Rotoworld Rumors (11/17)

[Guest]

I really don't understand the idea of trading Murton away for Westbrook. Murton was a league-average LF in his first full season. While he may plateau there and never get any better, that is not very likely.

 

On the other hand, Westbrook is really nothing special as a pitcher. He's an innings guy that lets the ball get put into play. He's had exactly one year in his career where he has allowed fewer hits than his IP. He's only had a better than average ERA twice, which is what you'd expect from a pitcher with his style. He'll have an occasional good year when the balls in play find fielders, but in general he's going to be below average. The only thing guaranteed is that he's going to give you innings.

 

I'm more than happy to give a backup-quality SS (Izturis) for him. But I wouldn't even consider trading Murton for him.

 

Matt's not an untouchable for me, but his 350K salary in LF is part of what allows us to spend big elsewhere.

[ConstableRabbit]

I really don't understand the idea of trading Murton away for Westbrook. Murton was a league-average LF in his first full season. While he may plateau there and never get any better, that is not very likely.

 

On the other hand, Westbrook is really nothing special as a pitcher. He's an innings guy that lets the ball get put into play. He's had exactly one year in his career where he has allowed fewer hits than his IP. He's only had a better than average ERA twice, which is what you'd expect from a pitcher with his style. He'll have an occasional good year when the balls in play find fielders, but in general he's going to be below average. The only thing guaranteed is that he's going to give you innings.

 

I'm more than happy to give a backup-quality SS (Izturis) for him. But I wouldn't even consider trading Murton for him.

 

Matt's not an untouchable for me, but his 350K salary in LF is part of what allows us to spend big elsewhere.

 

QFT

 

(I know you stated this in the Westbrook thread, but this sums it all up very nicely)

[abuck1220]

It seems half this board wouldnt give up Murton for anything..Id give him for Westbrook straight up..Murton is a average player, and your getting a average,little above average back for him..How do you know Murton will get better?? Its not guranteed just because hes getting older and learning more, who knows this Matt Murton you see now could be the one for the next 10 years..Everyone seems to think hes gunna be some monster hitting 30+HR and 120+ RBI's... Sure his slugging and OBP is up there with Soriano and Lee, But Id take a monster like them in LF who can hit 30+ HR guranteed and scare the crap out of pitchers..

 

so if murton and westbrook are both average, where do you factor in the fact that murton costs $300k while westbrook costs millions and the fact that murton is under the cubs' control for a long time while westbrook is a FA after 2007?

[soccer10k]

Meche, Westbrook, and Marquis are the guys Hendry should target.

 

Zambrano

Westbrook

Hill

Meche

Marquis/Miller/Prior

 

Are you on a quest to have crappy pitching? Marquis and Meche are not good.

 

"Not good" is being far too kind. They're pretty horrid.

 

I can see cases for Westbrook, Lilly, Padilla... but Meche, Marquis, and Batista should be nowhere near a pro ball club (except for the cardinals).

 

Batista has been pretty good. Marquis has been pretty good at times, but stunk last year. Meche, well, he's been below average. But none of them are horrid and all deserve starting jobs.

 

Just to make a small defense of Marquis, if you take out the two games (against the White Sox on 6-21 and the Braves on 7-19) his ERA drops from 6.02 to 5.12. Now, I do realize that taking out certain games to make your point better is usually wrong but I feel this is an exception because in those two games Marquis was left in the game much longer than he would have been. LaRussa was saving the bullpen since the Cardinals were blown out the day before each of those games. Marquis pitched 5 innings in each start.

[Guancous]

LaRussa was saving the bullpen since the Cardinals were blown out the day before each of those games. Marquis pitched 5 innings in each start.

 

You're right that it's a bad idea to remove starts if they're not anamolies. The Cubs can get Drew, Westbrook and Soriano and still be in their fair share of blowouts.

 

This Cubs team will be better than last year. Yeah, they're clearing that bar. It won't be enough to get Steve Bartman out of hiding but at least we're driving the right direction.

