Cubs Sign Marquis to 3/21

[Soul]

how does st louis get kip wells at one year/three mil, and the cubs get marquis for this? astounding.

Probably because Wells hasn't had a season in which he was both good and healthy since 2003. Marquis sucked last year, but he has made his starts. That's most likely why Hendry was willing to overpay so much to get him.

 

I'm a little late to this thread, but is there any reason to think that he will or won't bounce back from 2006?

 

I think he will, but that's not to say I don't think he is criminally overpaid. That's a bad contract.

 

At any rate, to say Marquis and Lilly can't post numbers as good as Marmol's 6.08 ERA or Guzman's 7.63 from last year is a stretch.

[KingKongvs.Godzilla]

Can I ask, out of curiousity, why do people like Zito so much?

 

A high walk, declining K rate, fly ball pitcher.

 

Sure he won the Cy Young 4 years ago and he's young, but a few years ago he threw harder, walked less guys, K'd more guys, and his curveball actually got guys out consistently.

 

Don't see whats so amazing about him now. He's still one of my favorite pitchers to watch, but I wouldn't like him for the money he'd ask for.

[Soul]

Can I ask, out of curiousity, why do people like Zito so much?

 

A high walk, declining K rate, fly ball pitcher.

 

Sure he won the Cy Young 4 years ago and he's young, but a few years ago he threw harder, walked less guys, K'd more guys, and his curveball actually got guys out consistently.

 

Don't see whats so amazing about him now. He's still one of my favorite pitchers to watch, but I wouldn't like him for the money he'd ask for.

 

We don't even know if Zito would agree to come to Chicago. For all we know, he ruled us out a long time ago and it wouldn't suprise me if he had.

[Jon]

how does st louis get kip wells at one year/three mil, and the cubs get marquis for this? astounding.

Probably because Wells hasn't had a season in which he was both good and healthy since 2003. Marquis sucked last year, but he has made his starts. That's most likely why Hendry was willing to overpay so much to get him.

 

I'm a little late to this thread, but is there any reason to think that he will or won't bounce back from 2006?

 

I think he will, but that's not to say I don't think he is criminally overpaid. That's a bad contract.

 

At any rate, to say Marquis and Lilly can't post numbers as good as Marmol's 6.08 ERA or Guzman's 7.63 from last year is a stretch.

So Marmol and Guzman aren't going to improve at all? Those two were going to be on the roster this year for very little money.

 

It's not an argument about whether Lilly and Marquis will put up significantly better numbers than what Marmol and Guzman did last year, but whether they'll put up significantly better numbers than what Marmol and Guzman could do this year.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

If you think an argument is overly negative, then state your case, show them why you think they're wrong. But to sit back and chalk up negativity as some sort of character flaw while not contributing anything else is ridiculous, uncalled for, and basically attacking the poster IMO.

 

I completely agree with this.

 

People don't like the tone of the board of this transaction but they're not helping by just criticizing posters or the board as a whole. Why not defend your side of the argument, I would think it'd be easy since the other side doesn't use fair, reasoned or logical responses?

[CoolHandLuke]

fair, reasoned, logical analysis please.

 

Unfortunately, something this place has had very little of this offseason! It's been hard at points to read this board when you have to wade through pages and pages of arguements that lack reason, an objective view, and have some really skewed logic. The negativity (and I can understand it a bit) on this board has been SO bad this offseason it's crazy! Despite that, this is still head and shoulders above any other forum, I just wish more people would heed jjgman21's advise above.

 

 

And posts like this one ^^^^ What do they accomplish? This isn't a thread on debate tactics, its a thread on the signing of Jason Marquis.

 

I don't like it. There is a good chance that he will not get better and you will be on the hook for 21+ over 7 years. The following young pitchers can outperform Marquis.

 

Sean Marhsall

Carlos Marmol

Juan Mateo

 

There was really no point to this signing.

 

Just trying to remind people about what made this board great and how it seems as though it has gotten completely out of hand this year (96 loss season do tend to do stuff like this though). There are a lot of stubborn people on here and I doubt that much will change, hopefully people realize how they have been acting and try to tone it down.

Now what does your post accomplish? You tell me that 3 of our young guys can outperform Marquis, fair enough, but where is your logic behind it? Tell me why they will outpitch him, otherwise your post is just as pointless as you think mine was. I can say player A will outpeform player B all I want, give me something of substance to prove that point. BTW, personally I dont really like the signing much either.

 

Sean Marshall outperformed Jason Marquis last year. Is that not the kind of evidence you are looking for.

