Cubs Sign Marquis to 3/21

[Sosa21MVP]

ESPNEWS is reporting it is 3 years, $21 million.

[UK1679666180]

I think it's around 3/21 with incentives that can bump it into the 3/27 range. Of course, pitching incentives are based mostly on IP for starters and appear. for relievers. Also, Cy Young and all-star appearences, etc. Edited December 10, 2006 by UK

[b_wiggy_66]

A source told ESPN.com's Jerry Crasnick that the deal is for $21 million. The source also said that the Cubs are pursuing free agent outfielder Cliff Floyd, who is expected to decide next week between Chicago and Seattle.

 

That makes me a little happier. Just a little.

[jjgman21]

look, Jason Marquis is an outstanding pitcher. he put up an ERA+ of 127 at age 22, and put together seasons of 113 and 103. clearly he's the best option over any of the dregs in the minors who proved last year they have no future at the major league level. great signing.

 

 

 

 

 

that's exactly what you guys are doing, only from the other side, and you don't even see it.

[cbbryan]

ESPNEWS is reporting it is 3 years, $21 million.

 

That would be MUCH better.

[Soul]

A source told ESPN.com's Jerry Crasnick that the deal is for $21 million. The source also said that the Cubs are pursuing free agent outfielder Cliff Floyd, who is expected to decide next week between Chicago and Seattle.

 

That makes me a little happier. Just a little.

 

So which is right?

 

The Cubs filled out their rotation on Friday night by signing free-agent Jason Marquis to a three-year deal worth a reported $28 million.

[jjgman21]

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

 

Marshall will be good in a couple of years. But he does not have a 4.45 carreer ERA like Marquis does. I don't like this signing particularly. But counting on Marshall is not a good idea. Seasoning him in AAA and viewing him as a possible future Cub, is a good idea.

 

Yep. Why rush these kids? Didn't we learn our lesson with Wood and Prior? Let them build up the proper arm strength.

 

bump. see the bold Jon.

 

The bolded:

 

Tell me why they will outpitch him, otherwise your post is just as pointless as you think mine was.

 

The response to that:

 

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

 

What exactly is wrong here?

 

ah, decontextualize the flow of the discussion. getting more honsest in debate by the minute there aren't you Raisen. it's all there to be seen what the discussion was about and what tactics were used to "win."

[CoolHandLuke]

look, Jason Marquis is an outstanding pitcher. he put up an ERA+ of 127 at age 22, and put together seasons of 113 and 103. clearly he's the best option over any of the dregs in the minors who proved last year they have no future at the major league level. great signing.

 

 

 

 

 

that's exactly what you guys are doing, only from the other side, and you don't even see it.

 

This is my opinion: Jason Marquis is a puzzling guy who has put up good ERAs in the past, but just put up a 6+ era last year. Even when he was good, his peripheral numbers were nothing special. I would take a flyer on him if he would take a low base one year contract with an option. But guaranteeing at least 20 million dollars to a guy coming off of a year that bad is insane.

[Balsa]

Marquis doesn't have a good K/BB ratio, which is mainly why his ERA suffers so much. At least he's young though, and a groundball pitcher. Edited December 10, 2006 by Balsa

[jjgman21]

look, Jason Marquis is an outstanding pitcher. he put up an ERA+ of 127 at age 22, and put together seasons of 113 and 103. clearly he's the best option over any of the dregs in the minors who proved last year they have no future at the major league level. great signing.

 

 

 

 

 

that's exactly what you guys are doing, only from the other side, and you don't even see it.

 

This is my opinion: Jason Marquis is a puzzling guy who has put up good ERAs in the past, but just put up a 6+ era last year. Even when he was good, his peripheral numbers were nothing special. I would take a flyer on him if he would take a low base one year contract with an option. But guaranteeing at least 20 million dollars to a guy coming off of a year that bad is insane.

 

 

BAM! we have a winner!

 

 

now, what does his past performance say about the future, and is there reason to think that anyone from the farm could do better. what benefits are there in these signings we don't see? is a trade for a big bat easier now?

[CoolHandLuke]

 

ah, decontextualize the flow of the discussion. getting more honsest in debate by the minute there aren't you Raisen. it's all there to be seen what the discussion was about and what tactics were used to "win."

 

The discussion went like this:

 

Why give this much money to marquis when we have cheap guys who could pitch as well as him?

 

I need proof that they will pitch as well as him!

 

Marshall has already done it.

