Why I like the Marquis signing

by WGNstatic on Dec 11, 2006 1:10 PM CST Comment 57 comments

I know that this opinion is not a particularly popular one, but I am pretty happy with the signing of Jason Marquis. My pleasure with this signing stems from two lines of logic:

I feel there is a good chance that he will rebound from an atrocious year, giving the Cubs an average (possibly, though not probably, good) pitcher for a good price.
More importantly, given the changing philosophy, I am confident he will be used appropriately by Piniella.

Folks have debated my first point to no end, and frankly, there is no way for any of us to know, so I don't have anything to add there.

It is my second contention that doesn't seem to have been considered. To me, Marquis is just one more guy competing for a slot in the starting rotation. He will have competition from a host of teammates (Miller, Prior, Cotts, Marshall, Mateo, etc.). How can this be bad?

Let me put it this way, if there is a 33% chance that he will be deserving of a slot in the 5-man rotation, then he has increased the likelihood that the Cubs will be able to fill their rotation with a capable pitcher accordingly.

Things will be different under Lou Piniella. He has made numerous comments about wanting more than 5 starting pitchers and more than 8 position player "starters." This is the operating philosophy of teams like the Yankees and Red Sox, and one I am fine with emulating. The idea is you add numbers, open up competition, and the cream will rise to the top. Will Marquis be among those contributing every 5 days? Who knows, but there is no question that his presence can only improve the productivity of the 5-man rotation, it CANNOT hurt it. The days of Dusty Baker's loyalty to "his guys" and the frustrations that brought us are over.

The same logic applies elsewhere on the diamond, for example, if Theriot outplays DeRosa/Izturis, you can bet he will get his playing time. Piniella wants to win. He isn't afraid of stepping on players toes and challenging them, and more importantly, letting the players challenge each other.

So, I look at Marquis as a gamble. He is a low enough cost guy that if he isn't able to crack the rotation, the Cubs can replace him with one of their youngsters. If he cracks the rotation but is outperformed by one of the youngsters he becomes a very attractive trade candidate. If he rebounds to something close to his #s from a few years ago, fantastic.

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.

0 recs | Comment 57 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

very true

I agree with everything that you say and I don't mind the signing as much as some people seem to. I just think that $20 Million was probably too much.

MURTON!!!

by tal1286 on Dec 11, 2006 1:16 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

For me, it's not so much the money...

...that bugs me, but the years!

If he DOES suck donkey, then the Cubs'll never be able to trade that contract, thus will be stuck with him for three (potentially) craptacular years.

It seems that Hendry went into this offseason with the mantra that, no matter what happened, he was not trading pitching prospects.

Whether that turns out to be simply a knee-jerk reaction to the Juan Pierre trade from last year...or a calculated strategy to have something worth unloading at the deadline, I guess we'll have to see........

by Santos L Halper on Dec 11, 2006 1:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

$21MM

I am optimistic that Marquis will add some value, but I think you are engaging in some wishful thinking regarding the roster. At the reported salary of $21MM/3yrs, it's hard to imagine that Marquis is simply "competing for a slot" in the starting rotation. He'll be starting every 5th day until he gets hurt.

RICK SCHWAB!

by ExNorthsider on Dec 11, 2006 1:18 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Why I disagree

Clearly, Lou Piniella is going to be in charge of who goes out there every 5th game, not Jim Hendry. I don't believe for a second that Lou would defer to Hendry if he felt that Marshall gave him a better chance to win that Marquis.

In today's marketplace, it seems that this contract is about the going rate for the insurance policy that Marquis basically amounts to.

Eamus Ursuli!

by WGNstatic on Dec 11, 2006 1:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Money

Well, I hope you're right.

But $21MM is _more than the going rate for a swing guy, isn't it? My guess is that he is guaranteed 15-20 starts from April to mid-July-- if his performance is terrible at that point, maybe they'll put him in the bullpen for a few weeks.

RICK SCHWAB!

by ExNorthsider on Dec 11, 2006 1:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

$21M is just the cost for the 37th rated SP

$21M to us is different, but in baseball land it is not a big deal.

Best Harry moment: 'Hey there's Marla without her shorts on!'

by Ivy Walls on Dec 11, 2006 6:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Great Point.

"Let me put it this way, if there is a 33% chance that he will be deserving of a slot in the 5-man rotation, then he has increased the likelihood that the Cubs will be able to fill their rotation with a capable pitcher accordingly."