[RichHillIsABeast]

Some of the things Hendry had to do this offseason to make the team better:

 

-Improve the rotation

-Improve the team's OBP

 

And some smaller things like

 

-Move Izturis

-Find a platoon partner for Jones (if Jones remains a Cub)

 

Hendry hasn't done any of those things. He added arms to the rotation, but hasn't really added quality arms.

 

And what quality arms did you want? Schmidt didn't take a competitive offer from the Cards, the WS champions. What makes you think he would have come to the Cubs? We weren't even a finalist for his services. He wanted to stay on the west coast.

 

Hendry decided to pay for arms instead of trading for them. We're going to need our farm system to start producing. It can't produce if you keep trading away the cream of the crop. I'm not down with trading the likes of Pie for a #2 starter (at best) in Jennings.

 

What FA did Hendry not get that you would have been willing to pay for? Drew? If Wood and Prior taught us anything, it's not to count on injury prone players.

 

Not many trades have gone down this offseason. Why is that? It's not b/c Hendry is stupid or Hendry is fat or Hendry eats too many donuts, blah blah blah.

So are we in agreement that he didn't really improve the rotation? The two arms he added, Lilly and Marquis, most likely aren't going to keep up the collective ERA when compared to the pitchers that were already on the team last year (some of whom are you and will improve). If you're going to spend $60 million on a pair of pitchers, they should really help you out.

 

The OBP will see it's biggest increase with the return of a healthy Lee. Soriano, DeRossa, and Izturis won't be responsible for a significant improve to the team's OBP. At least not to the extent that they needed.

 

Relying on mediocrity is no better than relying on good to great players with a history of injuries.

 

Has Hendry had the resources to make better moves? Absolutely. You can speculate on who was or was not available and which teams were or were not willing to trade until you're blue in the face. But the bottom line is that at this point, Hendry really hasn't made the team that much better, in my opinion.

 

At least your crow is going to be enjoyable.

[Soriano12]

You tell me that 3 of our young guys can outperform Marquis, fair enough, but where is your logic behind it? Tell me why they will outpitch him,

 

More alarming than Marquis 6+ ERA was his BAA which was .280+ if I'm not mistaken. To me this is a sign that the guy is simply hittable. His fastball has lost life, or his breakin stuff insn't as sharp.

 

Now take a guy like Marmol, who had a bad ERA, but better BAA. Marmol simply doesn't have the control right now, but that can be fixed(see Rich Hill)

[CoolHandLuke]

Some of the things Hendry had to do this offseason to make the team better:

 

-Improve the rotation

-Improve the team's OBP

 

And some smaller things like

 

-Move Izturis

-Find a platoon partner for Jones (if Jones remains a Cub)

 

Hendry hasn't done any of those things. He added arms to the rotation, but hasn't really added quality arms.

 

And what quality arms did you want? Schmidt didn't take a competitive offer from the Cards, the WS champions. What makes you think he would have come to the Cubs? We weren't even a finalist for his services. He wanted to stay on the west coast.

 

Hendry decided to pay for arms instead of trading for them. We're going to need our farm system to start producing. It can't produce if you keep trading away the cream of the crop. I'm not down with trading the likes of Pie for a #2 starter (at best) in Jennings.

 

What FA did Hendry not get that you would have been willing to pay for? Drew? If Wood and Prior taught us anything, it's not to count on injury prone players.

 

Not many trades have gone down this offseason. Why is that? It's not b/c Hendry is stupid or Hendry is fat or Hendry eats too many donuts, blah blah blah.

So are we in agreement that he didn't really improve the rotation? The two arms he added, Lilly and Marquis, most likely aren't going to keep up the collective ERA when compared to the pitchers that were already on the team last year (some of whom are you and will improve). If you're going to spend $60 million on a pair of pitchers, they should really help you out.

 

The OBP will see it's biggest increase with the return of a healthy Lee. Soriano, DeRossa, and Izturis won't be responsible for a significant improve to the team's OBP. At least not to the extent that they needed.

 

Relying on mediocrity is no better than relying on good to great players with a history of injuries.

 

Has Hendry had the resources to make better moves? Absolutely. You can speculate on who was or was not available and which teams were or were not willing to trade until you're blue in the face. But the bottom line is that at this point, Hendry really hasn't made the team that much better, in my opinion.

 

At least your crow is going to be enjoyable.

 

What did he say that he would have to eat crow for? He is not making any sort of illogical predictions, he is stating his opinion.

