Matt Harrington Signs With Cubs

[goonys evil twin]

I think it's a bit too hasty to be giving up on Sean Marshall already.

 

Nobody is giving up on Sean Marshall. I'm saying he had a horrible year this year, and should not be a lock for the 2007 rotation.

[craig]

goony, I think you and I are pretty much on the same page with Marshall. He's a good prospect. Absolutely we aren't "giving up" on him. But there's no reason to "lock" him into the rotation, or to assume that he'll be an excellent and reliable pitcher this year.

 

He might be. He might not be. If he is, great, and lets take advantage of it. If he isn't, don't have the season go down the sink because you were depending on Marshall.

 

I guess I think Marshall, Marmol, Mateo, Aardsma, Guzman, Prior, Miller, Wood, Dempster, I see things in common with many of them. Any of them might be pretty useful. Any of them might be very ineffective. Prior might get healthy and be pretty good. Wood might show up surprisingly healthy and able to contribute to the bullpen. Aardsma might be throwing well and have improved control and be an excellent reliever. Marshall might show up healthy, his curve might be more consistent, and he might be very solid. Guzman might rediscover his sinker, improve the command of his breaking ball, and have overall improved command accross the board, and might be a pretty useful guy. Dempster might pitch like 2005 again and be a very satisfactory closer. Marmol might improve his consistency and command, decrease his walks and his HR-allowed, and be quite a useable starter or reliever. Mateo can throw his fastball for strikes. Perhaps he'll jazz up his slider and be a pretty decent pitcher. Maybe with a little more time Miller will have a stronger arm, be hitting low 90's without effort, and with more time behind and a more comfortable arm he'll be able to throw strikes more easily, and be a pretty decent pitcher.

 

Any of those are possible. I'm not writing off any of those guys. But none are locks, and none should be assumed. Sure, let Dempster have first crack at closing. But be ready to pull the plug, and fast, if his control is as problematic. I sure wouldn't expect or count on any of Prior, Wood, Miller, Guzman, Marshall, Marmol, or Mateo to be both healthy and good next year. But a couple of them might be. I hope so.

[BeerHere]

I see Marshall as step ahead of Guzman, Marmol and Mateo if only for his limited success at the major league level. He threw some very good games early in the year, and some very bad games later in the year. He has his rookie year past him and if he's healthy he gets a shot in my book.

 

It all depends on who is signed in the offseason though. Marshall was pressed into the rotation after ST 2006 because of Wood, Prior and Miller. I doubt anyone in Marchsaw him in the rotation for the entire year. If two quality free agents are added, Marshall/Guzman/Miller/Prior battle it out. If three FA's are signed then Marshall goes to Iowa if he's not traded.

[goonys evil twin]

I see Marshall as step ahead of Guzman, Marmol and Mateo if only for his limited success at the major league level. He threw some very good games early in the year, and some very bad games later in the year. He has his rookie year past him and if he's healthy he gets a shot in my book.

 

You are ignoring the very bad games from before he was hurt. He actually got some wins in bad games, which probably caused people to overlook his performance. Marshall was not good. He had good games, but the Cubs don't need pitchers who have occasional good games. The results were not good before or after the injury. And the injury was no fluke, it's a recurring theme in his career. I'd put him ahead of those guys as well, probably, but none of them should be considered anything close to a lock for the 2007 rotation.

[BeerHere]

I see Marshall as step ahead of Guzman, Marmol and Mateo if only for his limited success at the major league level. He threw some very good games early in the year, and some very bad games later in the year. He has his rookie year past him and if he's healthy he gets a shot in my book.

 

You are ignoring the very bad games from before he was hurt. He actually got some wins in bad games, which probably caused people to overlook his performance. Marshall was not good. He had good games, but the Cubs don't need pitchers who have occasional good games. The results were not good before or after the injury. And the injury was no fluke, it's a recurring theme in his career. I'd put him ahead of those guys as well, probably, but none of them should be considered anything close to a lock for the 2007 rotation.

