Cubs Sign Nice Jewish Boy
by Al Yellon on Dec 9, 2006 9:38 AM CST
in Chicago Cubs News
Email
PrintAs first noted in dfrancon's diary, the report of the 3-year, $20 million signing of Jason Marquis is apparently done -- not for $28 million as reported yesterday.
The marketplace has officially gone crazy, although not quite as nuts as one might have thought. $6.5 million a year for him is not quite as insane as $9 million a year. I like Marquis, but no other teams were apparently interested; the Cubs were bidding against themselves.
For those of you who are going to quit being fans, or have your heads explode, I urge you to look at Marquis' career stats, particularly his 2004 and 2005 seasons, where he was a solid mid-rotation starter. He had the best ERA on a World Series team in 2004, and was 15-7 for that Cardinal team.
According to JewishMajorLeaguers.org, Marquis will become the ninth Jewish player to play for the Cubs. The other eight:
Cy Block
Hy Cohen
Ken Holtzman
Art Shamsky
Steve Stone
Dave Roberts (No, not the outfielder; there have, in fact, been four different major leaguers with this name)
Jose Bautista
Andrew Lorraine
Look, I could be wrong about Marquis. Maybe he'll be bad again. I wouldn't have given him three years. But if he DOES regain his 2004-2005 form, that money will look like a bargain.
I choose optimism. Anyone else?
UPDATE [2006-12-9 15:22:15 by Al]: According to Yahoo, this deal is not yet final, and will be "in the $20 million range" -- meaning, perhaps, that maybe it'll be a bit smaller.
330 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
3 yr/$20MM-- and optimistic
Additionally, he's a good stick off the bench. With Zambrano, Marquis, Prior, Wood and Marmol, the Cubs certainly have the best-hitting pitching staff in the league, and perhaps one of the best in decades.
Thank you.
In 2005, he hit .310/.326/.460.
I believe he can indeed pitch 200 innings and put up a 4.50 ERA.
Here's an interesting question: will he get the uniform number he wore with the Cardinals? It was #21.
Yep, optimism
Marquis makes it easier to trade one or two of Mateo, Marmol, Guzman and Marshall... He doesn't "tie up money."
Yeah...
I think what you miss, which isn't surprising, is that "sabers" acknowledge the human element. It's just that it's a random event as there is no evidence to suggest that things like you cherish truly exist, but everyone I know ackowledges that it most certainly does exist. On the other hand, people like you absolutely despise statistics and go out of your way to ignore them.
Yeah...us sabers...we're the problem.
"despise stats"
It's you "sabers" who are always the first to bitch and moan.
Let me rephrase that.
Here's the issue...
- his desire to "get back" at the Cardinals;
- the fact that he's 28 and HAS had success at the major league level;
- the possibility that he has a simple mechanical problem that can be fixed;\
- the fact that it appears he simply didn't get along with Cardinal management and as such, they didn't support him
It seems that way
These human elements also happen rather infrequently and it seems to me that people are being hopeful the 2007 Cubs can be some human event phenomena that no other team in history has been. Honestly, what are the odds? 1 to 2 billion maybe that every single player that isn't very good has a career year due to some human element that we can't predict? Since you believe in these human elements, then you should also know that they're apt to work against you EVERY BIT AS OFTEN as they work in your favor. They're random events.
It's why we see several players have career years on very good teams and several players still have career years on a terrible team. The Cubs had four players that managed to put in career years at the plate last year and this so-called human element wasn't a fact since they were a bad team...or wasn't a good fact anyway. Compare that to the Cardinals offense. How many players turned in career years offensively for a team that won it all...had all the magic in the world? The 2006 Cubs, despite being significantly worse than the Cardinals had more players turn in career seasons than the Cardinals.
Furthermore, if we look at the other extreme, the Cardinals...the World Champions...also had more players fail to reach expectations than the 2006 Cubs did. Think about that. The 66-win Cubs had more "breakout seasons" and fewer "down seasons" than the Cardinals who won the World Series.
These kinds of things can't be predicted because they involve a great deal of luck and human element, which actually seemed to favor the Cubs quite well last year when you take an in depth look at it. It hindered the Cardinals quite a bit.
They're random events that occur at random times to random players. Now, I'm sorry Al, but it's a hell of a lot more voodoo going on trying to attribute human events to all these players than it is trying to project how well a player is going to hit or pitch. We have a history to base our projections on. All we have to base this good luck on is randomness.
So, again, it seems to me that the real "voodoo" being used here is by people like you who aren't familiar with sabermetric measures. The other thing I think you're forgetting is that these things you mentioned...many, many, many players have those same kinds of incentives to play well and they fail. Some overachieve, some reach expectations, and some fail to meet them. There's no way of knowing who or when or how it's going to affect the players on your team.
To finish this long comment, from reading through this thread earlier, it appears that my expectations for Marquis are better than anyone elses and all I've based my opinions on are a glance through his stats the past few years mostly ignoring 2006 altogether. There are some troubling trends to take note of, but he's not a 6.02 ERA pitcher. And he won't be in 2007. See...I can say that about Cubs players when it's warranted. I'll stand up and argue that Marquis is better that MOST are giving him credit for just as I have in the past about players not being as good as some thought they were.
I agree, in general
I concur that it would be silly to build a whole team of guys that can give you some excuse as to why they're going to do better--we ALL hope to do better than in the past, and can rationalize it one way or another. There's also no way to predict whose child will get sick (and that set includes Marcus Giles as well as Derrek Lee, by the way), who will go through a messy divorce, who will get into a fight with his agent, etc., let alone who will get injured.
To sum up, there's not much predictive power in the people side, but it is something the professionals should pay attention to, and NOT necessarily tell the fans about.
Agreed.
The trouble is, of course, that those "other things" aren't neatly measurable. They're messy and fluid and hard to pin down.
Example: I heard from multiple sources that there were many personal problems among several different Cub players during 2006 -- which, unfortunately, they were unable to leave at home. This affected the attitude in the clubhouse, and with a laissez-faire manager, became out of control.
Are these things measurable? No, but they sure must have affected the attitude of the players as they arrived for, and prepared for, their work. Enough of that and you can easily see how things could spiral out of control.
Zambranofan is correct. These are things that scouts, etc. have a duty to report to their higherups. There are other things, such as the continuing debate here over whether Jason Schmidt could/should have been signed. There's one post down the thread here that stated that 5/75 would have brought Schmidt here.
Well, no, no it wouldn't have. Schmidt stated from the beginning that he preferred the west coast, and he had and has a close personal relationship with members of the Dodger organization. That trumped money. With the huge dollars these guys are all getting, a few more dollars are simply NOT going to bring a player to a place where he doesn't have a comfort zone. It's the same reason Brian Giles stayed in San Diego last year rather than take more money from Toronto.
I know it's hard for some to wrap their minds around this, but not every player simply takes the most dollars.
And, it's done. Jason Marquis is a Cub. The money appears to be less ($20M as compared to $28M) than originally reported. Can't we at least give the guy a chance to show what he can do before we flame him?
No......
...because this board is populated with budding, prescient genuises who know better than people who have been working in baseball for a living, sometimes twice as long as the genuises have been alive.
Sigh...
Look. I have just as much idea as you, or Al, or cubswin, or DmL, or anybody, about how Marquis is going to do; that is, we have no idea. We can't predict the future, we can't know the 'intangible' details. The one thing that we CAN know is what statistics already tell us. If I base my opinion off of that, I'm none too happy. I, and others, are well aware of the fact that I might be absolutely wrong, and as I've said elsewhere, I hope I am and I am willing to admit so if I am.
by gravedigger on Dec 10, 2006 10:29 AM CST up reply actions
So...
What I love is the fact that all of the people who air statements like this one do not learn a damn thing over time. There is a viscious cycle here and on other forums that has been clear as day over the past few years. People state their opinions on transactions, the overall state of the team and the front office's plan. People are labled as positive and negative and the people who are seen as negative are the negative people are called thing like "amateur", "Stat geeks", "pessimists", "Know it alls"... and dozens of other things.
I don't consider myself to be any more knowledgable than a lot of other baseball fans and as I've said I couldn't figure out most stats if you paid me. I do know that I was villified here and in other forums, along with others prior to the 2005 and 2006 seasons because I wasn't willing to drink the Koolade and thought that those were going to be bad Cub teams. Its the same BS over again. So if you want to disagree with what I and others have to say, then do so in a manner that spurs discussion and actually counters the substance of what I and others are posting. Otherwise knock off the vitriol because this crap is getting old.
DmL
Here's What I Find Interesting.....
No
I'll reiterate it again, I'm not anti Jason Marquis, I'm anti this deal. Even if Marquis goes out and matches his career highs, this is still a bad deal because Marquis is holding all the cards and the Cubs are holding none. Further, this deal is part of a larger Cubs offseason picture and looking at this deal along with others further compounds how bad this deal is.
DmL
You don't have to name names.
by gravedigger on Dec 10, 2006 11:42 AM CST up reply actions
He's Jewish?!
Thanks Al.
Very under-represented in the Majors - let alone in Chi-Town.
by TheEman on Dec 9, 2006 4:38 PM CST up reply actions
my problem with your stats
Also, each year statistically is a freeze frame. You are attempting to catch a static value, x, in an ever changing graph and unless you are familiar with the realms of calculus (derrivitives and the like) you cannot gauge a player's value at a given AB/Series.
How many World Series have the Oakland A's won?
Nobody ignores
So what you're conceding is..
It is only the elite top 40 or so pitchers in the league that retain their value from year to year.
Basically, yes.
I'm not on here saying this is a bad signing. It's not...if he's the 5th starter.
Okay,
To me there is no real difference between a 4 and a 5
Consistency!
The number 4 pitcher to me, on a contending team, is one who is average. The first three should all be above average rotation starters. the number 5 starter is one who is less consistent than the number 4.
I say Marquis is a number 5 starter because of his terrible 2006 season. You can't count on him for too much even though my opinion is that he'll be OK. I've been wrong before and I will be wrong many more times. With Marquis in the 4th spot in the rotation, we're asking the Cubs to try and contend with a rotation starter LESS consistent than Marquuis. I simply don't believe that's a possibility. Put marquis in the 5th spot and anything we get from him will be a bonus. So what if Prior and Miller don't have jobs? They aren't going to be healthy anyway.
I actually see more difference between a 4 and a 5 than I do a 1 and a 2 to be honest. The 5th starter is a guy you'll skip from time to time. He'll do less damage to the team as a result. The 4th starter has to be consistent enough that you'd give him the ball in a playoff series...perhaps a series deciding game if need be. A lot is going to change between December and next October, but i still think you build your rotation around the idea of reaching the playoffs.
