Cubs Sign Marquis to 3/21

[Soriano12]

Hopefully Marquis fixes what was wrong with him last season. He can be pretty damn solid if he does. I'm not opposed to this at all.

 

If Dave Duncan couldn't fix him, Rothchild sure as hell isn't.

[rocket]

maybe the cubs can file a grievance with the commissioner and void the signing since hendry was undoubtedly on morphine when he made this deal

[nolanwood]

Hopefully Marquis fixes what was wrong with him last season. He can be pretty damn solid if he does. I'm not opposed to this at all.

 

If Dave Duncan couldn't fix him, Rothchild sure as hell isn't.

 

Duncan AND Mazzone.

[UMFan83]

It's "only" 3/20 according to the link TXCubsFan posted above

 

The Cubs filled out their rotation on Friday night by signing free-agent Jason Marquis to a three-year deal worth approximately $20 million, sources said.

 

Again, the link: http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/chi-061209cubs-story,1,5103592.story?coll=cs-home-headlines

[killthegoat06]

Wow this is the worst news since October 2003. I am not even kidding. 3/20 for 6plus ERA? Hendry, why are you obsessed with a team that you keep making worse?

[Bruce Miles]

Money figure was way too high. I see our friends at the Trib have amended their story. I'll have a story up soon and a longer one in tomorrow's paper.

[RynoRules]

Unless Prior and Miller pitch at their 03' levels.

 

I know this was a joke, but what happens if Miller and Prior are pitching well, do we go to a 6 man rotation? Trade someone at the deadline?

 

Who has the most tradeable contract? Who has options? It would be a very good problem to have, but my guess is that Prior won't be ready by ST or JH isn't counting on him.

 

BTW, Trib says its 3 and 20, not 3 and 28.

[Guest]

I don't have the money figures, but you can pretty much count on this deal being done. Somebody wanted the Cubs to upgrade their offense. They just have _ with Marquis.

Three years and $28 million could indeed be true. This is the kind of market it is right now.

 

heh, the pitching staff can hit. They should add jennings to round things out. any word on izturis batting 9th?

[killthegoat06]

Somebody should edit thread name.

[TB_11]

That 3/28 seems way too high, even in the current market.

 

Marquis's main value is durability. He's a 28 year old who has made 30+ starts and 190+ innings in each of the past three seasons, with a career ERA+ of 94.

 

To compare:

- 28 year old Gil Meche has a career ERA+ of 96, has never reached 190 innings (he did hit 186 innings twice), and receives 5/55

- 29 year old Adam Eaton has a career ERA+ of 92, has reached 190 innings once, and receives 3/25.

- 30 year old Ted Lilly has a career ERA+ of 99, has reached 190 innings once in the past three years, and receives 4/40.

 

Seems in line with the overall market for starters, inflated as it may be.

 

It seems that Hendry had a focus of going after durable starting pitchers this offseason. This has to be a reflection that, aside from Hill, he no longer trusts the farm system to produce quality starting pitching like it did during the late-90s/early-00s. It's hard to disagree with this general track: it's worth ~$20M/year to get two average starting pitchers to contribute ~200 innings each, when the alternative could be repeat performances from Mateo, Marmol, or Ryu.

 

-------------------

 

EDIT: With the Tribune reporting that it's 3/20 and not 3/28, UK proves to be smarter than me, yet again.

Edited December 9, 2006 by TB_11

[killthegoat06]

That 3/28 seems way too high, even in the current market.

 

Marquis's main value is durability. He's a 28 year old who has made 30+ starts and 190+ innings in each of the past three seasons, with a career ERA+ of 94.

 

To compare:

- 28 year old Gil Meche has a career ERA+ of 96, has never reached 190 innings (he did hit 186 innings twice), and receives 5/55

- 29 year old Adam Eaton has a career ERA+ of 92, has reached 190 innings once, and receives 3/25.

- 30 year old Ted Lilly has a career ERA+ of 99, has reached 190 innings once in the past three years, and receives 4/40.

 

Seems in line with the overall market for starters, inflated as it may be.