 

Is Hill a lock in your book? He started the year with some awful outings. He and Marshall seem to be opposites. Hill started out poorly but made some adjustments and ended the year strong. Marshall started out better than Hill and finished poorly. If you're looking at the body of work, both had some good and bad outings. I suppose it's possible that I'm putting too much emphasis on the good and too little on the bad. Maybe "lock" was too strong, but Marshall should get a good chance to see if he can build on his limited success at this level.

 

Assume 1 FA's this offseason goony, who fills the other slot?

[goonys evil twin]

I see Marshall as step ahead of Guzman, Marmol and Mateo if only for his limited success at the major league level. He threw some very good games early in the year, and some very bad games later in the year. He has his rookie year past him and if he's healthy he gets a shot in my book.

 

You are ignoring the very bad games from before he was hurt. He actually got some wins in bad games, which probably caused people to overlook his performance. Marshall was not good. He had good games, but the Cubs don't need pitchers who have occasional good games. The results were not good before or after the injury. And the injury was no fluke, it's a recurring theme in his career. I'd put him ahead of those guys as well, probably, but none of them should be considered anything close to a lock for the 2007 rotation.

 

Is Hill a lock in your book? He started the year with some awful outings. He and Marshall seem to be opposites. Hill started out poorly but made some adjustments and ended the year strong. Marshall started out better than Hill and finished poorly. If you're looking at the body of work, both had some good and bad outings. I suppose it's possible that I'm putting too much emphasis on the good and too little on the bad. Maybe "lock" was too strong, but Marshall should get a good chance to see if he can build on his limited success at this level.

 

Assume 1 FA's this offseason goony, who fills the other slot?

 

Hill is quite different. He's older, more experienced, has a longer track record of success at higher levels, had far greater major league success, and has been less prone to injury. Marshall stunk this year at the major league level (before and after the injury), and received a much greater chance and far longer leash than Hill. I would consider Hill to be a near lock, unless they acquire 3 guys and Prior proves to be 100% in the spring.

 

Marshall didn't start out better than Hill, Marshall started the year with a chance, while Hill did not. Marshall had a good first game, but 2 bad ones soon after. Body of work was clearly in Hill's favor (111 ERA+ to 83 ERA+).

 

If Hendry only signs 1 FA, then he better hope to heck that Miller and Prior are both 100%, and make a 2nd acquisition via trade because Marshall needs more seasoning, and has no business as the 4th starter next April. If those guys aren't healthy and he doesn't get more guys via trade, you are looking at: Zambrano, FA, Hill, Marshall, Guzman/Mateo, and that might not be any better than this year's rotation, which stunk.

 

Hendry needs to do what he can to field a team with 5 starters significantly better than what we could expect to get out of Marshall next year.

[Guest]

I think Guzman is still the one to watch. He has some adjustments he still has to make, but his stuff is the best of any of these guys (not counting Hill). One year further away from his surgery could make all the difference for him.

[goonys evil twin]

I think Guzman is still the one to watch. He has some adjustments he still has to make, but his stuff is the best of any of these guys (not counting Hill). One year further away from his surgery could make all the difference for him.

 

Marshall and Guzman both have to go through a full healthy and productive season.

[Neuby]

Is Harrington throwing for the Cubs in winter ball somewhere ?

Anyword on if his fastball is back?

[CaliforniaRaisin]

Is Harrington throwing for the Cubs in winter ball somewhere ?

 

As far as I can tell, no.

[craig]

Is Hill a lock in your book? He started the year with some awful outings. He and Marshall seem to be opposites. Hill started out poorly but made some adjustments and ended the year strong. Marshall started out better than Hill and finished poorly. If you're looking at the body of work, both had some good and bad outings. I suppose it's possible that I'm putting too much emphasis on the good and too little on the bad. Maybe "lock" was too strong, but Marshall should get a good chance to see if he can build on his limited success at this level.