I don't get it
And show me where us 'sabers' are bitching and moaning first about Marquis.
by Faith plus 1 on Dec 9, 2006 1:19 PM CST up reply actions
Sabermetrics...
His ground ball percentage has gone down. That's basically it. That's pretty much the ONLY difference between the 2006 Marquis and the 2005 Marquis. If he can get his ground balls back, he'll be the pitcher he had been before '06.
Sabermetrics isn't exactly voodoo.
His K/9 has plummetted since 2004 as well
Before 2005 his K/9 was in the 6-7 range. In 2005 and 2006 it was 4.4.
I choose to be positive...
You all know that if Jason Marquis wins 20 games, or even close to 20 games, that all of you naysayers are going to have to dig that foot way, way out of your mouth.
But if he tanks, I'll have to eat crow again, just like I do every year (Hey, I live in Cardinal country)and surely it can't be any worse than this year.
by southernilcubfan on Dec 9, 2006 9:39 AM CST reply actions
As I often say...
I don't want the guy to suck - I am a Cubs fan, and I want the whole team to do well. But I don't think he's going to do this team any good, and I certainly don't think he's going to do this team any better than Sean Marshall would have done.
I hope you're wrong.
About your post below, where you say Hendry is "unwilling" to trade young pitchers, how do you know he hasn't been offering Mateo, Marmol, Guzman around -- and has gotten no takers?
I don't
The thing is, we hear Hendry say "this guy is untouchable" about so many people. It makes me believe he's not even willing to entertain offers about them. Maybe that's not true, but that's the perception. He's got to be willing to explore these, especially if he's going with the win-now goal.
I agree with you...
I think too many people see this sort of thing like fantasy baseball, where you make a few mouse clicks and a deal's done. Real life doesn't work that way.
Right, it doesn't.
He often gets away with trading middling prospects for a decent player, but that's not what I'm talking about.
About ...
And perhaps the Pierre deal has made Hendry a bit gunshy. Pinto and Nolasco are going to be good major league pitchers, and all the Cubs have left (IIRC) is a sandwich pick in next year's draft for them.
And that's unfortunate.
It would also make me think that other GMs would see Hendry as stingy, and would be careful about taking those that he touts as his good prospects, since they know he won't trade those who he really likes.
Also...
I disagree.
personally, people who complain about this deal are usually the same people who complain Hendry doesn't trade his young pitchers. I do think there is some truth to Hendry not wanting to trade the young pitchers, but I'm not sure that's a bad thing. If the right deal doesn't come along (and I have no way of knowing whether it does or not), there's no reason to trade them just to be trading them.
that being said, if you're not going to trade then, signing guys like Howry and Eyre is just plain silly. You're wasting years for the youngsters in a spot where guys like Eyre and Howry are never going to earn their money. Don't get me wrong. Howry is a good reliever. He's the best one the Cubs have. Eyre, on the other hand, is not. He's an average reliever to below average and doesn't have very good control. I don't so much mind the Howry signing, but the signing of eyre was absurd.
Now we've got a spot in the bullpen that could be taken up by one of the youngsters and SHOULD be taken up by one of them since we're not going to trade them or use them in the rotation.
Anyway, I don't think that the Pierre deal was a bad one. It didn't work out and Pierre isn't a very good player after all, but they didn't give anything up to get him. The people crying about this deal are doing so for no reason. Just as the crying about the Cubs not protecting Sisco turned out to not really hurt the Cubs...at least to this point it hasn't.
So............
In fairness to you, I can say this now that 2006 is over, but the bottom line is Juan Pierre was not an answer for this organization.
Time will tell on the futures of the 24-year olds Nolasco and Pinto, as well as Mitre. In the end, I think we'll see those three arms providing more overall success to their teams than Juan Pierre did to the Cubs in 2006. In fact, you nearly admit as much in your post.
It was a stupid trade at the time and will likely look worse as the years go by.
That's possible...
You determine whether a trade is "right" or "wrong" by what the projections tell you at the time you're making the trade. Nolasco and Pinto had very average minor league records and both were promoted to "prospect" status because of how each of them did their 2nd try at AA...which in itself is kind of crazy since repeating a level the 2nd time is usually not a sign of a player projecting well to the major leagues.
Nolasco had a strong rookie season, but his stuff is underwhelming and it's not like he was unhittable. We know for a fact that hitters fare better against pitchers the more times they see them. The future does not look bright for Nolasco.
Pinto has never been able to find the plate and more than likely never will. That's really the end of the story when it comes to Pinto. He simply doesn't project well.
Mitre has shown time and time again that he doesn't belong at the MLB level.
The best player the Marlins got for Juan Pierre was a guy who got lit up at AAA and whose only above average season was while he was repeating the same level. You can try to use hindsight all you want, but the players sent to Florida do not project well...THAT is what you base the value of a trade on.
Trading Juan Pierre for those three players was not a bad trade for the Cubs. And, look, I can't stand Juan Pierre. I think he's next to worthless, but so are the guys the Cubs traded to the Marlins.
In time............
Nolasco and Mitre DO project as end of the rotation guys. Someone has to pitch in the #4/#5 spots, and unless you are the Yankees, it's likely to be someone like Nolasco/Mitre taking the ball every 5th day.
I happen to subscribe to the "lefties develop late" theory, and therefore think Pinto DOES have a chance to find the plate and become a guy who could work as a #3, perhaps better. It will depend upon his ability to round into a pitcher, but the raw talent is there.
You may be right,
However, I do agree that on some teams Mitre and Nolasco could be tail-end of the rotation guys, but do you realize that these pitchers are a dime a dozen? They have no real value because they're so plentiful. Combine that with the fact that number 5 starters are likely to produce at replacement level or below and you have to wonder why any team in their right mind would keep these guys in an MLB rotation.
Now, just because the Cubs are signing 4th and 5th starters for multi-year contracts doesn't mean it's a wise decision. It's not. It's almost never a wise investment. I could probably count on one hand the number of times signing a true 4th or 5th starter has turned out to be a good decision by the club. It happens so infrequently because for them to give you the value in return for what they're being paid for, they'd have to actually improve...which is not likely for these inconsistent starting pitchers.
I don't really mind the Lilly/Marquis signings. it's not my money, but the Cubs are almost assuredly never going to get the value back that they've paid to get. In fact, I just don't think it's possible. Neither are good enough to give the Cubs their money's worth. And both of them are better than Nolasco and Pinto will likely ever be.
I keep saying likely and unlikely for a reason. All we can talk about is what's likely and not likely to happen as there are always a few out of the thousands where you're just going to be plain wrong. It happened with the A's and Van Poppell years ago. It appears as though it's happened to the Cubs and Prior. It also happens on the other end of the spectrum...Pujols to give you the best example.
We can't predict the future, but we can project the future. A projection is based on what's likely or unlikely to happen. I may very well end up being wrong about Nolasco, Pinto and Mitre. And the same is true for you. But what we do right now is this: it's significantly more likely that none of them turn out to be any good than it is that even one of them becomes a valuable starting pitcher. That's just the facts of this game right there. Almost ALL prospects fail. And what we know about Nolasco, Pinto, and Mitre is that none of them project to be anything above tail-end of the rotation guys...guys who have value when they're cheap, but when they enter arbitration and free agency...they have no value at all. Just because teams continue to sign guys like this doesn't mean they have value. Teams make mistakes all the time. All too often in fact.
I essentially agree..........
So, does this mean that Marquis
by TheBeerBaron on Dec 9, 2006 11:18 AM CST up reply actions
So on Dec 8th compare the Cubs to the division
They kept aging CF'er Edmunds and let jouneyman Belliard go by signing another good journeyman in Kennedy as well as catcher Bennett
Houston: They have lost Pettitte and Springer appear to be losing Clement, Huff, and Bagwell while signing C-Lee and Woody Williams. (MINUS)
Milwaukee: Estrada, Aquino, Vargas and signed Counsell (?) and Graffinino agreed to arbitration while probably losing Bell, Cirillo, Helling, Campusano, Davis and Kolb....(probably a slight plus)
Cinci and Pittsburgh have done practically nothing...
So at this point the Cubs turning over their roster by adding 2 SP's, star OF'er, solid IF'er resigning A-Ram & Blanco and now can deal from a position of strength the Cubs could go from division favorite to NL favorite depending on what they do now.
Marquis is not an awful signing
The signing, which was first reported by the St. Louis-Post Dispatch, ends the Cubs search for two starters, following the four-year, $40 million deal for Ted Lilly on Wednesday,
If true, this is very concerning. While all would like to stay positive, if this is the plan for the next 3 yrs, then we may have wasted about $200million on two guys who can't make this team win by themselves. I'm not opposed to signing Marquis, but I'm hard-pressed to believe that this was Hendry's idea of loading the starting pitching before next year.
Suddenly, Glendon's outlandish deal from last year looks like we stole him after seeing what all of these guys are getting.
Wait a minute
I'm almost always optimistic
But:
- Hendry bid against himself, when he could have spent a similar amount and gotten Jeff Suppan or Miguel Batista or someone at least a little more reliable
- Marquis had a good year and a decent year, but in the two years before and the year after, he was putrid. That's not the kind of consistency that $20m should buy you
- Hendry seems to indicate an unwillingness to trade young pitching. I'm sure if he had been willing to part with some young pitching, he could have been much better.
Jason is going to be a Glendon Rusch replacement
by firebottle on Dec 9, 2006 9:47 AM CST reply actions
Marquis is lightening the bottle
That said, I am ignoring the amount of money the FA market is spending in this newer era, Hendry is saving his minor league stable and is guessing that as the years go by more inflation will happen in MLB salaries and players like Lilly & Marquis can be traded.
I am okay with although the perfect addition would have been Penny from LA for about the same $$ while trading Jones, but alas, LAD might not want Jones.
Good point about last season's stats
On July 17, the Braves beat up on the Cardinals and won 15-3. Marquis started the next day and was left in for five lousy innings in which he gave up 12 runs.
If you take those 25 runs and 10 innings out of last year, his ERA drops to 5.13. Not good, but not nearly as bad as 6.02.
by DSZ on Dec 9, 2006 9:52 AM CST up reply actions
Thank you.
very true
I'm taking the wait and see approach to this one. Marquis has an electric arm (92-96 mph). If he can figure out how to pound the zone about 4 to 6 inches lower than this past year, he'll post an ERA around 4, if not then there will be a lot of bithcing about this guy in '07.
If more than anything the Cubs will have a lot of competition for the 11 spots in '07.
I Have To Admit....
I choose optimism as well. No matter the terms, he's a Cub, so let's hope he succeeds. I don't understand why he got so much money, but hey, it ain't my money they're throwing around.
As for the people who say they'll quit being fans if Marquis signs, dramatic much? If you all want to continue to overreact, please turn in your season tickets as I'm far down the wait list and could use all the help I can get. And if that doesn't work for you, blow it out your ass, the continual carping got old a long time ago.