That is a tremendous point you bring, that I, living in a house with a Cardinals (and Yankee, but that not important here. But you can understand how during ball season I wanna puke at my house)haven't heard brought up either. You're right that the cubs have 5 guys competing for that slot. There's a good chance you'll get some substance. Add on the fact that each one of these guys knows their situation and should be busting their rear end's to earn it. Great point.

JKuhle "I'd walk through hell in a gasonline suit to play baseball."

by TCobb1911 on Dec 11, 2006 1:22 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Is it official now

That we've signed him or what?

TRAMMELL!

by Faith plus 1 on Dec 11, 2006 1:23 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

keeping fingers crossed...

...that somehow the deal falls through.

But I think it's pretty much a given that Marquis will be added.

PINIELLA!

by theprognosticator on Dec 11, 2006 1:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Why I don't like the Marquis signing:

He stinks.

PINIELLA!

by theprognosticator on Dec 11, 2006 1:33 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Oh, brother.

I smell another 300-post thread coming.

by Al on Dec 11, 2006 1:38 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh c'mon now Al

We'll have mercy....298 it is.

TRAMMELL!

by Faith plus 1 on Dec 11, 2006 1:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

LOL!

n/t

by Al on Dec 11, 2006 1:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh don't get me wrong Al...

...I am hoping you are right on him and Marquis lays waste to the entire NL and drinks the blood of his enemies, I just can't get past that ERA over 6.00 from last year.

PINIELLA!

by theprognosticator on Dec 11, 2006 1:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I can...

... and I think I've explained the reasons WHY I can.

by Al on Dec 11, 2006 3:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

For all you obsessive stat geeks...

that can't get over Marquis' 6.00 plus ERA, don't forget that Rich Hill's was also into the stratasphere (around the same ERA) too. I don't know Hill's ERA before or after his turnaround. But you should get my point.

All right, Hendry!! Time to sign Zambrano to an extension!!

by fuzzycubfan on Dec 11, 2006 5:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think...

...any of the 'obsessive stat geeks' are looking at his ERA.

PTBNL!

by gravedigger on Dec 11, 2006 5:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

hahahah

this is perhaps the most silly comment in some time

Rich Hill had hundreds upon hundreds of innings as a minor league pitcher filled with awesome #'s

so you had a pretty good idea that he was going to have a good ERA here once you got him past his small sample size

Jason Marquis has thousands of innings to prove he is nothing special on the mound

comparing Rich Hill's 45 IP sample size to a full season of 6.02 or even 5.00 ERA is a joke

maybe you should try becoming a stat obsessed geek

"Its not like we need 10-12 players to contend"

by ksucubbie on Dec 11, 2006 8:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I hope that was intended...

...for the post before mine.

Even though it is small sample size, it's really fun to look at Rich Hill's last 9 starts of the season using advanced stats. I hope he's half as good as those numbers indicate.

PTBNL!

by gravedigger on Dec 11, 2006 8:53 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

yeah it was

n/t

"Its not like we need 10-12 players to contend"

by ksucubbie on Dec 11, 2006 9:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

No no..

..don't worry. I've said all I can about Marquis.

OK I'll add one thing. I think it is too idealistic to assume that Marquis will only be "in competition" for a roster spot. Yes, Piniella has a different attitude than Baker, but reality has to set in at some point. They're not giving a guy $21M to compete for a spot. He's got a spot. Even if he blows in spring training, he's entering the season as the #4.

Also, by that same logic, if Izturis isn't guaranteed the starting job, and there's competition for one of them, can we expect that intense competition to lead one of them to hit .250/.310/.400 ??? Somehow, I doubt it.

PTBNL!

by gravedigger on Dec 11, 2006 3:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

That makes sense

when I was at a game about 2 years ago I was wondering why Pujols wouldn't walk within 10 feet of the mound....

TRAMMELL!

by Faith plus 1 on Dec 11, 2006 1:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Jason Marquis

When Marquis has given up 25 gopher balls by July 1st and has an ERA of 5.50, you get back to us.

Rommel, you magnificent bastard, I READ YOUR BOOK !!!

by BlueMike on Dec 11, 2006 1:44 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Right around

the time when he's taken out of of the rotation.

TRAMMELL!

by Faith plus 1 on Dec 11, 2006 1:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

close your eyes

and imagine Marquis facing the Cardnials or Mets on a day with the wind blowing out of Wrigley

now imagine Novoa coming in the 3rd inning

"Its not like we need 10-12 players to contend"

by ksucubbie on Dec 11, 2006 8:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

(shudders)

Marquis may be a fait accompli at this point, but here's to hoping Novoa doesn't sniff the MLB roster in 2007.