 

It seems that Hendry had a focus of going after durable starting pitchers this offseason. This has to be a reflection that, aside from Hill, he no longer trusts the farm system to produce quality starting pitching like it did during the late-90s/early-00s. It's hard to disagree with this general track: it's worth ~$20M/year to get two average starting pitchers to contribute ~200 innings each, when the alternative could be repeat performances from Mateo, Marmol, or Ryu.

 

 

Who cares if they're consistent if they're consistently bad? At least with Lilly there was hope of a good season or two. I don't see that from Marquis.

[Mark Priors Calves]

dear god.

 

 

jimbo is pissing away any good will he ad establsihed from this offseason. what a terrible, terrible move. any one of the youngsters could have put up these numbers for a fraction of the cost.

[CUBZ99]

It's "only" 3/20 according to the link TXCubsFan posted above

 

The Cubs filled out their rotation on Friday night by signing free-agent Jason Marquis to a three-year deal worth approximately $20 million, sources said.

 

Again, the link: http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/chi-061209cubs-story,1,5103592.story?coll=cs-home-headlines

 

I dont' have a huge problem with this signing, especially since it is $20MM instead of $28MM. However, Rothschild is going to have alot of work to do next year to make this a good rotation. We keep hearing how good he is with pitchers, this year its time to display it.

 

If he gets Marquis back to 2004 form, you got four starters that could post ERA's in the 3's. Of course that is a big IF.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

3/20 is a whole lot better than 3/28. Not that I like it, but it is better than 3/28.

[Bull]

That 3/28 seems way too high, even in the current market.

 

Marquis's main value is durability. He's a 28 year old who has made 30+ starts and 190+ innings in each of the past three seasons, with a career ERA+ of 94.

 

To compare:

- 28 year old Gil Meche has a career ERA+ of 96, has never reached 190 innings (he did hit 186 innings twice), and receives 5/55

- 29 year old Adam Eaton has a career ERA+ of 92, has reached 190 innings once, and receives 3/25.

- 30 year old Ted Lilly has a career ERA+ of 99, has reached 190 innings once in the past three years, and receives 4/40.

 

Seems in line with the overall market for starters, inflated as it may be.

 

It seems that Hendry had a focus of going after durable starting pitchers this offseason. This has to be a reflection that, aside from Hill, he no longer trusts the farm system to produce quality starting pitching like it did during the late-90s/early-00s. It's hard to disagree with this general track: it's worth ~$20M/year to get two average starting pitchers to contribute ~200 innings each, when the alternative could be repeat performances from Mateo, Marmol, or Ryu.

 

 

Who cares if they're consistent if they're consistently bad? At least with Lilly there was hope of a good season or two. I don't see that from Marquis.

 

Only one Cubs starter threw over 125 innings last year. redarndiculous.

[Wheelimus]

Ok, well, first, lets look at the postives.

 

Um...

 

Um...

 

Hold on a sec

 

**5 minutes, and a room full of smoke later**

 

Positives! He, uh, throws a lot of innings! He's been decent in the past, and supposadly Larry thinks he can fix him. Time to put up or shut up Rothy...

 

Negatives. Eep, 3 years to a guy with a 6.02 ERA last season? 'Nuff said...

[killthegoat06]

That 3/28 seems way too high, even in the current market.

 

Marquis's main value is durability. He's a 28 year old who has made 30+ starts and 190+ innings in each of the past three seasons, with a career ERA+ of 94.

 

To compare:

- 28 year old Gil Meche has a career ERA+ of 96, has never reached 190 innings (he did hit 186 innings twice), and receives 5/55

- 29 year old Adam Eaton has a career ERA+ of 92, has reached 190 innings once, and receives 3/25.

- 30 year old Ted Lilly has a career ERA+ of 99, has reached 190 innings once in the past three years, and receives 4/40.

 

Seems in line with the overall market for starters, inflated as it may be.

 

It seems that Hendry had a focus of going after durable starting pitchers this offseason. This has to be a reflection that, aside from Hill, he no longer trusts the farm system to produce quality starting pitching like it did during the late-90s/early-00s. It's hard to disagree with this general track: it's worth ~$20M/year to get two average starting pitchers to contribute ~200 innings each, when the alternative could be repeat performances from Mateo, Marmol, or Ryu.