Well, I agree...
Negativity is not something new for me, I don't think, when it comes to the Cubs. I thought I was the eternal optimist, but that's being challenged today. Anyway, I agree with you, if you're really a Cubs fan, you won't give up your loyalty.
Yes, it's a tough sell
It is inevitable...
I agree...
I won't cheer for him, but I'm not going to boo him out of here. It would be nice if he does what Jones did and perform a little better than we thought he would.
Why wouldn't you cheer for him?
by Chitown Mojo on Dec 9, 2006 11:09 AM CST up reply actions
One of us...
Catch a monkey by the toe
If he hollers let him go
Eeny Miny Moe
by Chitown Mojo on Dec 9, 2006 11:11 AM CST up reply actions
How?
Marquis best years he was SLIGHTLY above league average
if Marquis returns to being SLIGHTLY above league average we still threw 6.67 million at him this season
so we saved what 2.3 million?????
enough to sign Blanco?
c'mon...
the best way this deal can work out is Hendry looking OK
you dont look like a genius unless Jason Marquis pitches like a Cy Young calibur pitcher
by DartmouthCubsFan on Dec 9, 2006 10:50 AM CST up reply actions
Bruce...
I'm more than willing to lay 100% of the blame for these situations at the feet of Dusty Baker and Don Baylor. I do believe that Larry Rothschild may actually be an excellent pitching coach. My point? He's done nothing outside of Carlos Zambrano during his somewhat lengthy tenure in Chicago to prove that he has a clue.
So hearing that Jason Marquis is eager to work with Larry Rothschild or that Rothschild believes that he can fix Marquis makes me laugh.
DmL
I'd say his 2nd half was the worst in the majors
Wins and losses
To be candid..............
How can wins and losses be a "terrible way to judge a pitcher's success"?????
Wins are the only damn stat that matters. Never seen a WS Champ yet based on their ERA, BA, OBP, etc., etc., etc.
Wins as a measure of INDIVIDUAL success...
A simply awful pitching statistic that should be swallowed up by the earth itself, personified, given ears, and forced to listen to a tape loop of Bermanisms for all of eternity. The reason being - and again, you know this, intuitively, even if you have never quite expressed it to yourself - if Carl Pavano gives up nineteen runs in five innings but the Yankees score 20 runs, and they hold on to win, and Pavano gets the win, is Pavano a good pitcher? No he is not. (This scenario is assuming he ever comes back and actually pitches, btw.) If Francisco Liriano throws 9 innings of no-hit ball, but gives up a run on four consecutive errors by Terry Tiffey and gets a loss, is Francisco Liriano a bad pitcher? No he is not. Wins stink to high heaven as a way to value pitchers because they are in very large part dependent on the actions of the other guys on the team.
I believe.................
I understand what you mean (I think), but I'd still take a guy that posts W's, regardless of how he gets them.
Think of it this way...
I think what he is trying to get as it...
Oh, and by the way, unnessacary (sorry for the spelling, always have trouble with that word) taunting is serious uncalled for.
That's pretty much it.
BTW, I'm a seriously atrocious speller too, but Fire Fox v.2 has a built in text box spell checker. It has saved me many, many times.
I'm talking about
How you're still allowed to post here after your constant personal attacks is beyond me, though.
Boo hoo
I'm not going to get into...
BTW, I think Al will tell you I'm about the last person who thinks he's the 'absolute authority on all things'. I like to think I can find middle ground in anything (well, today's ridiculous signing is just hard to defend...).
Well gravedigger
That's what makes boards amateurish at best, spewing out so called expert opinions like you two do. If your offended, too bad.
It's not that you are debating them...
I'm not saying I agree with totally agree with their statements either, but I'd rather be amateurish then immaturish.
The congrats statement
I don't know why Im going to bother responding...
A: 222.7 innings / 3.48 ERA / 157K / 43 BB
B: 231.7 innings / 2.87 ERA / 238K / 48 BB
You'd take B, or you're a liar. Well, what about the fact that A won 21 games, but B won 'only' 16?
Johan Santana was a much more valuable pitcher, but Colon's team was able to score more runs and hold his leads. Their W/L records were pretty much insignificant.
It isn't debate...
You also seem to be ignoring the fact that I've said many times that I don't consider myself any kind of expert. All I've said is that if you take a careful look at stats, they can tell you something beyond just what your eyes can tell you. You can choose to ignore that, but I don't know how we're going to have any kind of reasoned debate if you're just going to attack people and not their points.
BTW, perhaps you missed it, but earlier today Al and I had a reasoned debate, and neither of us resorted to name calling. That is how a debate works - people discussing the facts that they have in front of them.
That all said, I invite you to go back over my posts and find where I've declared myself (or anyone else has declared themselves) geniuses or experts. I don't think you'll find any.
It's time you go to bed buddy...
Another childish response
I didn't think anyone...
Congratulations, it is quite an achievement.
You're absolutely right...
I'm not usually one to complain about posters
Not really
Hate to bring up reality for hitters but
You're plain wrong...
Wins don't factor in run support. ERA and WHIP are better indicators. Would you really prefer Randy Johnson's 17 wins and 5.00 (!) ERA over Lackey's 13 wins and 3.56 ERA. You're not even acknowledging the other side. Work on your argument skills.
by thekansasian on Dec 9, 2006 8:29 PM CST up reply actions
Grieve
by cashcowsquirtingsourmilk on Dec 9, 2006 8:37 PM CST up reply actions
Oakland didn't give up on him
by cashcowsquirtingsourmilk on Dec 9, 2006 9:21 PM CST up reply actions
Dumb
you seem to.
WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY?
Word
I think he's just trying to antagonize
Listen,.............
The ONLY important stat is ANY sport is winning, and to discount it is, well, honestly, er, uhm,......I'm not sure what to call it.
But pretty dumb might cover it...........
That's disengenous
If you're still trying to say that wins are an effective way to measure a pitcher's success, please read up to my post about the two pitchers, Colon and Santana.
Ugh
I understand what you are saying, but........
If player A wins 17 games with a 4.50 ERA and player B wins 17 games with a 2.50 ERA, the end result is they both won 17 games.
And with wins being THE ONLY MEANS BY WHICH teams are evaluated (in the standings, anyway) both pitchers are EQUALLY as valuable.
In fact, if the pitcher with the higher ERA won 18 games, he'd be MORE VALUABLE.
That doesn't make sense, though...
I mean, theoretically, a pitcher could pitch 9 innings of every game, but lose them all 1-0, while another pitcher just makes it to 5 innings giving up 10 runs, and was fortunate enough that his team scored 15 runs every time, and he finishes the year 20-0. That makes him more valuable? Yeah, right. I know that's an extreme example, but it illustrates that wins are a team dependent statistic.
Also, some managers don't let their starters stay in the game as long, or don't let them work out of jams. Does that make the pitcher worse? No.
A pitcher's W-L record is usually more reflective of the team as a whole than the individual pitcher.
OK, look at it this way. If you took all the pitchers with, say, 13 or more wins last year, and you took the 5 with the highest ERAs, WHIP, k/9, etc., but I took the 5 with the lowest, I'd beat you every time, REGARDLESS of what those pitcher's W-L records were.
It's funny that you...........
Chances are strong a pitcher with a good ERA is going to have more wins than a guy with a poor ERA. Someone issuing fewer walks is likely to fair better than a player who issues ball four with regularity. Historical data supports that.
But in the end, I'm not impressed with a "hard luck pitcher" and 9 wins in a full season.
I did it that way...
I'd say
by thekansasian on Dec 10, 2006 12:51 PM CST up reply actions
I agree
Challenge you...........
What I have said is the only stat that counts is wins because that's how teams are judged. When they change the rules to reward the team with the best ERA and annoint them champs, I'll jump to your side of the discussion. Until then, in the words of Al Davis, "just win, baby"!!
just like OBP is the only way
Who said it was?
Hell, just a little bit ago, I used advanced stats to question Soriano's status as an "above average" player, and I didn't even use OBP.
And there you go again attacking DmL. You obviously know nothing about his background or his baseball knowledge, because if you did, you'd grant us all mercy and go back to the cubs.com message boards.
Sabermetrics
Anyhow...I'm off to see Lewis Black at Rosemont.
DmL
I know what you mean
Enjoy Lewis Black. He's fun stuff live.
I know enough to realize both of
Amateur analysis is just that amateur.
Selective use of statisitcs is any occupation is doomed to failure, maybe when you get out of schoo; you will find out. Until then selectivity in statistical analysis is amateurism at best and just plain silly in reality.
I find that statement funny.
If you want to actually have a discussion, I'll pose this question: how were either DmL or I using 'selective stats'? What, exactly, is it that you take issue with what we've said? It is hard to debate things when you make ad hominem attacks instead of making a real point. Why I'm bothering to bother with this, I don't know, since all you really seem to care about is attacking people and making blanket statement with no basis in fact.
a perennial contender
by cashcowsquirtingsourmilk on Dec 9, 2006 7:51 PM CST up reply actions
Agree, and what's more...
yes indeed
by cashcowsquirtingsourmilk on Dec 9, 2006 8:18 PM CST up reply actions
Perfect response
I'm amused
Secondly by the fact that you call me a "stat geek blowhard". I'd love to see you find any post that I've ever made here that uses a stat that is any more comprehensive than on-base & or OPS. I couldn't tell you what VORP means, how to calculate slugging percentage or the significance of ERA+. Please show me where I've used selective statistics and show why I'm wrong. But what I find really funny here is that on one hand I'm a stat geek, yet I'm just providing amateur analysis.
In reality you're just acting like a two-year old. I'm not sure what your problem is, and typically I don't tend to respond to posts like this. I don't see, however, why you can't just take issue with what I say and counter it. That is the purpose of a forum like this.
DmL
You tell her girl!
by Chitown Mojo on Dec 10, 2006 2:40 AM CST up reply actions
but his ERA in the first half
by cashcowsquirtingsourmilk on Dec 9, 2006 7:44 PM CST up reply actions
Instead of blame...
I've said before, if the Cubs had let Larry go, I wouldn't have had a problem. But he's a better pitching coach than a lot of people want to give him credit for being. Let's see what happens with Piniella at the helm.
dmlichte
thanks for bringing facts into the discussion bruce.
by DSZ on Dec 9, 2006 3:33 PM CST up reply actions
First off...
