Marquis to the Nats

Kind of a shame. Mets should have signed him. They need an innings eater far more than the Nats. Another nice article on his
Staten Island roots in Sunday Daily News.

about 2 years ago Doggie Stalker 33 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Something has to give

Marquis has been on a playoff team every year of his career. That will be put to the test this year.

by Jody Jody Davis on Dec 21, 2009 3:21 PM CST reply actions

Well, not really "on" the playoff team every year

"Dad gum right this games gonna be played under protest. . . I guarantee this is gonna be one protest that's upheld." --Hawk Harrelson, 6/24/07

by RynoHoF on Dec 21, 2009 3:28 PM CST up reply actions

the team he was contracted to play for

better :-)

and I would not be surprised if he was traded to a contender if the Nats are out of it

baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out

by Cubbie-Tim on Dec 21, 2009 5:49 PM CST up reply actions

April 30?

by ClarkFan on Dec 22, 2009 9:33 PM CST up reply actions

I’m wishing that the Nats are actually cometitive this year. I think they are genuinely trying to do things the right way and build the team the best they can. Of course, once Strasburg and Harper become established they might be a dominant force in MLB, but that’s at least 4 or 5 years away.

by jerry morales rules on Dec 21, 2009 3:47 PM CST reply actions

Nobody needs more innings eaten than the Nats.

That staff was putrid last year.

by fsuapollo on Dec 21, 2009 3:55 PM CST reply actions

Wonder what kind of money he'll get

… and if he’ll start opening day.

by elgato on Dec 21, 2009 4:02 PM CST reply actions

According to...

… this link, two years, $15 million, and unless the Nats decide Stephen Strasburg is ready, yes, I’m guessing Marquis starts on Opening Day.

"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra

by Al Yellon on Dec 21, 2009 4:04 PM CST up reply actions

kinda reminds me ...

of the guys the Cubs used for Opening Day in the mid-90s. Didn’t Jim Bullinger get the nod for one season opener, maybe in ’94 or ’95?

I know Marquis is better than Bullinger was. I’m just recalling the years when the Cubs were about as bad as the Nats are right now.

by elgato on Dec 21, 2009 4:09 PM CST up reply actions

The only year in the last 20...

… when the Cubs were as bad as the Nats are now, was 2006.

Bullinger was the opening day starter in 1996.

"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra

by Al Yellon on Dec 21, 2009 4:10 PM CST up reply actions

I was speaking generally ...

But if we’re talking specifics, I’d say the 2006 club wasn’t the only team close to Washington-style ineptitude in the past 20 years. The 2000 club actually lost more games (97) than the 2006 Cubs, the 2002 and 1999 clubs each lost 95, and the 1997 lost 94.

Now, if you’re going to counter by saying things like the ‘99 Cubs had good players like Sosa and Grace, the 2002 club had Prior and Wood and the 1997 club was better after the 0-14 start, etc., that’s fine. Like me, YOU were making a generalization.

by elgato on Dec 21, 2009 4:20 PM CST up reply actions

Well, true about the other 90+ loss teams.

But in the era when Bullinger was on the team? Not so much. The ’95 team finished over .500.

"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra

by Al Yellon on Dec 21, 2009 4:57 PM CST up reply actions

yeah

I guess the ‘96 Cubs weren’t Washington-bad either.

What I find odd is that the Cubs from 1997 to 2002 were either good (1998, 2001) or really terrible (1997, 1999, 2000, 2002). It was an odd era for the team, because it had talent — Sosa, Grace, Wood, Lieber, Tapani, even Trachsel — but a lot of holes. The two good teams seemed to be able to find one-year guys who could capably fill the holes (Brant Brown, Rondell White, Gaetti) for a year.

At least the 2003-to-present Cubs have only had one truly awful year, two mediocre years (2009, 2005) and four teams that either made the playoffs (2003, 2007, 2008) or came close (2004).

This era hasn’t ended the drought, but it’s been more fun to watch than the awful 1997-2002 era or the mediocre 1990-96 era.

by elgato on Dec 21, 2009 5:09 PM CST up reply actions

Agreed.

It really was weird that they interspersed very good years with really bad ones — no middle ground.

Since 2003 they’ve generally had good to very good to excellent teams, with 2006 the only exception. Even the 2005 and 2009 teams were around the margins of contention.

"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra

by Al Yellon on Dec 21, 2009 5:20 PM CST up reply actions

the 2009 team

won nearly as many games as the 2007 team — though the 2007 team finished incredibly well.

The 2001 team has always been kinda fascinating to me. Sosa had his best year, and Lieber and Wood were good. But the fact that THAT team won as many games as the 2003 squad and more than the 2007 and 2009 teams is astonishing.

I’d like to see how many wins they should have had considering their run differential, and how they fared in one-run games.

by elgato on Dec 21, 2009 5:56 PM CST up reply actions

The 2001 Cubs...

… had a Pythagorean record of 89-73 (actual record 88-74) and were 26-24 in one-run games.

"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra

by Al Yellon on Dec 22, 2009 9:02 AM CST up reply actions

I wish him the best...

…I don’t have a problem with JM.

by TheHawkRules on Dec 21, 2009 4:06 PM CST reply actions

I guess I should be glad he did not go to the Mets

I like him and would like to root for him and I can’t root for a Met. I am not sure I have ever seen a player in a regular season game happier than Marquis when he hit the Grand Slam at Shea in 08. I figure he must have had dozens of friends and family there and he is worshipped on Staten Island.