 

Assume 1 FA's this offseason goony, who fills the other slot?

 

This is jumping into a 2-week old discussion, but I'd never read it then and found it interesting now. The discussion, I think, dealt with Marshall mostly, and Hill. Should he be given a spot? How do you balance some good games versus some not-so-good games? Who fills the "other" spot if we add only one outside starter?

 

My views (obviously!):

 

1. Hill/Marshall. Yes, I view Hill as a rotation lock. His body of work last season was good enough, and his minor-league stuff has also been excellent. He had some goods and bads, but more goods, and more goods toward the end. So, using "what-have-you-done-for-me-lately", he's definitely in the rotation. What he does there, that's less of a lock. he could be very, very good. I wouldn't be shocked if he pitched a lot of deep games and ended up with an ERA of 3.80 or less. But, I wouldn't be shocked if he mixes some bads with goods next year too, and has some good's that don't end up all that good because of the HR's allowed. I'm pretty optimistic, and think he's a rotation lock to start with, but how good he is, well, he'll have to show that. Every pitcher mixes some good games with some poor games. What ratio he actually shows next year will determine his ERA.

 

2. marshall: I definitely do *not* think he should be written in as an April rotation lock. His collective season was pretty poor, and as noted he wasnt looking too hot before the injury, so to dismiss it all as injury-related, I don't think that's accurate. His ratio of goods to bads wasn't good enough, last year. But, that doesn't mean it might not be this year, if he improves his curveball and his fastball control. The one stat that really bothered me for Marshall was his horrendous HR-allowed profile. 20HR/125 innings, that's really bad. Especially for a low/modest K-pitcher who's supposed to be a groundball-keep-it-down guy. I think if he could keep the ball down more consistently and keep the ball in the park, his results could improve quite sharply. Do I assume he'll be a lot better? No. But he'd be one of several candidates that I'd have in my "see who looks best" pool. Of Marshall, Marmol, Guzman, and Mateo, I'd probably think Marshall has a better chance of being consistently competent next year than the others. Even if Guzman's and Marmol's upsides are higher.

 

3. If we add one rotation pitcher: Unless Hendry has gotten way better news on Prior than the scant news reports indicate, I think it is totally implausible that hendry will add only one rotation starter. I think it's a lock that he'll add two, or at least try really hard. I do *not* expect the lesser of those two to be very good. More from somewhere in the Tedd Lilly/Jon Lieber/Miguel Batista/pre-2006-Glendon Rusch pool of candidates. Little chance to be more than average, and real chance to be well below.

 

4. What I expect: The first three will be Zambrano, pitcher-to-be-acquired, and Hill.

 

The back two will be the mediocre pitcher to be acquired, and whoever wins the open spot from the internal pool.

 

The internal pool for the open spot: Prior, Wade Miller, Marshall, Guzman, Marmol, and Mateo.

 

It's well possible that you won't get one average starter out of the open-spot-pool. But there's at least a reasonable chance that somebody from that pool will emerge. Hard to guess which. Will Prior surprise us and show up healthy? Will Miller show up with and extra 3-4 mph? will Guzman's control be a lot more consistent, and might he show up with either a sinker or a breaking pitcher that he didn't throw with any success last year? Will Marshall be healthy, able to keep the ball down/sinking more consistently, and perhaps have his curveball more consistent for some reason? Will Mateo's slider be a little more effective? Will Marmol have enough more control to put his stuff to good use? None of them is in itself probable, and I can't know now which will turn out if any. But there is a large enough pool of guys who don't need to improve that much to be good, so that I think it's a fair gamble to hope that at least one of them does, enough to cover one rotation spot.

 

If you're lucky, two of them will, and you wouldn't even need the rotation-filler starter. But, I sure wouldn't count on that now. Unless I had a lot more good-news-on-Prior than is available to me now.