 

I love Murton but his main benefit beside his youth is his low salary. A $115 payroll will alleviate that somewhat. Westbrook is a league average starter. We should be able to trade for a couple of those without giving up Murton.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Just to make a small defense of Marquis, if you take out the two games (against the White Sox on 6-21 and the Braves on 7-19) his ERA drops from 6.02 to 5.12. Now, I do realize that taking out certain games to make your point better is usually wrong but I feel this is an exception because in those two games Marquis was left in the game much longer than he would have been. LaRussa was saving the bullpen since the Cardinals were blown out the day before each of those games. Marquis pitched 5 innings in each start.

 

On 6/21 he gave up 4 runs in the 1st (36.00 ERA), 9 runs in the first 2 innings (40.50 ERA), and a total of 13 in 5 innings (23.40 ERA) -- keeping him in did him a favor in the ERA department.

 

On 7/19, his ERA after each inning was 18.00, 22.50, 18.00, 18.00, 18.00, and it jumped to 21.60 by pitching into the 6th.

 

An exception is not warranted. You may as well take out his best 2 starts. When you suck, you suck.

 

EDIT: You almost got me -- that 2nd game was actually on 7/18. He posted an ERA of 0.00 on 7/19

[CubColtPacer]

Just to make a small defense of Marquis, if you take out the two games (against the White Sox on 6-21 and the Braves on 7-19) his ERA drops from 6.02 to 5.12. Now, I do realize that taking out certain games to make your point better is usually wrong but I feel this is an exception because in those two games Marquis was left in the game much longer than he would have been. LaRussa was saving the bullpen since the Cardinals were blown out the day before each of those games. Marquis pitched 5 innings in each start.

 

On 6/21 he gave up 4 runs in the 1st (36.00 ERA), 9 runs in the first 2 innings (40.50 ERA), and a total of 13 in 5 innings (23.40 ERA) -- keeping him in did him a favor in the ERA department.

 

On 7/19, his ERA after each inning was 18.00, 22.50, 18.00, 18.00, 18.00, and it jumped to 21.60 by pitching into the 6th.

 

An exception is not warranted. You may as well take out his best 2 starts. When you suck, you suck.

 

EDIT: You almost got me -- that 2nd game was actually on 7/18. He posted an ERA of 0.00 on 7/19

 

It may have done him a favor in his ERA for that day-but normally he probably would have been taken out after 6 runs or so-and 7 more in 4 innings does not help out his entire years ERA at all.

 

The probably better comparison to make it fair for Marquis is to take out his two worst starts and his two best starts and to see what his average was then. I bet it's still better than his total ERA, but still pretty bad. As people were saying last night though, Marquis is simply Westbrook who had one awful year.

[JeffH]

As people were saying last night though, Marquis is simply Westbrook who had one awful year.

 

Westbrook's profile is much more groundball and anti-HR than Marquis'.

 

Given 100 chances to choose between the two, I would choose Westbrook 100 times.

 

That said, I wouldn't trade Murton for him.

 

But, if we're talking about some subset of Wuertz, Ohman, Novoa, Cedeno, Marshall, Guzman, Mateo, Moore, Patterson, Gallagher, then I'm all for it.

[CubColtPacer]

As people were saying last night though, Marquis is simply Westbrook who had one awful year.

 

Westbrook's profile is much more groundball and anti-HR than Marquis'.

 

Given 100 chances to choose between the two, I would choose Westbrook 100 times.

 

That said, I wouldn't trade Murton for him.

 

But, if we're talking about some subset of Wuertz, Ohman, Novoa, Cedeno, Marshall, Guzman, Mateo, Moore, Patterson, Gallagher, then I'm all for it.

 

I would trade some of the bullpen arms for Westbrook and probably somebody like Marshall or Mateo-then again, I wouldn't be upset though if we signed Marquis if we got him for somewhat cheap either (or if we did both). It all depends what the market is, and it's sometimes hard to tell how teams value these types of players. I think Westbrook is the better bet to put up a solid year, but I'm not sure exactly how much better of a bet that is.

[frostwyrm]

how does young, talented outfielder (murton) = back up ss?

 

Dunno, but I would do Murton for Westbrook straight up, especially if we ink Soriano and Drew as rumored.