"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either Jim

by Doggie Stalker on Dec 21, 2009 5:01 PM CST up reply actions

I'm really surprised the Mets didn't push harder to get him.

He wanted to be there and they could use a starter. Well, anything that makes the Mets worse is cool with me.

"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra

by Al Yellon on Dec 21, 2009 5:08 PM CST up reply actions

mlbtraderumors says ...

they’re looking at bringing back Pedro. Weird.

by elgato on Dec 21, 2009 5:09 PM CST up reply actions

Pedro pitched pretty well for the Phillies.

Plus, he’s very popular with Mets fans. They have to do something to sell tickets next year.

"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra

by Al Yellon on Dec 21, 2009 5:21 PM CST up reply actions

If they had signed Marquis

Ticket sales would have boomed in Staten Island.

"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either Jim

by Doggie Stalker on Dec 21, 2009 5:33 PM CST up reply actions

any excuse ...

to get out of a place made of garbage.

by elgato on Dec 21, 2009 5:57 PM CST up reply actions

I think the team needs JM more than old Pedro...

… the Mets are the most dysfunctional team in MLB. Who knows why they do what they do?

by TheHawkRules on Dec 21, 2009 9:38 PM CST up reply actions

I agree with you on anything that makes the Mets worse is cool...

I follow the Nationals too and I think Marquis is a good addition.

"Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?"--The Brain

by brook on Dec 21, 2009 7:35 PM CST up reply actions

*The last pitcher to hit a grand slam at Shea

by ak123 on Dec 21, 2009 9:07 PM CST up reply actions

Smart move

Jason Marquis was given an assinine contract by Genius Jim. But that notwithstanding Marquis is a quality enough starting pitcher who takes the ball every 5th day and can be counted upon for a baseline of production. He will definitely help stabilize the Nationals’ rotation.

The Blackhawks and the Stanley Cup in 2010.

by BLou on Dec 21, 2009 9:56 PM CST reply actions

Is it really that smart?

So instead of winning, oh let’s say 70 games, maybe they win 73-75 (considering the garbage he’s replacing, he certainly could be worth 3-5 wins). Is that really worth spending millions on? It’d be one thing if a contender signed him to fill out their rotation (see: Chicago Cubs, December 2006). But for an almost-certain basement-dweller like the Nats to pony up this cash just seems a bit foolish. I never understood why horrible teams with no chance at contending give out contracts to veterans with low ceilings. I know someone has to pitch for them, but I just don’t understand why they have to pay $7.5M for it. If I were the Nats, I would be throwing money at someone like Aroldis Chapman – someone with good upside that they can get under control long enough to think about contending down the road. That or save money to lock up their high draft picks.

Are you on Twitter? Check out the BCB and Cubs Twitter Community! Post your Twitter name and start tweeting with us!

by Schwa on Dec 21, 2009 11:57 PM CST up reply actions

They are apparently interested in Marquis as a veteran

to help mentor the kids on the staff. I suppose it is funny considering Maddux mentored him. I can think of worse guys to
provide a veteran influence on a team.

"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either Jim

by Doggie Stalker on Dec 22, 2009 12:18 AM CST up reply actions

Problem is

they have been taking a beating in DC for not even trying to compete. Considering how bad their rotation was last season and how many pitchers they used that should not have started, signing the durable Marquis isn’t the worst thing. They have the money.

by rlpete on Dec 22, 2009 9:01 AM CST up reply actions

Huh?

How is JH signing Marquis for 3/21 (average of 7 per) assinine [sic] but the Nats signing him for 2/15 (7.5 per) smart?

"...the internet is not something you just dump something on. It's not a truck. It's a series of tubes." - Sen. Ted Stevens

by bobby h on Dec 22, 2009 12:36 PM CST up reply actions

Because the Nats need somebody who takes the ball every 5th day and soaks up innings

Jason Marquis being paid $7.5 million per for two seasons is a good wise investment by Washington. Marquis takes pressure off the young pitchers and gives a young and improving team some measure of reliability in the rotation.

Plus the contract Marquis received makes him a tradeable mid-season commodity should the Nats become convinced they can swing a good deal to a contender.

The Blackhawks and the Stanley Cup in 2010.

by BLou on Dec 22, 2009 12:57 PM CST up reply actions

The Cubs also needed somebody who takes the ball every 5th day and soaks up innings

Arguably, the Cubs had more of a need for a Marquis-like pitcher than the Nats do currently. Jason Marquis’ Cubs deal made him a tradeable commodity. Despite the backloading of the deal, the money that went to the Rockies and the “written off” contract of Vizcaino the Cubs paid between 15 and 16 million for two years of exactly what one should expect out of Jason Marquis.

Now, I doubt that Nationals fans are going to view Marquis inconsistency with quite the same ire as Cubs fans, but I think either both teams over paid or neither did.

Personally I think the Cubs overpaid a bit for Marquis, but got what they expected out of him as a #4 or 5 starter. Similarly, I think the Nationals are overpaying a bit for Marquis but will likely get about the same; ~200 IP and an ERA between 4 and 5.

"...the internet is not something you just dump something on. It's not a truck. It's a series of tubes." - Sen. Ted Stevens

by bobby h on Dec 22, 2009 1:22 PM CST up reply actions