ROTHSCHILD!

by Perkins on Dec 11, 2006 8:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

That seriously cracked me up

But it is probably not going to be so funny this season.

PTBNL!

by gravedigger on Dec 11, 2006 8:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not

sure it's going to be as bad as everybody thinks. Everyone thinks that one bad season does a bads career make and I just don't agree. Was he terrible last year?? Yep. Was it painful for him at times?? Yep. Is he a young guy with a live arm that came (market-wise) fairly cheap? Yep.

I also think that Sweet Lou will give everyone a fair shot and if he doesn't work out, so what.

There have been MUCH worse deals.

WARD!

by cubbieboy on Dec 11, 2006 1:56 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

True that.

Pavano. Hampton. Burnett. Etc.

Farnsworth!

by Teamsleep on Dec 11, 2006 2:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I have my concerns,

but what's done is done. While I would have preferred we didn't a chance on Jason Marquis of the 6.02 ERA he is one of us now. I will pray every night that he finds a way to regain the form that made him a solid starter in 2004.

AC 00 00 00 - BELIEVE

by mike on Dec 11, 2006 2:06 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Amen,

my brotha.

WARD!

by cubbieboy on Dec 11, 2006 2:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Tell you why this MIGHT not be bad.

Chris Carpenter was an average pitcher, and had low 4 ERAs. Then, his fourth year in he hit rock bottom giving up 30 HRs and having a 6.26 ERA. He left Toronto and turned himself around. Fellas, anything can happen. Its one year with a rotten ERA. Its not like Jason never had a future, or was rotten from day one.

JKuhle "I'd walk through hell in a gasonline suit to play baseball."

by TCobb1911 on Dec 11, 2006 2:16 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I'm pretty sure

there was also a tommy john surgery in there somewhere although I could be getting him mixed up with someone else.

confirmation?

MURTON!!!

by tal1286 on Dec 11, 2006 3:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I think it was labrum surgery

But yes, he did get a surgery and then took another year to come back.

ROTHSCHILD!

by Perkins on Dec 11, 2006 3:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

It was

Tommy John, and it was in 2003, three years after his 30 HR 6+ ERA.

JKuhle "I'd walk through hell in a gasonline suit to play baseball."

by TCobb1911 on Dec 11, 2006 4:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

No dude, it was labrum surgery

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/story/2002/09/02/carpenter020902.html

And I'm not sure what your point is about Carpenter's hitting rock bottom. That doesn't necessarily mean Marquis will become what Carpenter is now. I'd like to hope so, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.

ROTHSCHILD!

by Perkins on Dec 11, 2006 7:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Well Dude,

maybe he had both...

"The Cardinals' pitching and defense also played a major role in their success and the best pitcher on their staff last season was one that didn't even play in 2003.

It was that year when former Toronto Blue Jays' pitcher Chris Carpenter underwent the infamous "Tommy John" surgery, and wasn't able to pitch that season."

http://www.athomeplate.com/sb3805.shtml
http://www.sportscolumn.com/story/2006/8/21/224021/716
www.startribune.com/150/story/773326.html

And my point is, that you should see, is that one of the finest pitchers in the league right now, and a guy with the most wins the last two years hit rock bottom, got a change of scenery and developed. My point was maybe Jason Marquis can do this.

JKuhle "I'd walk through hell in a gasonline suit to play baseball."

by TCobb1911 on Dec 11, 2006 10:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Fair enough

But I don't generally like that kind of reasoning, as it depends more on hope than on statistics and history. Sure, in theory anyone can "turn it around," but I'd say it's very unlikely Marquis suddenly becomes a #2 starter.

ROTHSCHILD!

by Perkins on Dec 12, 2006 12:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not

relying on that. Notice I said "MIGHT" not be bad. I just think that if we're going to throw him under the bus and the boo birds are out in April already for him he might as well pack up and leave town now.

JKuhle "I'd walk through hell in a gasonline suit to play baseball."

by TCobb1911 on Dec 12, 2006 2:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I've also heard...

that instead of running when someone boos you and thinks you'll be bad, you work harder and dedicate yourself to making the best of your situation. Soem players do it. Some don't. I'm guessing we'll see which Marquis is.

Skeptical of improvement. I'm waiting for a winner in 2010.

by tyger1147 on Dec 12, 2006 3:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

As we can

probably guess he REALLY NEEDS TO BE THE TYPE TO WORK HARDER!