A few points, however. As for Cruz, I agree, he's done nothing, but he is was a highly touted prospect who did nothing with the Cubs, so he is part of the Rothschild balance sheet. Clement may have had his best years under Rothschild, but it was still under Rothschild's coaching tht Clement was removed from the pitching rotation at the end of the 2004 season. With Borowski, it was a gross error for the Cubs to stick with him in 2004, refusing to acknowledge a very obvious problem (again, I'm not sure if this was Baker, Rothschild or the front office). I do find it interesting that you were, in the Juan Cruz case, eager to infer that Oscar Acosta was a good pitching coach, while when it came to Carlos Zambrano, you infer that he wasn't (and I did credit Rothschild with the development of Zambrano).
Again, my point of contention was that I find it funny to paint it as a positive that a pitcher in Marquis, who had a horrible 2006 season is eager to work with Rothschild, a pitching coach who doesn't exactly have the best track record. That being said, I do believe that Rotschild may be an excellent coach (others like Tom Glavine do swear by him, too). But there is a balance in the Rothschild coaching picture that needs to be struck and as far as results, the jury is still out on him. This is undeniable. I am not disapointed that he is the Cubs pitching coach like others are, however I laugh when anyone believes that he is going to fix a problem that Dave Duncan and Leo Mazzone couldn't.
DmL
As stated somewhere else
It's not impossible that Rotschild fixes a problem that couldn't be by those two.
If Duncan's so great...
Or Jeff Weaver? Weaver was awful with the Cardinals until the postseason.
I don't think he's so great.
I've never been a Rotschild detractor and now is the time to give the guy a second chance, now that Baker isn't around anymore. We'll see...
Consider...
Maybe there's just something about the way Mazzone and Duncan work that didn't mesh with Marquis' personality.
If you've had enough jobs and/or managers in your own professional life, you know that you're not going to get along with everyone, even though you may be doing the same job you've always done; if your management changes, and they don't like you, your performance can suffer.
This is, obviously, the "change of scenery" argument. It doesn't work for everyone. But it might work for Jason Marquis.
Indeed...
I have no problem with the Cubs taking a flyer on Marquis. I have a problem with them doing it for so much money and guarenteeing it over three years. Further, this is compounded by the questionable long term signing of Ted Lilly.
All of these moves, along with DeRosa and Soriano are reasonable moves (though the 3 guarenteed years for Marquis is unreasonable). When they are put into the bigger picture of being part of a puzzle, this is where I am concerned. Talent is being blocked. A massive amount of money has now been outlayed through at least the 2009 season, preventing the team from making significant acqusistions if they are going to maintain a $120-130M payroll. This is further complicated with the Carlos Zambrano potential extention in the offing.
My point? Look at the entire picture. If it doesn't work out exactly as Hendry hopes, this is going to be one hell of a mess that the next GM is going to have to clean up.
DmL
Agreed, wholeheartedly
Salaries
Through '09 (and beyond), they are committed to these players (and I've listed the average dollars):
- Soriano: $15M (which goes up to $18M in the last several years of that deal)
- Lee: $13M
- Ramirez: $15M
- Lilly: $10M
- Marquis: $6.5M
- DeRosa: $4.5M
Add players who they are comitted through 2008 (Howry, Jones, Eyre, Dempster, Izturis and Blanco) and that $82M reaches over $105M for around half of the 25 man roster.
They still need to deal with Michael Barrett beyond the 2006 season.
Perhaps this team invisions its payroll being over $130. This just really has the makings of an increadible mess.
DmL
The sad thing is
Cruz is still a bum. No one has done anything wit
Indeed
However I do not see how it is unreasonable to suggest that with a player who was simply horrid last year and has had a tremendously inconsistent career that giving him $6.5M or even $9.33M (as some articles are suggesting)a year guarenteed is a bad idea. Further, I don't see how anyone could think that, given Marquis' career, that guarenteeing that kind of money for three years is a good idea.
Even under the most optomistic views, Marquis should have been given a one year deal with a low guarenteed base ($3-4M) with several million in incentives. Years two and three could vest with some statistical achievement.
DmL
I had heard...............
Always known as a lunatic, Tavarez room with Cruz in Chicago (so the story goes), and the very young Juan apparently picked up all the bad habits already resident in Julian.
Just read this post...
Prior's troubles came from freak injuries.
What has Clement done since the Cubs?
Juan Cruz STILL isn't any good.
Sergio Mitre STILL isn't any good.
Let's not forget that Latroy was solid until moved into the closer's role.
Dempster was crap until Rothschild, and has since returned to that.
Not one decent criticism of Larry there.
by thekansasian on Dec 9, 2006 3:37 PM CST up reply actions
These are ...
As for Prior, his troubles have been from more than freak injuries and many believe that his lack of control since his 2003 season have been due to a shoulder injury. Rothschild has not seemingly been willing to deal with Prior's mechanics...certainly a worry. Same concern with Kerry Wood.
As for Dempster, again, I'll point to my first comment. Dempster was bad, good, and bad again. Rothschild wasn't able to help him last year. Why will Rothschild be able to help Marquis?
DmL
Well then...
I was merely arguing Rothschild in general, as in the specific cases you mentioned.
by thekansasian on Dec 9, 2006 5:28 PM CST up reply actions
Good Move
Zambrano
Lilly
Hill
Marquis
Prior/Miller/etc....
Not too bad if you ask me. Saves us from dealing one or more of our young arms too.
by nevadadave on Dec 9, 2006 10:04 AM CST reply actions
What those that know him best are saying...
***************
Considering that he couldn't be fixed under the wing of great pitching coaches in the past . . . maybe he needs the opposite?
haha, let's hope that's not true. . .
****************
I seriously doubt there are legit numbers, but repliers on mlbtraderumors.com are saying 3 years/28 mil. I just cant imagine him getting that much money.
I dont know if Im happy or sad if that is the number, on the good side, its the worst move of the offseason and its the Cubs doing it, on the bad side, Ive lost a little bit of hope in humanity.
****************
The Cubs can have the Silver Slugger. They might also get the record for most HR in a season allowed by one pitcher.
**************
He's gonna look great wearing the blue pajamas and giving up homer after homer in The Sacred Pile Of Bricks. 9 million a year too!! Crikey, just when I thought Jim Hendry suddenly woke up and had a real plan to make the Cubs dangerous. Ted Lilly and Betty--HA! Guess Soriano will be this year's Sosa (especially if they're actually dumb enough to bat him leadoff)--lotsa solo homers, not much else. It never fails to amaze me how that club continually shoots itself in the foot. All that money for what is essentially now a .500 team. Go Cubbies!!
****************
The Trib
is now reporting the deal at 6-7 mil a year. Not as bad, but still no bargain for Bi-Polar Betty. Anything over 2 or 3 at most is ridiculous. Bye Bye Betty. We do so look forward to seeing you face Albert, Scotty, and Jim!
****************
I'll be optimistic and say bi-polar Betty will NOT set the single season record for most HRs allowed. In fact I'll even be more optimistic than that---His arm will fall of in early April after giving up 17 runs in his first and only appearance as a Cub.
by Reverend Jim Ignatowski on Dec 9, 2006 10:05 AM CST reply actions
That's all great
Speaking of which, how many guys do we have now with rings? I'll start:
Piniella
Rothschild
Trammell
Lee
Marquis
Lilly
Soriano
Am I missing anyone? Anyone else on the coaching staff?
by 26.2cubfan on Dec 9, 2006 1:41 PM CST up reply actions
If it were up to the players...
by Reverend Jim Ignatowski on Dec 9, 2006 1:55 PM CST up reply actions
Of course he should have,
I'm not thrilled about Marquis but I don't think it is the end of the world. Marquis is not as bad as he was last year. He's a better signing than Eaton and Meche. His signing also doesn't signal the end of the careers of all the Cubs young pitchers. And by the way, most of the Cubs young pitchers stunk last year. Most should be in the minors this season, learning so in a season or two they might have a chance to be good.
um
for one thing we can't come up with our own nicknames? gotta steal them Card fans, we're so much better than that
Agreed
by 26.2cubfan on Dec 9, 2006 2:13 PM CST up reply actions
See you later
by Johnny Callison was a Cub on Dec 9, 2006 3:07 PM CST up reply actions
I think its a mistake...
"Jim? This is Lou. When I said you need to sign a marquee pitcher, I meant someone like Schmidt, Zito, or Penny. Not Jason Marquis you nimwit!!"
Post of the day.
by Littlerock Rynofan on Dec 9, 2006 12:03 PM CST up reply actions
The problem
Look, it's better than I thought Hendry could do in one offseason, but I can't help but wonder how these backloaded contracts are going to affect the Cubs in 2008 and 2009 and 2010 and beyond. It looks pretty darn ugly right now.
For a team that seems intent on giving away its future for 2007, I sure wish they built a better team than this. I'd just be happy if even one aspect of their team was above average for the kind of money they've spent, but they're average in every regard. I guess average is better than 2006...at least from the Cubs fan perspective in me. From a baseball perspective, nothing is worse than .500.
The Cubs will, at least, be.....
I'm sorry...
Has Jim Hendry lost total control of his faculties?
Jason Marquis has had a marginal career. He has had two good years. He is coming off of perhaps one of the worst year a starting pitcher has had over the past decade, allowing an ERA over 6, a .289 batting average allowed, and 35 home runs. This kid has pitched under two of the better pitching coaches in the game and with all due respect to Bruce Miles, Larry Rothschild's track record with developing pitchers is less than stellar.
You DO NOT give a pitcher like this $6.5M guarenteed. Further you DO NOT guarentee that money for three years.
If the signings that Jim Hendry has made over the past month do not work out as he envisioned, not only will he lose his job, but we as Cub fans are going to be feeling the effects for several seasons. Aside from wow factor, there is no reason to sign Marquis instead of allowing a host of young Cubs fight it out for the 4th spot in the rotation. They are just as likely to make good use of that spot in the rotation while recieving 1/10th of Marquis' salary.
DmL:Yes, I am pessimistic about this. Simply ridiculous.
You and Maddog
Even if everyone performs to expectations, the team will be average. Maybe that's good enough in this weak central division where nobody else, so far, has attempted to improve themselves. But that doesn't make me too excited.
The Cubs are apparently trying to win now in 2007. Maybe they've put the parts together, maybe not. But in the more likely event that they have not, this team will not just suck now, it will suck for a while.
Boy
I'm not normally negative...
I Don't Get People
It isn't about the money
No Kidding
Call us pessimistic if you wish. Unfortunately we have a pretty solid track record of being right over the past few seasons (both here and on other forums).
DmL
Well...
I'm depending on Mark Prior again. I know I said I would never do that again, but this time I'm not expecting him to help. I'm just hoping because there's not much else I can do. If Prior is OK, then our rotation will be a lot better. If not, well I hope Z has the best year a pitcher has ever had.
Hmmmm....