 

Only if Westbrook was locked up longterm. Even then, I'm not sure. It's probably fair, but I'm just really bias toward Murton. He's my fav. player.

 

Besides, I don't think the Indians really want/need an outfielder. We really need to trade from our strength, which is bullpen pitching and even young arms.

 

Yeah I am also not a big fan of trading Murton. I understand that you have to trade value for value but if Carlos Lee is gonna get atleast 5/70 then I dont' see how you would trade someone who put up better numbers than him for just an average starter. Especially when this players will only be making like 500k. It just makes no sense to me.

 

Matt Murton

.297 .365 .444 13 HR 62 RBI OPS-.809

 

Carlos Lee

.300 .355 .540 37 HR 116RBI OPS-.895

 

Not sure that I'd call Matt Murton better than Carlos Lee.

 

CLee - 695 PA

Murton - 508 PA

[Backtobanks]

I'm hoping that all of Hendry's positive statements about Murton are true and he won't be traded. If he is traded, it had better be for a superstar because I think a lot of baseball people think very highly of Murton's potential.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Just to make a small defense of Marquis, if you take out the two games (against the White Sox on 6-21 and the Braves on 7-19) his ERA drops from 6.02 to 5.12. Now, I do realize that taking out certain games to make your point better is usually wrong but I feel this is an exception because in those two games Marquis was left in the game much longer than he would have been. LaRussa was saving the bullpen since the Cardinals were blown out the day before each of those games. Marquis pitched 5 innings in each start.

 

On 6/21 he gave up 4 runs in the 1st (36.00 ERA), 9 runs in the first 2 innings (40.50 ERA), and a total of 13 in 5 innings (23.40 ERA) -- keeping him in did him a favor in the ERA department.

 

On 7/19, his ERA after each inning was 18.00, 22.50, 18.00, 18.00, 18.00, and it jumped to 21.60 by pitching into the 6th.

 

An exception is not warranted. You may as well take out his best 2 starts. When you suck, you suck.

 

EDIT: You almost got me -- that 2nd game was actually on 7/18. He posted an ERA of 0.00 on 7/19

 

It may have done him a favor in his ERA for that day-but normally he probably would have been taken out after 6 runs or so-and 7 more in 4 innings does not help out his entire years ERA at all.

 

Actually, yes it does.

[CubColtPacer]

Just to make a small defense of Marquis, if you take out the two games (against the White Sox on 6-21 and the Braves on 7-19) his ERA drops from 6.02 to 5.12. Now, I do realize that taking out certain games to make your point better is usually wrong but I feel this is an exception because in those two games Marquis was left in the game much longer than he would have been. LaRussa was saving the bullpen since the Cardinals were blown out the day before each of those games. Marquis pitched 5 innings in each start.

 

On 6/21 he gave up 4 runs in the 1st (36.00 ERA), 9 runs in the first 2 innings (40.50 ERA), and a total of 13 in 5 innings (23.40 ERA) -- keeping him in did him a favor in the ERA department.

 

On 7/19, his ERA after each inning was 18.00, 22.50, 18.00, 18.00, 18.00, and it jumped to 21.60 by pitching into the 6th.

 

An exception is not warranted. You may as well take out his best 2 starts. When you suck, you suck.

 

EDIT: You almost got me -- that 2nd game was actually on 7/18. He posted an ERA of 0.00 on 7/19

 

It may have done him a favor in his ERA for that day-but normally he probably would have been taken out after 6 runs or so-and 7 more in 4 innings does not help out his entire years ERA at all.

 

Actually, yes it does.

 

How did the extra 7 runs in 4 innings help out his year's ERA?

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Just to make a small defense of Marquis, if you take out the two games (against the White Sox on 6-21 and the Braves on 7-19) his ERA drops from 6.02 to 5.12. Now, I do realize that taking out certain games to make your point better is usually wrong but I feel this is an exception because in those two games Marquis was left in the game much longer than he would have been. LaRussa was saving the bullpen since the Cardinals were blown out the day before each of those games. Marquis pitched 5 innings in each start.