[b_wiggy_66]

I'm ok with Marquis at 3/20 but not 3/28. We could have had Suppan for that much. We could have gone after Zito and Batista for that much. I have been defending the Marquis signing all day, but I can't defend a guy getting $9Mil+ a year after having an ERA over 6.

[RichHillIsABeast]

Not many trades have gone down this offseason. Why is that? It's not b/c Hendry is stupid or Hendry is fat or Hendry eats too many donuts, blah blah blah.

 

Seriously, who uses those sort of arguments to criticize Hendry's offseason?

 

Disgruntled Cubs Fan for one. There are plenty of other village idiots that chime in with that nonsense whenever they see a move they don't like.

 

It's getting old.

 

Attack the post, not the poster.

 

And we do try to limit usage of such terms.

 

No problem.

[Soul]

how does st louis get kip wells at one year/three mil, and the cubs get marquis for this? astounding.

Probably because Wells hasn't had a season in which he was both good and healthy since 2003. Marquis sucked last year, but he has made his starts. That's most likely why Hendry was willing to overpay so much to get him.

 

I'm a little late to this thread, but is there any reason to think that he will or won't bounce back from 2006?

 

I think he will, but that's not to say I don't think he is criminally overpaid. That's a bad contract.

 

At any rate, to say Marquis and Lilly can't post numbers as good as Marmol's 6.08 ERA or Guzman's 7.63 from last year is a stretch.

So Marmol and Guzman aren't going to improve at all? Those two were going to be on the roster this year for very little money.

 

It's not an argument about whether Lilly and Marquis will put up significantly better numbers than what Marmol and Guzman did last year, but whether they'll put up significantly better numbers than what Marmol and Guzman could do this year.

 

Marmol is awhile away from being major league ready. He was pressed into duty way early last year and boy did it ever show. NO, I don't think you would see improvement from Marmol that would bring him into, say, the 4.5 ERA range.

 

Guzman is another story. I do think he has a chance. But he's been hanging around for years in this organization and last year was his big shot-----it was a disaster.

 

At any rate, to say that taking Guzman/Marmol/Mateo, and replacing 2 of those with Lilly and Marquis provides no improvement at all is silly, IMO.

[BWcubs21]

fair, reasoned, logical analysis please.

 

Unfortunately, something this place has had very little of this offseason! It's been hard at points to read this board when you have to wade through pages and pages of arguements that lack reason, an objective view, and have some really skewed logic. The negativity (and I can understand it a bit) on this board has been SO bad this offseason it's crazy! Despite that, this is still head and shoulders above any other forum, I just wish more people would heed jjgman21's advise above.

 

 

And posts like this one ^^^^ What do they accomplish? This isn't a thread on debate tactics, its a thread on the signing of Jason Marquis.

 

I don't like it. There is a good chance that he will not get better and you will be on the hook for 21+ over 7 years. The following young pitchers can outperform Marquis.

 

Sean Marhsall

Carlos Marmol

Juan Mateo

 

There was really no point to this signing.

 

Just trying to remind people about what made this board great and how it seems as though it has gotten completely out of hand this year (96 loss season do tend to do stuff like this though). There are a lot of stubborn people on here and I doubt that much will change, hopefully people realize how they have been acting and try to tone it down.

Now what does your post accomplish? You tell me that 3 of our young guys can outperform Marquis, fair enough, but where is your logic behind it? Tell me why they will outpitch him, otherwise your post is just as pointless as you think mine was. I can say player A will outpeform player B all I want, give me something of substance to prove that point. BTW, personally I dont really like the signing much either.

 

Sean Marshall outperformed Jason Marquis last year. Is that not the kind of evidence you are looking for.

 

I know that Marshall was a better player last year than Marquis. No I dont like this signing. Yes I would have much rather went a completely different direction. That's not the point I was making to him though, I was asking for him to give a little substance to his post and give me some kind of proof as to why he believes that all those pitchers will do better.

[Soriano12]

 

At least your crow is going to be enjoyable.

 

LOL. Are you taking a list of posters who don't like the Marquis signing, then(should Marquis actually pitch decent in 2007) call them out in every thread like this:

 

 

"OMG Dude, you send Marquis would suck in Dec, but now he is good man! Dude you have to eat some major crow man! just eat the crow "

[Butterscup1679666578]

3/28 now?!! i just vomited all over my copy of "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde"

[CaliforniaRaisin]

fair, reasoned, logical analysis please.