Zambrano
Hill
Lilly
Prior/Miller
Miller/Prior
with Marquis as a potential Rusch like backup for one of the positions, if Prior and/or Miller fall through. The assumptions are that Hill stays lights out (which is reasonable IMO) and that at least one of Prior or Miller regains form (I think Miller will be OK, don't know about Prior)
I'm not happy about it as it's a waste of money but maybe it's the best of a not-so-great situation:
- It's not a Zito-like signing which, if it turns bad, would kill the team for years. A 6 mill loss x 3 years is a loss the Cubs can afford.
- There is very little on the FA market and Colorado is not going to part with Jennings right now. The Indians are keeping Westbrook.
- We are not losing prospects as in last years' disaster Juan Pierre deal for a one year rent-a-player.
I'm looking for reasons to be happy, and it's hard.
At $6+M
Z
Lilly
Hill
Marquis
Miller/Marshall/Prior
I don't like this deal. Assuming that Z, Lilly, and Hill are locks for the rotation, I'd much rather find 2 out of Miller/Prior/Marshall/Marmol than to spend all that money for (at best) a 4th starter. He's really much more a 5th.
Now the Cubs need a CF and the team will be pretty much set.
by NO100 on Dec 9, 2006 11:08 AM CST up reply actions
That depends on performance
Marquis is insurance. Hendry wants to be able to build a workable rotation without relying on his injured players, and with the Marquis signing he has one.
Marquis will not be in the rotation if both Prior and Miller are well.
Had the Cubs...
And what if the Cubs had signed a guy like this:
8-14 record, 172 IP, 34 HR allowed, 5.76 ERA
That's almost worse than Marquis, isn't it?
That's Jeff Weaver's line from last year. He got hot in the playoffs, and thus will probably command a huge dollar contract from the Cardinals (or someone else) -- and they'll be really, really sorry.
I go on record firmly, right now, again, saying: while Marquis got more dollars than he might have deserved, signing him is a good move that will pay off bigtime for the Cubs.
If I'm wrong, I'll admit it. I hope the rest of you are ready to do the same.
I'm ready...
If Marquis reverts to his very best form, he
ll be an average-ish 3rd starter. Great. So he'll help the team get to 78 wins. I'm so excited.
This team needed one really good starter to solidify the rotation. Maybe Hendry's not done with the rotation, but I have a feeling he is. As it stands, it isn't a good one.
I think you're wrong.
If he returns to that level, he's a solid #2. I say he does it.
That's a big gamble...
In terms of money, a roster spot, and a chance to upgrade to more of a known quantity, the gamble is too big for a team trying to win now.
If the Cubs decided to can this year and build for the future, and they wanted to take a flier on Marquis to catch lightning in a bottle while the young players were developing, I would be in favor of this move. If they are trying to win now, yeah, maybe Marquis can help. But it is a big gamble if the goal is to win the world series next year.
Alternatives?
A surplus of pitching will hopefully help us come June/July to pick up something we need.
And yes, it is a gamble.
by thekansasian on Dec 9, 2006 2:58 PM CST up reply actions
Excellent post.
I do think we'll have a pitching surplus...
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 9, 2006 3:05 PM CST up reply actions
Well...
by thekansasian on Dec 9, 2006 3:07 PM CST up reply actions
Two problems
- If we're looking for help midseason, that presumes we've had a decent first half and are in the hunt. If that's the case, we haven't been using our young pitchers and therefore their value would be low.
- The addition of Marquis for 3 year precludes using any of our young pitchers for at least 3 years. That would put many of them into Draft 5 risk. Let's suppose Marshall, Marmol, Veal and Gallagher are ready for 2008. It creates all sorts of difficult decisions for Hendry. Who to choose and who to lose.
I think...
Consider: when Marshall & Marmol went down, who was the next call? Les Walrond. I trust you wouldn't want THAT again.
Let's suppose
Essentially we're financially committed to the expensive veterans. It's not about Walrond. It's about how we can get both younger and better.
Here's the problem.
The problem is that the probability for this to work out is low, and when that's the case its best if we don't risk much money (and time) finding out.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 9, 2006 3:04 PM CST up reply actions
Keep in mind.....
Looked at that way, and the fact that Marquis got three years and Meche five, it looks a little better, doesn't it?
No
That wasn't my point.
Look, you and I can go back and forth on this forever. You think this move sucks. I don't. Only time will tell which of us is right.
You're right
You're right Al
When Meche first came into the league...
At best, Marquis is an equally talented, but less consistent, pitcher when compared to Meche.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 9, 2006 3:21 PM CST up reply actions
Exactly what I said.
That's all, oh and he's making half the money.
Also, when was Meche "downright good"? Would that be in his first season when he posted a 4.73ERA or in his second when he put up a 3.78ERA in 85IP?
Downright good?
OK, fair enough.
My problem is more with the approach to the offseason - getting two mediocre to good pitchers when i think the team would have been better served with one good to excellent pitcher.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 9, 2006 3:36 PM CST up reply actions
When you say...
Both of those guys come with cautions attached. I don't think either one of them is a slam-dunk #1 pitcher -- Schmidt due to his age, Zito appeared quite hittable in his free-agent season (1.40 WHIP).
If you were talking about a Z-type pitcher available by free agency, sure. Or if you could have traded for one, sure. But other teams were holding out for huge returns in trade for even mid-range pitchers like Jason Jennings, and that's why I think Jennings is still a Rockie.
The landscape is changing, and some of the reactions I've seen here are based on last year's thinking.
Read my other posts, Al...
If rules allowed (they don't) and the Dodgers were interested (they wouldn't be) would you trade Lilly and Marquis for Jason Schmidt, given the contracts they've signed this offseason?
Schmidt: 3 years, $47M, ~$16M/season
Lilly: 4 years, $40M, ~$10M.season
Marquis: 3 years, $20M, ~$7M/sesaon
These two approaches spend a similar amount of money over a similar timeframe. Over the next 3 years, the Cubs will likely spend more on Lilly and Marquis than the Giants will spend on Schmidt.
If you'd rather have Lilly and Marquis over Schmidt, then we just disagree on what the Cubs' needs were heading into the offseason. However, please stop insinuating that the only criticism of this deal comes from a misunderstanding of the market context. That argument doesn't give enough credit to those of us who would just prefer the Cubs spend money elsewhere in that market.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 9, 2006 4:07 PM CST up reply actions
Really irrelevant...
the problem is
there's no problem taking a "flyer" on Marquis and looking to throw a bunch of mud at the wall and hope it sticks for the 5th spot in the rotation
thats fine as a plan
but guranteeing 20 million over 3 years is a HUGE HUGE problem
we've now committed 65-70 million to 6 players in 2009 (Soriano, DLee, Ramirez, DeRosa, Lilly, Marquis)
that doesnt even count Carlos who IF we retain would be another 15-20
so thats 80-90 million for 7! 7! players
how are we going to be able to build a team?
the point is Marquis ISNT a Flyer now because of the contract he was signed to, he's someone we HAVE TO RELY ON
and thats a BIG BIG ISSUE
by DartmouthCubsFan on Dec 9, 2006 4:19 PM CST up reply actions
No, its not really irrelevant.
Forget about analyzing how Hendry is going about building up rotation depth. Its patently obvious that his goal this offseason is to do precisely that. The question i am asking YOU, (which you have avoided answering), is whether or not you agree with that general philosophy. So, which plan would you prefer? Adding two pitchers near the bottom of the rotation or one near the top? Schmidt or Lilly+Marquis?
If you don't see the relevancy of this question, there's no point continuing this discussion any further.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 9, 2006 6:01 PM CST up reply actions
After the past few years...
Schmidt
by cashcowsquirtingsourmilk on Dec 9, 2006 8:01 PM CST up reply actions
20 mil may be high
I also get what you're saying
I see it this way: we could've been the team with Meche on our hands for the next five years. We're not (deep breath), and who we got is a guy that came pretty cheap considering the market and whose contract will not kill us down the road.
I would have cried (no, not of joy) if we would have signed Zito for the years and $$ he's commanding. That is one contract I do not want any part of.
I am not crying, things could be better but I'm not crying.
To answer your question...
I am an optimist, and that is part of the reason i absolutely hate this deal, and the Lilly one. I think Hill and Prior have just as good a chance as Lilly at being a legitimate no. 3 starter. I think Guzman, Marshall, Miller, Marmol, and Mateo have just as good a chance as Marquis (perhaps even better) at being legitimate 4-5 starters. We're spending a lot of money this offseason on things we already have - long shots.
I'd rather Hendry have used the money spent on Lilly and Marquis, and instead applied it to a more trusting no. 2 pitcher. If Zito and Schmidt were unwilling to sign with Chicago, i'd rather he hold onto his money until the trade deadline or next offseason.
I get that the contract fits in the market context. What bugs me is that given the market context we spent the same amount of money on two guys who likely won't be as productive combined as one other guy we could have signed for the same total amount.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 9, 2006 3:18 PM CST up reply actions
C'mon, Al.
Lilly is a #3 at best, followed by a parade of arms that are either being rebuilt or simply not that good.
This is a bad deal not simply because it's Jason Marquis, but frankly because the Cubs STILL don't have a #2 starter. Yet they've spent another $20 mil to get there.
And worse yet, it seems they were bidding against themselves. Who else wanted this guy? Since the end of the WS only one team has been mentioned.
You have said repeatedly that signing Marquis for small money or even a non-guaranteed contract would be fine. Personally I couldn't even agree to that because of the Cubs' already existing pile of #4/#5 arms, but to now endorse a big bucks signing like this (regardless of so-called "market conditions") is really a bad call.
This is bad because of the money.
This is bad because of the player involved.
But this is really bad because it did not address the team's key remaining problem.
Motivation
THE CUBS ARE BACK!!
They'll be playing Yankees baseball this year, i.e. taking a mediocre staff and supporting it with above average bats. Only difference is the sp's are better than the yankees as is our bullpen. That's not a bad comparison, and to be perfectly honest, I'd be happy with a season like the 06 yanks, even if we lose in 4 in teh NLDS.
by Fsemi2323 on Dec 9, 2006 11:17 AM CST reply actions
excuse me?
Lets see which would i rather have
Mussina
Wang
Johnson
Pettitte
Igawa/Pavano/Hughes/Karstens
or
Zambrano
Lilly
Hill
Marquis
Prior/Marshall/Miller
you've got to be kidding, right?
oh and the bullpen?
Farnsworth
Proctor
Rivera
Howry
Eyre
Dempster
lets be serious here... we're not even close to the Yankees in rotation or in lineup and the bullpen "could" be close if Dempster was a reliable closer and Woody can actually pitch, two things we dont know yet
by DartmouthCubsFan on Dec 9, 2006 11:23 AM CST up reply actions
Come on....
Are the Cubs head and shoulders above the Yanks in pitching? No, but they aren't lagging, either.
line it up
Wang vs. Lilly edge Yankees
Johnson vs. Hill edge PUSH (for Hill's benefit...)
