Looks Like It's Happening - Maholm to the Cubs

[TheGreenWeenie]

MLB Trade Rumors is reporting it, and he's tweeting like he's a Cubbie.  No details on the contract or official signing yet.

[steve19981]

Looking forward to the first time he has to put a bunt down against the Pirates.

[Chewie]

I have no problem with this.

Of more interest in the Chicago Trib announcement :

The Cubs have been listening to offers for Garza this offseason, but are only willing to trade him for four top prospects.

[thegreatchris]

I have no problem with this.

Of more interest in the Chicago Trib announcement :

The Cubs have been listening to offers for Garza this offseason, but are only willing to trade him for four top prospects.

If they're smart, they'll take Jacob Turner before the Tigers think better of it.

[TNbucs]

Given that Garza only has 2 years of control left compared to the 4 years of control for Gio and Latos, there's no way the Cubs should get a similar package (plus I wouldn't put Garza in the same category as Latos and probably not Gio).  But it doesn't hurt to ask.

So Maholm signed for $4.25 million with a $6.5 million option for 2013 ($500K buyout).  I'm guessing the Pirates would have gladly signed him for that.  Two points occur to me:

1.  Like with so many athletes who say they love the city they're in and want to stay, that talk seems very cheap--sure he wanted to stay for $9 million but evidently it's all about the money.  His actions don't seem to jive with his statements of loyalty, priorities, etc.

2.  If this is the best he could do on the open market, no wonder his option was declined by the Pirates.  This doesn't mean that I hold the Pirates blameless, but that the mistake was not in declining the option but in not reading the market better at the time they signed him to the contract so that the option would be reasonable.

[CentralCABucsFan]

I feel the price Maholm signed for was about right.  I don't blame the Pirates for offering a club option that is out of line with what he is worth (as long as they ar smart enough to decline it).  I also think this verifies the fact that picking up his option would have been a pretty bad mistake. 

What you could blame the Pirates for is not being able to re-sign Maholm for the price the Cubs got for him.  Sometimes feelings are hurt along the way, and we don't really know if that was the case here.  I'd also be curious if Maholm has further shoulder issues.

[ECBucs]

Given that Garza only has 2 years of control left compared to the 4 years of control for Gio and Latos, there's no way the Cubs should get a similar package (plus I wouldn't put Garza in the same category as Latos and probably not Gio).  But it doesn't hurt to ask.

So Maholm signed for $4.25 million with a $6.5 million option for 2013 ($500K buyout).  I'm guessing the Pirates would have gladly signed him for that.  Two points occur to me:

1.  Like with so many athletes who say they love the city they're in and want to stay, that talk seems very cheap--sure he wanted to stay for $9 million but evidently it's all about the money.  His actions don't seem to jive with his statements of loyalty, priorities, etc.

2.  If this is the best he could do on the open market, no wonder his option was declined by the Pirates.  This doesn't mean that I hold the Pirates blameless, but that the mistake was not in declining the option but in not reading the market better at the time they signed him to the contract so that the option would be reasonable.

I especially agree with point 2, was the price of the options worth it?

To me, it looks like it is better not to include options in contracts (unless it buys out a free agent year) unless absolutely necessary.

[Pirates2014Champ]

watch Maholm go 5-0 with a 0.50 ERA against us this year 

[SammyKhalifa]

Given that Garza only has 2 years of control left compared to the 4 years of control for Gio and Latos, there's no way the Cubs should get a similar package (plus I wouldn't put Garza in the same category as Latos and probably not Gio).  But it doesn't hurt to ask.

So Maholm signed for $4.25 million with a $6.5 million option for 2013 ($500K buyout).  I'm guessing the Pirates would have gladly signed him for that.  Two points occur to me:

1.  Like with so many athletes who say they love the city they're in and want to stay, that talk seems very cheap--sure he wanted to stay for $9 million but evidently it's all about the money.  His actions don't seem to jive with his statements of loyalty, priorities, etc.