 

On 6/21 he gave up 4 runs in the 1st (36.00 ERA), 9 runs in the first 2 innings (40.50 ERA), and a total of 13 in 5 innings (23.40 ERA) -- keeping him in did him a favor in the ERA department.

 

On 7/19, his ERA after each inning was 18.00, 22.50, 18.00, 18.00, 18.00, and it jumped to 21.60 by pitching into the 6th.

 

An exception is not warranted. You may as well take out his best 2 starts. When you suck, you suck.

 

EDIT: You almost got me -- that 2nd game was actually on 7/18. He posted an ERA of 0.00 on 7/19

 

It may have done him a favor in his ERA for that day-but normally he probably would have been taken out after 6 runs or so-and 7 more in 4 innings does not help out his entire years ERA at all.

 

Actually, yes it does.

 

How did the extra 7 runs in 4 innings help out his year's ERA?

 

Because it was inflated by giving up 6 runs in 1 inning. Say it starts at 4, goes up to 5.5 after getting shelled in the first inning or so. Instead of being taken out, he stays in 4 more innings giving up a run or two an inning, and his season's ERA ends up at around 5.

[CubColtPacer]

Just to make a small defense of Marquis, if you take out the two games (against the White Sox on 6-21 and the Braves on 7-19) his ERA drops from 6.02 to 5.12. Now, I do realize that taking out certain games to make your point better is usually wrong but I feel this is an exception because in those two games Marquis was left in the game much longer than he would have been. LaRussa was saving the bullpen since the Cardinals were blown out the day before each of those games. Marquis pitched 5 innings in each start.

 

On 6/21 he gave up 4 runs in the 1st (36.00 ERA), 9 runs in the first 2 innings (40.50 ERA), and a total of 13 in 5 innings (23.40 ERA) -- keeping him in did him a favor in the ERA department.

 

On 7/19, his ERA after each inning was 18.00, 22.50, 18.00, 18.00, 18.00, and it jumped to 21.60 by pitching into the 6th.

 

An exception is not warranted. You may as well take out his best 2 starts. When you suck, you suck.

 

EDIT: You almost got me -- that 2nd game was actually on 7/18. He posted an ERA of 0.00 on 7/19

 

It may have done him a favor in his ERA for that day-but normally he probably would have been taken out after 6 runs or so-and 7 more in 4 innings does not help out his entire years ERA at all.

 

Actually, yes it does.

 

How did the extra 7 runs in 4 innings help out his year's ERA?

 

Because it was inflated by giving up 6 runs in 1 inning. Say it starts at 4, goes up to 5.5 after getting shelled in the first inning or so. Instead of being taken out, he stays in 4 more innings giving up a run or two an inning, and his season's ERA ends up at around 5.

 

No-the 6 runs would take it from 4 to 5.5, and then the 7 runs in the next 4 innings would take it up to around 6. It wouldn't rise as fast, but the total year's ERA would still continue rising. 7 runs in 4 innings is never going to drop a 5.50 ERA for the season, no matter what the person did the inning before.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Just to make a small defense of Marquis, if you take out the two games (against the White Sox on 6-21 and the Braves on 7-19) his ERA drops from 6.02 to 5.12. Now, I do realize that taking out certain games to make your point better is usually wrong but I feel this is an exception because in those two games Marquis was left in the game much longer than he would have been. LaRussa was saving the bullpen since the Cardinals were blown out the day before each of those games. Marquis pitched 5 innings in each start.

 

On 6/21 he gave up 4 runs in the 1st (36.00 ERA), 9 runs in the first 2 innings (40.50 ERA), and a total of 13 in 5 innings (23.40 ERA) -- keeping him in did him a favor in the ERA department.

 

On 7/19, his ERA after each inning was 18.00, 22.50, 18.00, 18.00, 18.00, and it jumped to 21.60 by pitching into the 6th.

 

An exception is not warranted. You may as well take out his best 2 starts. When you suck, you suck.

 

EDIT: You almost got me -- that 2nd game was actually on 7/18. He posted an ERA of 0.00 on 7/19

 

It may have done him a favor in his ERA for that day-but normally he probably would have been taken out after 6 runs or so-and 7 more in 4 innings does not help out his entire years ERA at all.