Pettite vs. Marquis edge Yankees (BIG BIG Edge)
Igawa/Hughes vs. Prior/Miller edge who knows...
so IF we consider Hill and RJ a PUSH which remember we're talking a HOF vs. a guy that had a hot 2nd half THEN the Cubs are kind of close...
the bullpen argument.. how can you consider Wood a sure thing? and seriously having Rivera at the back end makes up for our two best relievers
by DartmouthCubsFan on Dec 9, 2006 4:23 PM CST up reply actions
While the deal is disappointing...
One: the trade market must really suck.
And two: Carlos Zambrano will not sniff free agency next year.
The Cubs will now fill a couple more holes and then make Z the franchise, hopefully, something that may have been too difficult had they signed Jason Schmidt or Barry Zito.
However, that alone doesn't justify this 3 year contract to a guy that was generally pretty awful last year.
Hopefully Marquis has fixed whatever it was that he was doing wrong.
On one other optimistic note: I felt that the Cubs would at some point overpay with prospects for guys like Jason Jennings (who I was not enamoured with), but it seems the Cubs plan on holding what youth they have and letting it develop a bit more.
So while Marquis obviously does not make us better at face value, one thing that signing Marquis does accomplish is some assurance that we are keeping what prospects we have and that we are in fact, not sacrificing the future for the present (or we are at least holding our prospects in order to trade for something better).
Marshall, Marmol, Guzman, Mateo, Gallagher, Veal, etc, are all STAYING. For now anyway. And that is cause for celebration.
And so for myself, who felt that any quick rebuild effort by the Cubs could end up being disastrous with the idea that, in order to accomplish this chimerical goal, all our youth would be sacrificed in trades for merely decent players, this development is somewhat heartening.
With Marquis all we are out is some money, money that is easily replenished, while what strength we do have in our farm system remains, and with a top pick in next year's draft, will be built upon, not torn down for the likes of Jason Jennings or Jake Westbrook, both who have become wildly overrated in a shit market for both free agency and trades.
And as long as Big Z is tied up for long-term before Opening Day, then this move, while not anywhere near a good one, is at least somewhat defensible.
by theprognosticator on Dec 9, 2006 11:42 AM CST reply actions
RE: excuse me
by Fsemi2323 on Dec 9, 2006 12:24 PM CST reply actions
My take
We gave up nothing but truckloads of money to do this, and lost no players or prospects in the process. It is easy to criticize, and trades are easier to justify because things go both ways, and can be weighed against each other. But in FA the payments are outrageous because someone is willing to pay it, because they don't give up anything. I am just glad that Hendry knows that it takes some serious gambles to get better through FA, and always giving more time and money to the players.
GO CUBS!
That logic would be OK
If Hendry goes out and gets a legitimate #2, I'll shut up. But since it appears Hendry is willing to go with a rotation of Z, Hill, Lilly, Marquis, and Cotts/Prior, I don't think he's going to get anyone else. I hope I'm wrong.
agreed...
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 9, 2006 1:11 PM CST up reply actions
market
by Fsemi2323 on Dec 9, 2006 12:40 PM CST up reply actions
market value
In My Defense
Second-The other options were worse, including doing nothing IMHO.
Thirdly-Cardinals are pretty good, being left off their postseason roster was a good move by LaRussa, because he wasn't as good as their other four, which I don't dispute. They didn't need him, and even I think he's a 5 starter in an average rotation. Problem is, we don't have one of those. We have a nascent, inexperienced inconsistent rotation, and he improves that.
Fourthly-In my defense, a prominent sportscaster thinks we had the 2nd best offseason so far.
Video on ESPN.com, hope this works
So much passion in December, I LOVE IT!
Who is the commentator?
tim kurkjian
the way I see it, we're stacked with pitching, albeit mostly #5 caliber pitching at best, but with all that competition maybe 2 of them will surprise everybody.
by cashcowsquirtingsourmilk on Dec 9, 2006 1:43 PM CST up reply actions
I think
I also think Marshall could be a #2/3 given time to mature. Marmol has lots of potential, and has been pitching for three years, total. Who knows how good he is.
of course
the rest of them, that's what I'm saying, are all #5's, and we got how many? marquis, miller, marshall, marmol, mateo, prior, guzman. am I missing anybody? a couple will probably exit via trade, but it still leaves some insurance. we would need career years out of most. how likely is it though? I'm guessing one out of that bunch will come through with a decent year, and hopefully Z, Hill, & Lilly will live up to expectations, especially Lilly who is coming from the AL east.
Jim Hendry, when you get well, hold on to Jones until you get the best deal possible. I don't wanna see him given away for nothing.
by cashcowsquirtingsourmilk on Dec 9, 2006 3:10 PM CST up reply actions
Guarded optimism
What you have to like is the number of candidates the Cubs have to fill the fourth and fifth rotations spots. They aren't counting on two guys to come through or else. And the money is reasonable given the market.
by cubz1963 on Dec 9, 2006 12:34 PM CST reply actions
to be fair...
One thing I've been hearing is that Marquis is chomping at the bit to get back with a team in the NL Central so he can stick it to the Cards, so perhaps an especially motivated Marquis would be a better one.
And I have a soft spot for anyone with a grudge against the Cardinals.
My prediction for him next year is that he puts up numbers similar to his 2005. ERA in the low 4.00s, 200 IP.
But, ths contract reminds me of the one we gave to Jacque Jones last year, and though some might disagree, I don't think I am out of my mind when I say that Jones was not a big portion of the problem in 2006.
by theprognosticator on Dec 9, 2006 12:52 PM CST up reply actions
I want to stick it to the Cardinals...
Seriously, this guy will likely not out-perform other options we have in house. ANY amount of money we spent on him past ~$500K would have been a waste. Spending $7M/season for 4 years is a tremendous mistake. His hatred for the Cards is great, but we should be signing guys for their ability, not their dislike for LaRussa et al. Besides, even if we sign them for intangibles, it should be for "veteran leadership."
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 9, 2006 1:08 PM CST up reply actions
You act as though that is my main argument...
This is not a good signing.
You waste my time preaching at me when I already agree with you.
Thanks though.
by theprognosticator on Dec 9, 2006 1:13 PM CST up reply actions
Bi-Polar Betty doesn't have...
by Reverend Jim Ignatowski on Dec 9, 2006 1:46 PM CST up reply actions
you're probably right...
by theprognosticator on Dec 9, 2006 1:50 PM CST up reply actions
THAT
do we know the details yet?
by cashcowsquirtingsourmilk on Dec 9, 2006 1:55 PM CST up reply actions
crossing fingers...
Well, look at it this way, at least this isn't Russ Ortiz.
by theprognosticator on Dec 9, 2006 2:10 PM CST up reply actions
Alright...
You can't define passion by expression on the field. Not everybody is a Carlos Zambrano.
by thekansasian on Dec 9, 2006 2:46 PM CST up reply actions
It's a nickname...
Manuvering
There have been rumors of a deal to the Devil Rays for Rocco Baldelli, sending a few young Cub pitchers/relievers, so that could be part of this picture.
Either way, two Cubs are going to be finding their way off the 40-man roster soon.
DmL
Does anyone know
Anyway, as stated before, I think the Marquis signing means that a couple expendable prospects on the pitching staff will be traded for a CF option, and Jones gets dealt.
by 26.2cubfan on Dec 9, 2006 1:59 PM CST up reply actions
Dont' know
Overpayed is a nice term, let's hope out it turns out for the best.
by Faith plus 1 on Dec 9, 2006 12:43 PM CST reply actions
It could be worse...
I choose optimism.
by drone1047 @ Bleed Cubbie Blue on Dec 9, 2006 12:44 PM CST reply actions
Ding Ding
just gotta wait until the games start, but until then I'll choose optimism too
No, i don't think it could be much worse...
Honestly, i'd prefer Hendry to have not had any success signing guys this offseason, than to have had him tie up this much money going for it all this season just to have it all blow up in his face.
And just for the record, signing Lilly and Marquis to fill the 2 and 4/5 spots in the rotation is having this blow up in your face.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 9, 2006 1:04 PM CST up reply actions
THIS IS INSANE!
17 > 16.
In words, we shouldn't have signed Ted Lilly and Jason Marquis. We should have signed Barry Zito or Jason Schmidt instead, and left the 4 and 5 spots in the rotation for Prior, Miller, Marshall, Guzman, Dempster, etc. Even in this market, this is a tremendous misallocation of funds. Spending this kind of money on two below-average pitchers is a complete waste. That's the kind of talent the Cubs can already throw out there. They should have spent it on talent fit for the top of the rotation (which neither of these guys have). Then, they could use less expensive options to fill out the bottom of the rotation.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 9, 2006 1:00 PM CST reply actions
Sorry
As for Schmidt, the word was he wanted to stay on the West Coast. Unless the Cubs were offering significantly better dollars ($17 or $18Mil?), he wasn't coming to Chicago.
What makes you so sure
This isn't fantasy baseball, sometimes you have to take what you can get. I agree I'd rather have seen a number of different people before Marquis but Lilly was the best of what's around and lefty's do well against the NL central so he projects above average for next year.
It doesn't matter if they wanted to come here.
Furthermore, even if Schmidt and Zito wouldn't pitch in Chicago at any price, that does not justify the contracts for Lilly and Marquis. That $17M dollars per season will be paid out by the team not only in 2007 but also in 2008 and 2009 (i suspect it will be more than $17M/year in '08 and '09). If we couldn't get our hands on one of the top pitchers this offseason, the team should have held its cards until the trading deadline or until the 2008 offseason. Then we could have gone after one of next year's crop of FA pitchers, and there are quite a few no 1-2. pitchers on that list.
The point is we're spending $17M on two 3-5 type pitchers when we should be spending that money on one no. 2 pitcher. If it can't be Zito or Schmidt, it needs to be someone else. This is especially true when one considers the depth of potential 3-5 pitchers on the Cubs' roster. We have a no. 1 pitcher. We have a lot of candidates for the 3-5 spots in the rotation. What we don't have is a no. 2 pitcher. We still don't. What's worse is these signing assure we won't be able to pick one up via free agency for the next 2-3 years.
Our only hope for the rotation the next 3 years is for Hill to continue to dominate as he did the last part of 2006. If that's the case, he can be a no. 2 pitcher. Then, Prior, Miller, Guzman, or Marshall will have to step up and pitch well enough to be the no 3 pitcher. At that point, Lilly could be the 4 and one of the others (or Marquis) could be the 5.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 9, 2006 2:52 PM CST up reply actions
True...
But doesn't that completely void your whole "10 + 7 = 17. 17 > 16." argument?
Argument...