2.  If this is the best he could do on the open market, no wonder his option was declined by the Pirates.  This doesn't mean that I hold the Pirates blameless, but that the mistake was not in declining the option but in not reading the market better at the time they signed him to the contract so that the option would be reasonable.

I especially agree with point 2, was the price of the options worth it?

To me, it looks like it is better not to include options in contracts (unless it buys out a free agent year) unless absolutely necessary.

Except if he had gone on to dominate the league after signing it.

[bradlej31]

Going from PNC to Wrigley is going to cost him money in the long run.   

Wrigley has the 9th most runs scored of all parks.   Factor in the DH for a lot of the American League parks and it's really a hitters ballpark. 

No way Maholm was going to an AL team.  He's get his butt kicked.   

He should have stayed in Pittsburgh, went to the Padres or the Mets to build some value.  I doubt he does well in Wrigley.

[ECBucs]

Given that Garza only has 2 years of control left compared to the 4 years of control for Gio and Latos, there's no way the Cubs should get a similar package (plus I wouldn't put Garza in the same category as Latos and probably not Gio).  But it doesn't hurt to ask.

So Maholm signed for $4.25 million with a $6.5 million option for 2013 ($500K buyout).  I'm guessing the Pirates would have gladly signed him for that.  Two points occur to me:

1.  Like with so many athletes who say they love the city they're in and want to stay, that talk seems very cheap--sure he wanted to stay for $9 million but evidently it's all about the money.  His actions don't seem to jive with his statements of loyalty, priorities, etc.

2.  If this is the best he could do on the open market, no wonder his option was declined by the Pirates.  This doesn't mean that I hold the Pirates blameless, but that the mistake was not in declining the option but in not reading the market better at the time they signed him to the contract so that the option would be reasonable.

I especially agree with point 2, was the price of the options worth it?

To me, it looks like it is better not to include options in contracts (unless it buys out a free agent year) unless absolutely necessary.

Except if he had gone on to dominate the league after signing it.

Thats true, we can hope that Tabata does that.

[Will]

What you could blame the Pirates for is not being able to re-sign Maholm for the price the Cubs got for him.

Is it even clear that the Pirates wanted to re-sign him at that price? I know I personally am not too upset that we didn't.

[mouse]

Four plus million is more than I would have offered as an outright deal. When someone is coming off a shoulder problem, it might be a good idea to see how he actually is before committing to too much money. I suspect the Pirates talk centered around some incentive based deal.

[scrapiron]

Given that Garza only has 2 years of control left compared to the 4 years of control for Gio and Latos, there's no way the Cubs should get a similar package (plus I wouldn't put Garza in the same category as Latos and probably not Gio).  But it doesn't hurt to ask.

So Maholm signed for $4.25 million with a $6.5 million option for 2013 ($500K buyout).  I'm guessing the Pirates would have gladly signed him for that.  Two points occur to me:

1.  Like with so many athletes who say they love the city they're in and want to stay, that talk seems very cheap--sure he wanted to stay for $9 million but evidently it's all about the money.  His actions don't seem to jive with his statements of loyalty, priorities, etc.

2.  If this is the best he could do on the open market, no wonder his option was declined by the Pirates.  This doesn't mean that I hold the Pirates blameless, but that the mistake was not in declining the option but in not reading the market better at the time they signed him to the contract so that the option would be reasonable.

I especially agree with point 2, was the price of the options worth it?

To me, it looks like it is better not to include options in contracts (unless it buys out a free agent year) unless absolutely necessary.

Well if the deals were made unilaterally that could and would happen, but the reality is that players (agents) have to agree to a deal as well, and option years are great incentive.  They most often work out well for both player and team.  In Maholm's case, it was a reasonable amount at the time the contract was designed. 

[CAfan]

I like him, I wish him well, but in truth I don't think we would be downgrading significantly to give innings to Locke, Owens, or even Burress.  Maholm is a solid but unspectacular LHer.  Wish we still had him at the right price, but glad we didn't pay 9 mil for him.