 

Unfortunately, something this place has had very little of this offseason! It's been hard at points to read this board when you have to wade through pages and pages of arguements that lack reason, an objective view, and have some really skewed logic. The negativity (and I can understand it a bit) on this board has been SO bad this offseason it's crazy! Despite that, this is still head and shoulders above any other forum, I just wish more people would heed jjgman21's advise above.

 

 

And posts like this one ^^^^ What do they accomplish? This isn't a thread on debate tactics, its a thread on the signing of Jason Marquis.

 

I don't like it. There is a good chance that he will not get better and you will be on the hook for 21+ over 7 years. The following young pitchers can outperform Marquis.

 

Sean Marhsall

Carlos Marmol

Juan Mateo

 

There was really no point to this signing.

 

Just trying to remind people about what made this board great and how it seems as though it has gotten completely out of hand this year (96 loss season do tend to do stuff like this though). There are a lot of stubborn people on here and I doubt that much will change, hopefully people realize how they have been acting and try to tone it down.

Now what does your post accomplish? You tell me that 3 of our young guys can outperform Marquis, fair enough, but where is your logic behind it? Tell me why they will outpitch him, otherwise your post is just as pointless as you think mine was. I can say player A will outpeform player B all I want, give me something of substance to prove that point. BTW, personally I dont really like the signing much either.

 

Sean Marshall outperformed Jason Marquis last year. Is that not the kind of evidence you are looking for.

 

Exactly.

 

Marshall: 5.59 ERA, 1.52 WHIP, .270 BAA, 77 K/59 BB, 20 HR

Marquis: 6.02 ERA, 1.52 WHIP, .289 BAA, 96 K/75 BB, 35 HR

[BWcubs21]

You tell me that 3 of our young guys can outperform Marquis, fair enough, but where is your logic behind it? Tell me why they will outpitch him,

 

More alarming than Marquis 6+ ERA was his BAA which was .280+ if I'm not mistaken. To me this is a sign that the guy is simply hittable. His fastball has lost life, or his breakin stuff insn't as sharp.

 

Now take a guy like Marmol, who had a bad ERA, but better BAA. Marmol simply doesn't have the control right now, but that can be fixed(see Rich Hill)

 

Thank you very much. I agree 100% with you that any of those 3 would have been desirable to Marquis (if not on numbers than certainly based on contracts).

[jjgman21]

If you think an argument is overly negative, then state your case, show them why you think they're wrong. But to sit back and chalk up negativity as some sort of character flaw while not contributing anything else is ridiculous, uncalled for, and basically attacking the poster IMO.

 

I completely agree with this.

 

People don't like the tone of the board of this transaction but they're not helping by just criticizing posters or the board as a whole. Why not defend your side of the argument, I would think it'd be easy since the other side doesn't use fair, reasoned or logical responses?

 

I'm not the other side. I don't like this signing. I just find it absurd when people say things like "best case scenerio is a 4.5 ERA" or "we have a #1 and four #5's" or when people make illogical jumps to come to overly pessimistic conclusions.

 

these things don't need debate. they need to not make it on the board in the first place because they are completely lacking in factual basis. we used to call it flaming.

[EastonBlues22]

three/four years at 10-11.5 mil/per is not that competitive.

I'm under the impression that the "final offer" was or would have been in the range of 3/38-3/42.

 

That's what I've seen reported anyway. Not an offer that would turn Schmidt's head at all...but I'd say it qualifies as "competitive" at least.

[CoolHandLuke]

fair, reasoned, logical analysis please.

 

Unfortunately, something this place has had very little of this offseason! It's been hard at points to read this board when you have to wade through pages and pages of arguements that lack reason, an objective view, and have some really skewed logic. The negativity (and I can understand it a bit) on this board has been SO bad this offseason it's crazy! Despite that, this is still head and shoulders above any other forum, I just wish more people would heed jjgman21's advise above.

 

 

And posts like this one ^^^^ What do they accomplish? This isn't a thread on debate tactics, its a thread on the signing of Jason Marquis.

 

I don't like it. There is a good chance that he will not get better and you will be on the hook for 21+ over 7 years. The following young pitchers can outperform Marquis.

 

Sean Marhsall

Carlos Marmol

Juan Mateo

 

There was really no point to this signing.

 

Just trying to remind people about what made this board great and how it seems as though it has gotten completely out of hand this year (96 loss season do tend to do stuff like this though). There are a lot of stubborn people on here and I doubt that much will change, hopefully people realize how they have been acting and try to tone it down.

Now what does your post accomplish? You tell me that 3 of our young guys can outperform Marquis, fair enough, but where is your logic behind it? Tell me why they will outpitch him, otherwise your post is just as pointless as you think mine was. I can say player A will outpeform player B all I want, give me something of substance to prove that point. BTW, personally I dont really like the signing much either.