We could easily afford a few million more per season if Hendry didn't also pay for things which he already has at his disposal for far less money. Mark DeRosa is unlikely to significantly outperform Ryan Theriot enough to make him worth $4M/season. Likewise, Henry Blanco is unlkely to outperform Henry Blanco enough to make him worth ~$3M/season. Thus, i would use the following equation instead:
10 + 7 + 4 + 3 = 24.
24 ~> 17 + away town markup.
Fair?
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 9, 2006 6:11 PM CST up reply actions
Someone's gotta go
Cubs won't be caught short and this at least gives us some ML experience, sorely lacking in last year's pitching corps esp. the starters called on when Wood/Prior/Miller weren't available when needed and counted on.
At least we're not repeating that mistake even if signing less than topnotch major league pitchers..one of marquis or Lilly will work out well, at worst. cubs have done their diligence. ya gotta believe.
by writerinwrigley on Dec 9, 2006 1:09 PM CST reply actions
E-Pat
by 26.2cubfan on Dec 9, 2006 2:10 PM CST up reply actions
For all the optimists out there...
Me too.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 9, 2006 1:11 PM CST reply actions
Exactly!
I did, however, like the "Bi Polar Betty" & "Marquis the Tee" nicknames
So...
I recommend Al, since he's Marquis' biggest defender ;)
I'd take him
Upside for Marquis
- Guarantees we'll actually have 5 starting pitchers on opening day this time. If all goes well we could actually have as many as 8 guys competing for those rotation spots.
- Leaves plenty of money open for extending Zambrano before spring training
- Marquis is a 2-for-one - it gives us an extra quality pinch hitter off the bench
- Marquis can eat innings and has had a decent track record of health. If he gets bumped out of the rotation he could become a quality long reliever / swing starter, something we've needed and haven't had since Terry Mulholland left.
Here's a thought
If Marshall (I think he's closest) or someone else proves that he is ready to start at the big league level, you just trade away whoever is blocking him and agree to pay part of the salary. You're replacing, say 7mil with 400k, so if you end up paying 2 or 3mil to dump Marquis, you're still essentially getting a 4th or 5th starter in Marshall for 4.4mil, which is still a bargain. Now, it sucks for Marshall that he doesn't get that money, but he'll get his in arbitration a year or two later. No biggie. This way, you end up avoiding overpaying for pitching in the future by preserving a young and promising stable of arms in the system.
Anyone?
by 26.2cubfan on Dec 9, 2006 2:08 PM CST reply actions
You're right
Z
Lilly
Hill
Marquis
Miller
Marshall is probably first in line after that. The Marquis signing is not a death knell for the Cubs young pitchers. Let's see if they are actually ready before giving them starting rotation spots. I saw enough of them starting in 2006.
Youngsters
Marmol 5-7 6.08 WHIP 1.69
Mateo 1-3 5.32 WHIP 1.62
Guzman 0-6 7.39 WHIP 1.88 (ugh!)
Miller 62-45 4.00 WHIP 1.35
Marquis 56-52 4.55 WHIP 1.43
Two of these things are not like the others. Career stats for the M gang + Guzman. Obviously Marshall, Marmol, Mateo and Guzman have plenty of room to improve, but I would MUCH rather see them do that at AA or AAA rather than at Wrigley. Sure, they're much cheaper, but there's a reason for that....
by 26.2cubfan on Dec 9, 2006 2:48 PM CST up reply actions
The important question to ask is this:
If he is pitching to his career averages (or close to it, above or below), will someone take on the lot of his remaining contract commitment in a trade? If the answer is yes, then it's not big deal. So to me, that is the important question. He is 28, so it's not at all unreasonable to expect him to be close to his career averages in the next season or beyond. Just like when a hitter has a career year that you don't expect them to duplicate, there's no reason (at least that I have heard of) to expect that for the next three years he will have a 6.00ERA, considering his age and the type of pitcher he is.
Luis
Cub bleacher fans line up for Tommy John...
Chicago Tribune July 5, 2007
by Reverend Jim Ignatowski on Dec 9, 2006 2:49 PM CST reply actions
Marquis
It isn't a foregone conclusion that this guy will suck. As a rotation that has been plagued by injury, it might actually benefit us to have somebody dependable to throw in the #4 spot.
For those who think our offense is much improved...this would be a good signing. What do you want for a high-powered offense? A pitcher who eats innings and simply keeps you in the game, which Marquis can do. (personally, I don't think the Cubs offense is at that point)
Yeah, I'm not wild about this signing. But I'll drink the Kool Aid and give him a shot. Shit, I'll take him for my sig. And everyone can apologize to me when he throws a 2 hit shutout at Wrigley next year vs Carpenter. Yeah, you heard it here first. If he does suck, then damn, I was wrong. We're looking at a good year from this guy...{sip sip}
by thekansasian on Dec 9, 2006 2:52 PM CST reply actions
cardinal fan here
but in 05 he was just plain bad for much of the season, then in his last 7 starts or he decided he was bob tewksbury-lite or something, not getting k's but not walking anyone, either. I thought he may have turned a corner, but wasn't holding my breath.
but then there was 06...which of course was awful. his k's continued to decline, his sinker was flat, thus he wasn't getting grounders and giving up a lot of homeruns. sure, Larussa hung him out to dry several times, but he still managed to be terrible.
i think he was benefited by Busch's pitcher friendliness and the overall good defense of the Cardinals. He's shoddy peripherals caught up with him last season. He essetially is a one pitch pitcher, all he has is his sinker. his off speed stuff is mediocre at best. and he's a bit of a dimwit, to be honest. I couldn't wait to see him go this season and he was booed off the field by the normally friendly busch crowd on his last game, which should be telling.
Maybe he'll do better under Rothschild, he didn't listen to Duncan much. But just thinking of him in Wrigley...I'm sorry, this is a bad signing. I thought the Cubs would've done better to just let Mateo or Marshall duke it out for the 5th spot.
by erik @ Bleed Cubbie Blue on Dec 9, 2006 3:20 PM CST reply actions
If...
Was new Busch really a pitcher's park? That wasn't my impression of it. Wrigley Field isn't as much a hitter's park as you may think.
busch
Just saying, doesn't bode well for Jason. unless they can get Marquis a shrink, I don't think he's all that fixable, but I've just endured watching him pitch a seasons' worth of horrid games. like i said, 04 i thought he was ok, 05 i saw him go down the tubes and 06 he exploded.
by erik @ Bleed Cubbie Blue on Dec 9, 2006 4:55 PM CST up reply actions
a very underrated point in the discussion today...
The Cubs' defense is nowhere near as good as the Cardinals' defense was when Marquis was at his best. Defense is accentuated when a ground ball pitcher is on the mound (just ask Brandon Webb). If anything, i expect him to be worse in Chicago than he was in St. Louis, because we can't put gloves out there that match what you've enjoyed watching the last few seasons.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 9, 2006 3:24 PM CST up reply actions
the hell are you reading deadbird fan?
2 people like this deal and suddenly there is all this optimism about it.
Nice spin.
by theprognosticator on Dec 9, 2006 3:37 PM CST up reply actions
in his defense...
I'm actually surprised at how many people are in favor of this deal in these parts, too.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 9, 2006 3:39 PM CST up reply actions
I don't know...
I think it's between absolute disdain for the deal and those (myself included) who can see certain positives about it. I don't like the deal, but I don't think it's quite as bad as some are making it out to be.
by thekansasian on Dec 9, 2006 3:43 PM CST up reply actions
Sorry I don't have the stats
Colorado, Philadelphia, Cinci, the 'improved' Comisk- uh, The cell, the Metrodome -- all hitters parks.
The stats, if you have time to look them up (I don't) will show that Wrigley is about in the middle of the pack -- hitters-wise. But still, the myth remains of Wrigley as a bandbox. It's just plain, flat wrong. And because Cubs management hasn't (at times) figured this out --
they've made the wrong decisions.
by Smooth Jazz Man San Diego on Dec 9, 2006 8:58 PM CST up reply actions
Why can't we the jews switch things up...
You crack me up
Maybe you should make bagels instead...
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 9, 2006 3:37 PM CST up reply actions
Feed him Brisket
Federer
It's like deja`vu all over again ....
I find it
We all know the market is out of whack, Gil Meche 55 million for 5, Adam Eaton 8 million for 3 and so on. So Marquis money all be it a little high is really reasonable for todays market.
Marquis has thrown 200 innings the last 3 years ( 194 last year )Eaton and Meche have yet to throw 200 plus, ( Eaton 199 once ). I am a innings guy, guy who will take the ball.
Marquis was bad last year, no question. But I will take him in the 4th spot in the rotation against other 4th starters in the league. He should match up well against other 4 starters except maybe the Phillies ( Hamels ) or LA who has 6 good starters.
I also rather have him in the rotation then the uncertainity of Marmol/Guzman, inconsistent Marshall, and who knows with Prior.
This also gives The Cubs another arm, and at todays market reasonable cost. Toronto has stated if they can not get Wells signed by the mid JAN. they will look to move him. This gives the Cubs a little more flexibility to make that move, which we all want done.
If he goes 14-10 next year, 200 innings, 4.40 ERA, I think we would all take it. I say the chances are better that he does, then not.
by Johnny Callison was a Cub on Dec 9, 2006 3:40 PM CST reply actions
At least...
by TheEman on Dec 9, 2006 5:34 PM CST up reply actions
I would rather have had Lieber
cost one good relief pitcher and a decent kid SP but
I would have done it. However the idea that the Cubs were
"bidding" against themselves is true but only in a technical
sense. Does anyone doubt that Marquis could have found
a taker albiet at lower price in this market?
Also sorry I don't think anything short of an absurd
amount of money could have gotten Zito or or Schmidt
We already know Schmidt turned down offers higher
than the Dodgers so what you gonna do offer him 4/75
That MIGHT have bought him but I doubt it and at some
point it would become silly. Zito will be getting over 100
million and again I am not sure $150 million would have
bought him, not every player is Meche.
I am less than thrilled with Marquis but I will give
him the benefit of the doubt because as a Cub fan
I don't have much choice.
by jessica on Dec 9, 2006 3:53 PM CST reply actions
Just a reminder
when he was released in 04 and thus available to
the Cubs when Alex Gonzalez went down. He seems
to have done Ok since then
I hope Marquis does well but I think Lieber has a
better chance of doing better in 07 than Marquis
I hope he does NOT go to Brewers
by jessica on Dec 9, 2006 5:11 PM CST up reply actions
While I'm not a huge Marquis fan
Typically this came after days when the bullpen was pretty used up (a nice LaRussa trait) and he would essentially ask Marquis to "take one (or six or seven) for the team." Marquis had two games in 2006 where LaRussa let him tack on 12 and 13 runs in each). Not many pitchers get left in those situations.