JKuhle "I'd walk through hell in a gasonline suit to play baseball."

by TCobb1911 on Dec 12, 2006 3:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Nice article

...on the recent spate of high salaries for mediocre mid-line starters.

Not really deserving of its own diary but worth pointing out as part of the Marquis discussion.

From the always interesting Sabernomics blog

by Wreckard on Dec 11, 2006 2:28 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

On Lilly...

I think Lilly will turn out to be a very good pitcher in the NL Central. If you look at what Bronson Arroyo did for the Reds, it could be an indication of things to come for Lilly.

Arroyo had a 4.5 era playing in the AL East and went to the Bandbox where the Reds played and put up very good numbers.

Lilly had a 4.3 era in the AL East and will be coming to pitch in a bit more friendly pitchers park.

by DTJchris on Dec 11, 2006 2:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

On top of being in more pitcher friendly parks,

he won't be seeing the Yankees and Red Sox. The Pirates and Reds are slightly less intimidating. I actually think that he could be good for us.

AC 00 00 00 - BELIEVE

by mike on Dec 11, 2006 3:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Arroyo

One huge advantage Arroyo had is that he got to face the Cubs several times. Lilly and Marquis won't get that luxury.

PAGAN!

by Jesse Guam on Dec 11, 2006 4:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't like the signing

but I can live with it. Hey, it's not my money. Personaly, I'd much rather have Miller, Prior, Marshall, and Marmol battle for the 4th and 5th spots as I feel all of them are better pitchers that Marquis. $6M could have been better spent elsewhere.

However, as pointed out, if there are other players that outperform him, then I do believe those other players will be pitching. Also, with as crazy as the contracts have been this year, this could turn out to be another Jacque Jones situation where a year later the contract looks much better than it did the day it was signed. At least I hope so. My spideysense right now says it's a waste of money.

by NO100 on Dec 11, 2006 2:41 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Marquis signed b/c he's a dependable innings eater

Marquis has been around 200 innings pitched the last 3 years. That kind of consistency will keep our bullpen in better shape. We might have enough offensive firepower this year to stay in games when our pitcher gives up 4 runs over 6 innings. Yeah, that is a recipe for a .500 club, and an awfully expensive recipe at that.

However, plugging a consistent innings eater into the #4 spot has the indirect benefit of increasing competition for the #5 spot. Filling this spot early in the off-season lets Miller, Prior, etc... know they'll have to work for the 5th spot all off-season and into spring training. Marshall, Mateo, and Marmol will develop and compete in AAA rather than getting sent up and down for each other so when we need one of them, we choose one to perform in the bigs with confidence.

by ron cey on Dec 11, 2006 2:59 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Yes

Marquis can eat some innings, but for the amount we are paying him (for too many years), I would rather have had Lofton for a year in CF. This would allow us to deal Jones for another SP.

I am not totally against signing Marquis, but when it truly appeared there was no one we were bidding against, I do not see why he did not get a 1 year incentive-based deal. All this tells me (hopefully) is that the trade market for Jones was very weak, and maybe there was another team bidding for Marquis as well (or a very good agent making Hendry believe so).

I know this has all been discussed in detail before, but my new point is that the money used on Marquis could have better been allocated to getting Lofton to play CF and bat 2nd. I really thought that he was the type of player we lacked since '03.

D-LEE!

by airweino on Dec 11, 2006 4:14 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

may have been mentioned before, but...

.....didn't both Leo Mazzone (sorry if spelled wrong) AND Dave Duncan fail with this guy? from everything that i have ever heard about pitching coaches, these are 2 of the best, if not the best in MLB. if they couldn't fix him, how will Rothschild? with towel drills and throwing off a chair while sitting down? i have a bad feeling......

then again, if he gets his 200 innings and finishes around .500, he will be a 5th starter making 3rd or 4th starter money, which would be acceptable i guess.

by boomer on Dec 11, 2006 4:16 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Repairing Rothschild's Reputation

I posted this within another thread because I didn't feel it deserved its own, but NO ONE responded.

I believe this deal happened for two reasons:

He wasn't hurt. If he pitches 180-200 innings and pitches about a 5.00 ERA, he WILL be better than what we had last year. More starters, when you've had too few recently, is a priority.
Rothschild worked with this guy and says he found a flaw. Rothschild hasn't been able to find a flaw (or convince him to change) in Kerry Wood's delivery and HE's done a horrible job "developing" young pitchers. I think his reputation is fairly down the tubes. Lou is his friend. Despite the fact that the starting pitching was perhaps the worst part of the team, the pitching coach was the only one to stay. Larry Rothschild feels he found something wrong with Marquis. Dave Duncan and Leo Mazzone (whehter he had a flaw back then anyway), perhaps the two pitching coaches with the BEST reputations, couldn't make this guy above average.