 

Sean Marshall outperformed Jason Marquis last year. Is that not the kind of evidence you are looking for.

 

I know that Marshall was a better player last year than Marquis. No I dont like this signing. Yes I would have much rather went a completely different direction. That's not the point I was making to him though, I was asking for him to give a little substance to his post and give me some kind of proof as to why he believes that all those pitchers will do better.

 

But he wasn't taking a hardline stance that each of those pitchers will in fact do better than Marquis next year. He just said that they could. And considering Marquis' 06 I don't think its such a ridiculous statement that needs a considerable amount of statistical support.

[A New Era]

 

At least your crow is going to be enjoyable.

 

LOL. Are you taking a list of posters who don't like the Marquis signing, then(should Marquis actually pitch decent in 2007) call them out in every thread like this:

 

 

"OMG Dude, you send Marquis would suck in Dec, but now he is good man! Dude you have to eat some major crow man! just eat the crow "

 

Yep! And me too! I'm doing the same for Soriano, Hill, Derosa, Izturis, Lilly, and many other players posters are tossing aside as garbage.

[RichHillIsABeast]

 

At least your crow is going to be enjoyable.

 

LOL. Are you taking a list of posters who don't like the Marquis signing, then(should Marquis actually pitch decent in 2007) call them out in every thread like this:

 

 

"OMG Dude, you send Marquis would suck in Dec, but now he is good man! Dude you have to eat some major crow man! just eat the crow "

 

Nope. I'm just pointing out that saying the rotation is worse off than last season isn't going to be true. Those that are negative right now will be pleasantly surprised.

 

Lilly and Marquis will be fine. Hill will pitch well. Z is a beast. Maybe we'll get a nice surprise from Prior or Miller or one of the many rookies with potential.

[C.C.]

how does st louis get kip wells at one year/three mil, and the cubs get marquis for this? astounding.

Probably because Wells hasn't had a season in which he was both good and healthy since 2003. Marquis sucked last year, but he has made his starts. That's most likely why Hendry was willing to overpay so much to get him.

 

I'm a little late to this thread, but is there any reason to think that he will or won't bounce back from 2006?

 

I think he will, but that's not to say I don't think he is criminally overpaid. That's a bad contract.

 

At any rate, to say Marquis and Lilly can't post numbers as good as Marmol's 6.08 ERA or Guzman's 7.63 from last year is a stretch.

So Marmol and Guzman aren't going to improve at all? Those two were going to be on the roster this year for very little money.

 

It's not an argument about whether Lilly and Marquis will put up significantly better numbers than what Marmol and Guzman did last year, but whether they'll put up significantly better numbers than what Marmol and Guzman could do this year.

 

If you start Guzman and expect him to pitch the whole season you are asking for trouble, he's been injury prone, and now is finally healthy. Let him do long relief and spot starts for a year. Marmol is still a work in progress and needs to do that in the minors.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

Marmol is awhile away from being major league ready. He was pressed into duty way early last year and boy did it ever show. NO, I don't think you would see improvement from Marmol that would bring him into, say, the 4.5 ERA range.

 

Guzman is another story. I do think he has a chance. But he's been hanging around for years in this organization and last year was his big shot-----it was a disaster.

 

At any rate, to say that taking Guzman/Marmol/Mateo, and replacing 2 of those with Lilly and Marquis provides no improvement at all is silly, IMO.

 

I don't disagree that Marmol is a year away and needs time in the minors to iron out a lot of things including his control. But I think it's unfair to expect much from Guzman when he' practically missed 2.5 years AND asked to have success two levels higher than he has ever pitched in his pro career. He showed major rust, a drop-off in his pitches and control, and also signs of what brought him so much hype before the injury.

[C.C.]

 

At least your crow is going to be enjoyable.

 

LOL. Are you taking a list of posters who don't like the Marquis signing, then(should Marquis actually pitch decent in 2007) call them out in every thread like this:

 

 

"OMG Dude, you send Marquis would suck in Dec, but now he is good man! Dude you have to eat some major crow man! just eat the crow "

 

Nope. I'm just pointing out that saying the rotation is worse off than last season isn't going to be true. Those that are negative right now will be pleasantly surprised.

 

Lilly and Marquis will be fine. Hill will pitch well. Z is a beast. Maybe we'll get a nice surprise from Prior or Miller or one of the many rookies with potential.

 

I couldn't agree with you more.