I am not arguing that Marquis is great, let alone very good, but he's decent. His 01-05 stats show him to be a midland pitcher and while we need better than midland pitching we do have some spots to fill.
If the young oitching prospects truly do start to shine then Marquis may or may not need to be traded. If Hendry learned anything the last few years it's that you really can't have too many pitchers.
In addition, he bats lefty
I think the words
Unless of course we're talking about a ventilator.
Cubs luck...
I too sat through many games last year when the pitcher couldn't make it to the 4th or 5th inning. These kids certainly have talent, but the Cubs brass - and I agree - know they will still be VERY inconsistent. They just need to pitch more innings in AAA.
With this knowlege, and the facts at hand in paragraph 1, the options of going to war with a similar staff as last year, plus Lilly, was not agreeable to Lou or JH. So - there just wasn't that much there to choose from...
So - they have taken a pretty big gamble on a guy that had a bad year last year. I am shaking my head as to why not Suppan or Bautista for a #5 slot - but I suppose I understand it.
Let's just hope that Hendry will sew up Z asap.
by TheEman on Dec 9, 2006 4:58 PM CST reply actions
this season
by Buffalo Cubby on Dec 9, 2006 5:10 PM CST reply actions
Yuck, you guys.
I get so sick of us always trying to catch lightening in a bottle, trying to be the team that outsmarted everyone else by giving the "washed up pitcher turned Cy Young candidate" a second chance on which he made good. It's such a crappy way to structure a rotation.
Blah!
Uh Huh
So I guess I will just HOPE that there is some magic dust sprinkled in this deal that gets the team off the hook if Marquis flames out.
by lancevanian on Dec 9, 2006 7:33 PM CST up reply actions
If it makes anyone feel better...
Marquis threw well over 6 innings. Cotts finished it out. Williams was torched for 7 runs in a little over an inning. Soriano was on fire - 5 for 7, 2 HR and 5 RBI. Murton also 5 for 7. Lee, Derosa, and Cedeno added HR. Cedeno's barely made it to the Crawford boxes (319 ft.), and he came in for Izturis late in the game after Cesar went 4 for 4.
So, hey, we gotta feel good about this signing, right? Only time will tell. No need to blow a gasket yet - I think the trade market is not there for anyone better anyway.
Out of curiosity
The contract
I'm not sure if we had assumed that the deal was for $20M. However, this article in the Tribune, which had floated the $20M number earlier today says that the deal is indeed for $28M.
If this is a three year guarenteed deal for $20M, its ridiculous. If its a three year guarenteed deal for $28M, well, I'm at a loss for words.
DmL
Here's a word for it (or is it two?):
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 9, 2006 6:04 PM CST up reply actions
Cubs are in a tough spot.
So what do you do? Yes they overpaid for Lilly and Marquis, however what do you think the Royals and Phillie fans are thinking with Meche and Eaton.
Cub fans bashed Hendry so much last year for not having ample pitching to fill in when all the injuries occured, and now we give him crap when he goes out and gets two starters. And in this NEW market Marquis deal is reasonable. Marquis had a horrible year and won 13 games on a team that won 83.
I don't get it, I rather have Marquis on every 4th day then a combination of Marmol/Guzman/Mateo or Marshall. And can we honestly count on Prior?
by Johnny Callison was a Cub on Dec 9, 2006 6:08 PM CST reply actions
Well,
I've got it
The Curse of Colossus.
Anyone?
Please...
by thekansasian on Dec 9, 2006 9:04 PM CST up reply actions
Jewish Cubs
Hendry-o-meter
Also, with this contract I guess the Cubs are telling the world that they really don't think anything of Angel Guzman, Sean Marshall, et al.
- Daryl Ward (Grade F) -- a fat, moody, one dimensional DH who was apparently handed over $1 million to pinch hit. Nice lineup flexibility afforded Sweet Lou.
- Ted Lilly (Grade C plus) -- thanks to Hendry's failed minor league system, the Cubs need warm bodies for the starting rotation. And I can hear it now...Cub fans screaming at Sweet Lou when Lilly is on pace to give up 35 gopher balls in 2007.
- Mark DeRosa (Grade C plus) -- puts together a career year and cashes in. Again, I guess with this multi-year signing the Cub organization is telling you what they really think of Eric Patterson.
- Neal Cotts (Grade B) -- a good acquisition. I would have handed him the 5th slot in the rotation as opposed to giving a 3 year contract to a stiff like Marquis.
- Alfonso Soriano (Grade A) -- being paid nearly twice what J.D. Drew got, but who cares.
==
The new Cub GM will have a heap big mess on his hands when he inherited the reins in one to two years. Hendry will be collecting his disability check after undergoing quadruple bypass surgery.
What a %^*@&!@ mess.
by BlueMike on Dec 9, 2006 8:42 PM CST reply actions
So, I guess you're not too pleased?
by Smooth Jazz Man San Diego on Dec 9, 2006 8:50 PM CST up reply actions
Mostly agree
Who knows, if Marquis and other mediocre signings don't kill them by the break and the Cubs are still in it, those youngsters might help the team get an as-of-now unavailable pitcher or slugger.
For Kicks...
- Marquis- C- (It drops to D if the contract is 28 and not closer to 20. I've got to stick by my sig)
- Ward- C (I see nothing wrong with a 1 Mil bat off the bench. C is average. This was average)
- Lilly- C+ (I agree)
- DeRosa- C+ (I agree)
- Cotts- B (I agree)
- Soriano- B+/A- (Sorry, but that contract is outrageous)
by thekansasian on Dec 9, 2006 9:20 PM CST up reply actions
Agreed fully...............
I've mentioned the same regarding Ward in other posts. If this guy manages to get 80 ABs it will only be because DLee is injured. And if that's the case, the team will be on course for 100 lossess.
Frankly I don't think much of "Guzman, Marshall, et al", but if other GMs do, merrily package them up in a deal to net a true #2 for the rotation (Brad Penny, anyone???).
Jewish Cubs
FWIW...
I got that
I will say that in an era when anti-semitism was as strong as Kling's era, some people will deny being Jewish who are and others will get called Jewish who aren't.
Max Baer is twenty-five years later, and he wasn't Jewish, although most people thought he was. Fighting with a Star of David on your trunks will give people that impression. He put the Star on his trunks to honor his paternal grandfather, who was Jewish and from Germany, to show his opposition to Hitler.
Baer was a great guy. Too bad Ron Howard had to portray him as a monster, and Jim Braddock, a guy who swindled Joe Louis, as a hero.
by Josh Timmers on Dec 10, 2006 5:38 AM CST up reply actions
Thanks
You did hear...
Jacobs isn't Jewish, either.
I think we all need a good mitzvah
by Smooth Jazz Man San Diego on Dec 9, 2006 9:01 PM CST reply actions
What is with all the Jewish references?
by BlueMike on Dec 9, 2006 9:03 PM CST reply actions
lighten up
by cashcowsquirtingsourmilk on Dec 9, 2006 9:30 PM CST up reply actions
Dude, we're just goin' with
by Smooth Jazz Man San Diego on Dec 9, 2006 10:15 PM CST up reply actions
$28 million
Jim Hendry has lost his mine. He clearly is acting like a man who doesn't anticipate being in his job within a year or two and is simply going for broke.
I say one thing. I sure in the heck hope the new owner doesn't have a problem with simply eating bad contracts. Because he/she is going to inherit some doozies.
by BlueMike on Dec 9, 2006 9:07 PM CST reply actions
lol
This is reminding me of the AZ Diamondbacks situation. Their ownership went crazy signing players to huge, back loaded contracts. Now, they can't go above $70M payroll because the new owners are paying off the old owner's debts.
actually $21 million
by cashcowsquirtingsourmilk on Dec 9, 2006 9:24 PM CST up reply actions
Marquis signing is good because it...
It's an improvement over last year because it's veteran depth in the rotation. Plus, nobody is married to this guy and if one of the young arms steps up and performs exceptionally then he's a guy you can move by the deadline. If Prior were to come back and throw well no one would care whether Marquis had to move to the pen.
I like Hendry's approach in getting us more starters. Marquis is what he is, I am not excited about his ability but it's possible has a good year left in him.
If Hill pitches like a No. 2 then the Cubs could have some exceptional depth in the rotation with Lily, Marquis, Prior, Miller, Marshall and others..Prior does not have to perform at 2003 level or at all for the Cubs to have a reasonable rotation now. Okay Jim, work a deal for JJ, acquire another OF bat with some pop and if possible please sign a real starter at either SS or 2B before the season starts. Do all that and I'm excited about 2007.
by DudeVf1 on Dec 9, 2006 11:07 PM CST reply actions
Can DeRosa play SS?
Maybe play DeRosa 2nd, Soriano short if Pie gets his act together, then play Murton/Jones, Pie, and Floyd or switch Floyd and Jones(if he doesn't come too expensive).
That's a pretty decent outfield, though it lacks power.
Does anybody
Last season and the season before I didn't have this feeling. But for some reason I think they are both going to come back and produce.
I know, I know, this is false hope, I should look at the last two seasons as an indicator of what to expect, etc... But I can't shake the feeling. Prior, once he starts pitching, will probably be at least a month into the season. And he'll be a fresh arm in the rotation.
Z
Prior (will reach double digits in the W column)
Lilly
Hill
Miller
and Marquis will fill the role of strech guy.
Also is it just me
If we make the playoffs....
I love the Cubs, but I don't like the NL right now. The AL is just full of good talent.
Re: Cubs sign nice Jewish boy
by Randy on Dec 10, 2006 5:35 AM CST reply actions
No, I do not
And, I don't want Barry Zito. He's on the declne.
Lilly might turn out to be a better pitcher. He's on the upswing. Schmidt might have been nice -- but I've seen enough disabled pitchers to last me for years, and that's always a possibility w/ Schmidt.
by Smooth Jazz Man San Diego on Dec 10, 2006 11:56 AM CST reply actions
optimism
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
Cubs By The Numbers
Cubs By The Numbers is a history of the ballclub by uniform number, but the biographies help trace the history of our beloved team in a new way. For everyone who's a Cubs fan, anyone who ever wore the uniform is like family. Cubs By The Numbers reintroduces readers to some of their long-lost ancestors, even ones they think they already know.
Click here to order your copy, available now!
Recent Stories in Ticket Exchanges
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Photo: Padres fan regrets letting mother capture moment with Trevor Hoffman
- Marlins agree to unretire No. 5 for Logan Morrison, who will honor his father’s favorite player
- Weatherman Derek Holland does Dallas TV
- Ask Alex: Will Julio Teheran or Matt Moore win rookie of the year?
- Ku Klux Klan, umpires and bowling: Why the minor leagues tossed out Jim Evans academy
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