 

Actually, yes it does.

 

How did the extra 7 runs in 4 innings help out his year's ERA?

 

Because it was inflated by giving up 6 runs in 1 inning. Say it starts at 4, goes up to 5.5 after getting shelled in the first inning or so. Instead of being taken out, he stays in 4 more innings giving up a run or two an inning, and his season's ERA ends up at around 5.

 

No-the 6 runs would take it from 4 to 5.5, and then the 7 runs in the next 4 innings would take it up to around 6. It wouldn't rise as fast, but the total year's ERA would still continue rising. 7 runs in 4 innings is never going to drop a 5.50 ERA for the season, no matter what the person did the inning before.

 

You're right, I was calculating wrong. Still, the point remains that those 2 starts shouldn't be removed just as his 2 best starts should be and that he actually performed much better by staying in that June game.

[jjgman21]

 

No-the 6 runs would take it from 4 to 5.5, and then the 7 runs in the next 4 innings would take it up to around 6. It wouldn't rise as fast, but the total year's ERA would still continue rising. 7 runs in 4 innings is never going to drop a 5.50 ERA for the season, no matter what the person did the inning before.

 

You're right, I was calculating wrong. Still, the point remains that those 2 starts shouldn't be removed just as his 2 best starts should be and that he actually performed much better by staying in that June game.

 

I think the better way of making this point is that in one game, only innings 3-5 are really on LaRussa. the first 2 innings are purely on Marquis. so while his stats are impacted negatively by LaRussa's decision, the impact is not nearly as big as implied.

 

in other words, it is still Marquis who gave up 9 runs in the first two innings against the White Sox and 5 runs in the first two innings against Atlanta.

 

I have no problem with the analysis if you take way 6 innings and 10 runs when he should have no longer been in the game (although it would be fairer to only take away 7-8 runs because you have to figure he wouldn't have been perfect in the three innings he was left in).

[nilodnayr]

None of these seemed worth starting their own thread over:

 

- Mariners listening to offers on Sexson and Beltre

 

- Astros interested in Woody Williams

 

- Yankees may sign Rich Aurilia to multi-year deal

 

- Many interested in Jason Jennings, including Cubs, Astros, Twins and Rangers

 

- Rangers asking availability of Tim Hudson and Horacio Ramirez

 

- Angels interested in Freddy Garcia

 

- Indians want a backup SS in exchange for Westbrook, but aren't high on Ronny Cedeno. Cubs may trade Murton to the Tribe if they upgrade with Soriano in LF.

 

- Ray Durham seeking 2 year, $18 mil deal

 

- Giants have offered 3/$30M to Pierre and GMJr., and will sign whichever accepts first.

- Ted Lilly drawing interest from a dozen teams including Cubs, Yankees, Giants. His agent says he can get him a "4/$35M today"

 

- Astros may try to get Clemens to re-sign as a closer, especially if they trade Lidge

 

 

Pierre's speed should come in handy getting to the Giants' GM first.

 

Unfortunatley its winter so its pretty cold, meaning Pierre will miss by a half step.

[Guest]

Since Dusty's gone, can we stop with those jokes?

 

Please?

[Guest]

Since Dusty's gone, can we stop with those jokes?

 

Please?

 

which jokes?

[nilodnayr]

Since Dusty's gone, can we stop with those jokes?

 

Please?

 

Sorry Tim, it wasn't a mocking of Dusty's racial quote. I was mocking the anecdotal perception that the reason Pierre had a rough start last year was that he was slowed by the cold weather because his legs were not warm enough. Which lead to him getting thrown out by half of a step on all of his ground balls to the MIF. There was extensive conversation regarding it, citing track stats, etc. Nothing to do with Dusty or race.

[sweetpeteman]

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/features/freeagents

 

I didn't want to start a new thread, but Aardsma is listed as a free agent...

[nilodnayr]

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/features/freeagents

 

I didn't want to start a new thread, but Aardsma is listed as a free agent...

 

Good for him, he beat the system :)