Larry feels if he can get Marquis turned around to a 3.50 or under ERA type pitcher, combined with Wood and Prior finally being healthy and above average, he will gain some credibility.

He told his friend Lou this and said, "I want this guy. Please. It's my career." (no joke intended, I would not be surprised if he sincerely asked Lou for this)

Lou convinced Jim Hendry it's worth the gamble.

That's my take on it.

Skeptical of improvement. I'm waiting for a winner in 2010.

by tyger1147 on Dec 11, 2006 5:29 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

To your first point...

...I'd say that the Cubs have/had plenty of starting pitchers, just precious few good ones. Marquis isn't good. I don't see the point in stockpiling a ton of mediocre/bad pitchers.

PTBNL!

by gravedigger on Dec 11, 2006 5:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Major league average players...

I should have said. When almost half your games are started by guys who have never started in the majors, you're not in the same boat. Glendon Rusch and Jerome Williams are not average.

With Zambrano, Hill, Lilly and Marquis, they have four guys who really don't have any injury history. Three of those guys have shown to be consistently average or above, with Marquis' 2006 the exception. Last year, you had Zambrano and Maddux as the ONLY guys who had no injury history and who had sustained success at the Major level.

I don't think the current situation is anything like this last years. But I guess you're entitled to your opinion.

(FWIW, I obviously don't see the point either as I said I'd rather have the young guys be average than the vets. But I was just giving a reason why I thought it happened (in other words, why Piniella and Hendry did it). If you don't think that's what they were thinking, well... to each his own on interpretation of events, right?)

Skeptical of improvement. I'm waiting for a winner in 2010.

by tyger1147 on Dec 11, 2006 5:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

While I'd disagree...

...that Marquis 2006 was his only below-average season, I see your point.

PTBNL!

by gravedigger on Dec 11, 2006 6:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Jerome Williams and the Stupid Signings

There is no question that Jerome Williams blew up last year. But prior to last year, he had been an above average MLB pitcher. And last year he was given 12.3 innings in total. One of the biggest mistakes that the Cubs made last year was not given Williams, with proven success at a major league level at a young age, more of a chance to pitch. His leash was far shorter than a lot of other pitchers last year and the number of innings that he was given to "prove" he could pitch was very small.

Jerome William's best year was better than Marquis best year and the big difference last year is that Marquis was given the innings and Williams was Dusty-ed. Marquis is a below average pitcher who will block younger, cheaper pitchers with higher ceilings. (Even at his best, Marquis is not a very good pitcher. His career best ERA+ is 127, and that in 130 innings. He has had an ERA+ below 100 (or below league average) in 4 of his 7 seasons and has been in the mid 70's twice in the past 4 years.

The signings of Marquis, Lily and DeRosa are exactly the wrong direction for the team and will continue to relegate the Cubs to the bottom of contention. Spending money stupidly is worse than not spending money. At least when you don't spend money and rely on young players you can get a surprise or two when young players play up to their ceilings.

Dumb dumb dumb. This offseason, by itself, justifies the termination of Hendry.

by frustratedfan on Dec 12, 2006 2:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Reason for doubt...

In general I don't have a problem with this signing. Obviously, they weren't willing to give Meche another year (oh well) and no money would have brought Schmidt here (I've come to accept this now). I don't think financially it kills them. I actually LIKE that they didn't give up prospects.

But, what if one of the guys in Triple A (my bet is on Juan Mateo), is pitching about a 2.75-3.00 ERA's with great command and "look ready" while at the same time, Miller and Marquis are pitchng with about a 4.25-4.50 ERA's and going about 5-6 innings every time out with .500 records? That's not great, but it's servicable. Do you take out the "proven" "average" veteran to bring up the unproven but potentially electric rookie?

Obviously, they'll keep the rookie down there, but if the Cubs aren't world beaters (which they won't be with the team constructed as is), you'll always be wondernig "what if"? After all, LaRussa and Duncan (well, the Cardinals) did select Mateo in the Rule 5 a year ago.

Skeptical of improvement. I'm waiting for a winner in 2010.

by tyger1147 on Dec 11, 2006 5:35 PM CST reply actions 0 recs