 

 

Who cares if they're consistent if they're consistently bad? At least with Lilly there was hope of a good season or two. I don't see that from Marquis.

 

Only one Cubs starter threw over 125 innings last year. redarndiculous.

 

I still don't understand how there aren't better options than Marquis. We should change the thread title.

Edited December 9, 2006 by killthegoat06

[Mizzou]

Can someone compute Marquis ERA if you take out his two awful permformances where he gave up 13 runs to the White Sox and 12 runs to the Braves? I know that he had to stay in against the Sox, cause the Cards gave up 20 something runs the night before and the bullpen was taxed. And I'm assuming it was a similar situation agasinst the Braves.

 

I truly think that Marquis can turn it around with the Cubs. He wasn't as bad last year as his ERA indicates. Like I've said before, I think it's stupid to sign another starter, but I'm glad that Marquis was the starter that was signed. And his deal, in this market, isn't bad at all.

[nolanwood]

Can someone compute Marquis ERA if you take out his two awful permformances where he gave up 13 runs to the White Sox and 12 runs to the Braves? I know that he had to stay in against the Sox, cause the Cards gave up 20 something runs the night before and the bullpen was taxed. And I'm assuming it was a similar situation agasinst the Braves.

 

I truly think that Marquis can turn it around with the Cubs. He wasn't as bad last year as his ERA indicates. Like I've said before, I think it's stupid to sign another starter, but I'm glad that Marquis was the starter that was signed. And his deal, in this market, isn't bad at all.

 

I was at the Braves game - he was getting booed by the 3rd...it wasn't a pretty sight.

[Wes Mantooth]

Look at the bright side, we now have a platoon option if Jaque stays in Chicago!

[CubColtPacer]

That 3/28 seems way too high, even in the current market.

 

Marquis's main value is durability. He's a 28 year old who has made 30+ starts and 190+ innings in each of the past three seasons, with a career ERA+ of 94.

 

To compare:

- 28 year old Gil Meche has a career ERA+ of 96, has never reached 190 innings (he did hit 186 innings twice), and receives 5/55

- 29 year old Adam Eaton has a career ERA+ of 92, has reached 190 innings once, and receives 3/25.

- 30 year old Ted Lilly has a career ERA+ of 99, has reached 190 innings once in the past three years, and receives 4/40.

 

Seems in line with the overall market for starters, inflated as it may be.

 

It seems that Hendry had a focus of going after durable starting pitchers this offseason. This has to be a reflection that, aside from Hill, he no longer trusts the farm system to produce quality starting pitching like it did during the late-90s/early-00s. It's hard to disagree with this general track: it's worth ~$20M/year to get two average starting pitchers to contribute ~200 innings each, when the alternative could be repeat performances from Mateo, Marmol, or Ryu.

 

 

Who cares if they're consistent if they're consistently bad? At least with Lilly there was hope of a good season or two. I don't see that from Marquis.

 

Pitcher's 3 best years:

 

Pitcher A:

129.3 IP, 3.48 ERA, 1.33 WHIP, 127 ERA+

201.3 IP, 3.71 ERA, 1.41 WHIP, 113 ERA+

207.0 IP, 4.13 ERA, 1.329 WHIP, 103 ERA+

 

Pitcher B:

100.0 IP, 3.69 ERA, 1.11 WHIP, 120 ERA+

197.3 IP, 4.06 ERA, 1.31 WHIP, 120 ERA+

181.7 IP, 4.31 ERA, 1.431 WHIP, 109 ERA+

 

I can't see why Marquis doesn't have just as much potential to put up a good season as Lilly-it's just that Lilly has been more consistent and his bad season came in 2005, while the bad season for Marquis was in 2006. If Marquis returns to 2004/2005 numbers, this is a very good signing in this market. If he has 2 years of that and one terrible year, it will be an average signing. If he has over a 4.50 ERA 2 out of the 3 years or more, it will be a bad signing-it depends a great deal on if Marquis really has found a flaw in his delivery that he has corrected or not.

[UK1679666180]

That 3/28 seems way too high, even in the current market.

