PM EST up reply actions
I'm hungry.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
OTM | Silver Seven
Can you pitch?
You build on failure. You use it as a stepping stone. Close the door on the past. You don't try to forget the mistakes, but you don't dwell on it. You don't let it have any of your energy, or any of your time, or any of your space.
-Johnny Cash
by TheLoneDavid on Jan 11, 2012 9:48 AM EST up reply actions
I have a better chance of success than Bard.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
OTM | Silver Seven
We'll get to see what happens as your ERA slowly approaches infinity.
Also, I’ve never seen nine home runs in one inning before.
You build on failure. You use it as a stepping stone. Close the door on the past. You don't try to forget the mistakes, but you don't dwell on it. You don't let it have any of your energy, or any of your time, or any of your space.
-Johnny Cash
by TheLoneDavid on Jan 11, 2012 10:07 AM EST up reply actions
Lob ball.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
OTM | Silver Seven
So, better than Lackey?
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til next year!
Considerably.
And less hate-able, too!!
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
OTM | Silver Seven
I don't know about that
I mean, you are Canadian.
You build on failure. You use it as a stepping stone. Close the door on the past. You don't try to forget the mistakes, but you don't dwell on it. You don't let it have any of your energy, or any of your time, or any of your space.
-Johnny Cash
by TheLoneDavid on Jan 11, 2012 5:06 PM EST up reply actions
Touche.
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til THIS year!
OH WHATEVER
YOU LIVE ON A FREAKIN’ EXPLODING ISLAND.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
OTM | Silver Seven
I didn't say "un-hate-able".
Simply………………………………less.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
OTM | Silver Seven
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Over the Monster
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
- Keeping good company: Albert Pujols becomes fourth-youngest player to hit 450 home runs