 

EDIT: With the Tribune reporting that it's 3/20 and not 3/28, UK proves to be smarter than me, yet again.

 

:D

 

 

For me, it's the years moreso than dollars per year, it's a big risk to assume that Marquis takes that step forward to where he was.

 

A similar pitcher to me to Marquis is Ramon Ortiz. Decent a couple of years ago has declined, he's 5 years older than Marquis but does not the baggage of being unable to work with coaches. Like Marquis, he's a flat 4 seam FB pitcher with an inconsistent slider who's often up in the zone way too much.

 

I'd be willing to gamble that the salary difference will be greater than the difference in production between the two.

[rocket]

Can someone compute Marquis ERA if you take out his two awful permformances where he gave up 13 runs to the White Sox and 12 runs to the Braves? I know that he had to stay in against the Sox, cause the Cards gave up 20 something runs the night before and the bullpen was taxed. And I'm assuming it was a similar situation agasinst the Braves.

 

I truly think that Marquis can turn it around with the Cubs. He wasn't as bad last year as his ERA indicates. Like I've said before, I think it's stupid to sign another starter, but I'm glad that Marquis was the starter that was signed. And his deal, in this market, isn't bad at all.

 

His ERA, minus 2 awful performances, would be 5.12 unless I did the math wrong

 

EDIT I did the math wrong the first time, answer is right now

Edited December 9, 2006 by rocket

[bhogg]

Marquis may or may not be a terrible signing.

 

The thing is that no matter who the Cubs sign, there will be a group of fans who think it "sucks." It will be for a terrible player. . . or the contract is too long. . .. or the money is too much.

 

We truly won't know the effectiveness of the signings until the season is complete.

[Guest]

That 3/28 seems way too high, even in the current market.

 

Marquis's main value is durability. He's a 28 year old who has made 30+ starts and 190+ innings in each of the past three seasons, with a career ERA+ of 94.

 

To compare:

- 28 year old Gil Meche has a career ERA+ of 96, has never reached 190 innings (he did hit 186 innings twice), and receives 5/55

- 29 year old Adam Eaton has a career ERA+ of 92, has reached 190 innings once, and receives 3/25.

- 30 year old Ted Lilly has a career ERA+ of 99, has reached 190 innings once in the past three years, and receives 4/40.

 

Seems in line with the overall market for starters, inflated as it may be.

 

It seems that Hendry had a focus of going after durable starting pitchers this offseason. This has to be a reflection that, aside from Hill, he no longer trusts the farm system to produce quality starting pitching like it did during the late-90s/early-00s. It's hard to disagree with this general track: it's worth ~$20M/year to get two average starting pitchers to contribute ~200 innings each, when the alternative could be repeat performances from Mateo, Marmol, or Ryu.

 

 

Who cares if they're consistent if they're consistently bad? At least with Lilly there was hope of a good season or two. I don't see that from Marquis.

 

Pitcher's 3 best years:

 

Pitcher A:

129.3 IP, 3.48 ERA, 1.33 WHIP, 127 ERA+

201.3 IP, 3.71 ERA, 1.41 WHIP, 113 ERA+

207.0 IP, 4.13 ERA, 1.329 WHIP, 103 ERA+

 

Pitcher B:

100.0 IP, 3.69 ERA, 1.11 WHIP, 120 ERA+

197.3 IP, 4.06 ERA, 1.31 WHIP, 120 ERA+

181.7 IP, 4.31 ERA, 1.431 WHIP, 109 ERA+

 

I can't see why Marquis doesn't have just as much potential to put up a good season as Lilly-it's just that Lilly has been more consistent and his bad season came in 2005, while the bad season for Marquis was in 2006. If Marquis returns to 2004/2005 numbers, this is a very good signing in this market. If he has 2 years of that and one terrible year, it will be an average signing. If he has over a 4.50 ERA 2 out of the 3 years or more, it will be a bad signing-it depends a great deal on if Marquis really has found a flaw in his delivery that he has corrected or not.

 

Marquis has been getting worse for several years now. His 2005 was fluky and should have been a lot worse. An ERA under 5 would be surprising and one over 6 wouldn't.