 

 

YOU CANT USE LAST YEARS STATS TO PROVE MARSHALL WILL PITCH BETTER THAN MARQUIS NEXT YEAR!

 

 

 

 

the problem is that nobody said marshall will pitch better than marquis last year. Somebody said that he could and somebody else responded by saying that they needed to show evidence that suggests that he will. The only problem is why does the original poster need to show evidence to proove something that he never said? The proof that the original poster needed to show was that marshall could indeed pitch better than marquis and that proof is in the 2006 statistics.

[Electron Blue]

I'm disappointed by the gradual turn to logic that this thread is taking. Marquis sucks; Marshall sucks; other people we have suck; people we didn't sign woulda been great.

 

 

 

 

 

:wink: <--- If I could make a smilie bold, I woulda.

[Soul]

Marquis doesn't have a good K/BB ratio, which is mainly why his ERA suffers so much. At least he's young though, and a groundball pitcher.

 

His season last year was atypically bad actually. Not sure where he will end up this year. But I'm pretty sure of two things: 1) He'll be better than a 6.02 ERA and a dismal 73 ERA+, and 2) $20m/yr is insanely high for him.

[Sweet Swinging Billy]

---First of all, I don't like the signing, I think the Cubs could have done better BUT now that Marquis is a Cub, it's possible that he could be a real nice find, for the Cubs. I think it was a post I read on NSBB but the poster said that Rothschild and Henry was watching Marquis work out, and that Rothschild thinks he can straighten out his mechanics. I don't know about y'all, but this gives me hope. What if he were to return to form, from a couple of years ago?

[Balsa]

Not to pretend that I've read the whole thread, but Marquis strikes me as a similar, if not better pitcher than Jason Jennings. Same age too. So I actually don't have too much of a problem with this, as we didn't lose anyone and got pretty much the same pitcher.

[Soul]

---First of all, I don't like the signing, I think the Cubs could have done better BUT now that Marquis is a Cub, it's possible that he could be a real nice find, for the Cubs. I think it was a post I read on NSBB but the poster said that Rothschild and Henry was watching Marquis work out, and that Rothschild thinks he can straighten out his mechanics. I don't know about y'all, but this gives me hope. What if he were to return to form, from a couple of years ago?

 

He'd be good. But two things: 1) you don't give a guy who pitched poorly last year a ton of dollars because your own people think they can "repair" him, and 2) He's not likely to get down to his 2004 numbers any more than he's likely to repeat 2006. He'll be somewhere in between in all likelihood.

Edited December 10, 2006 by Soul

[TruffleShuffle]

well I guess if the title of this thread is true, merry christmas and happy new year to you guys. see you next year.

[jjgman21]

 

ah, decontextualize the flow of the discussion. getting more honsest in debate by the minute there aren't you Raisen. it's all there to be seen what the discussion was about and what tactics were used to "win."

 

The discussion went like this:

 

Why give this much money to marquis when we have cheap guys who could pitch as well as him?

 

I need proof that they will pitch as well as him!

 

Marshall has already done it.

 

 

YOU CANT USE LAST YEARS STATS TO PROVE MARSHALL WILL PITCH BETTER THAN MARQUIS NEXT YEAR!

 

 

 

 

the problem is that nobody said marshall will pitch better than marquis last year. Somebody said that he could and somebody else responded by saying that they needed to show evidence that suggests that he will. The only problem is why does the original poster need to show evidence to proove something that he never said? The proof that the original poster needed to show was that marshall could indeed pitch better than marquis and that proof is in the 2006 statistics.

 

that's my point about using selective stats. I could say that Soriano is going to put up .350/.560 next year. will you buy that Jon? you Raisen? he did it just last year.

[Balsa]

Marquis doesn't have a good K/BB ratio, which is mainly why his ERA suffers so much. At least he's young though, and a groundball pitcher.

 

His season last year was atypically bad actually. Not sure where he will end up this year. But I'm pretty sure of two things: 1) He'll be better than a 6.02 ERA and a dismal 73 ERA+, and 2) $20m/yr is insanely high for him.

Agreed! :lol:

[CoolHandLuke]

It's a darn shame we no longer have Pierre and probably wont have Jacque. Marquis would have fit in quite well.

[CoolHandLuke]

 

ah, decontextualize the flow of the discussion. getting more honsest in debate by the minute there aren't you Raisen. it's all there to be seen what the discussion was about and what tactics were used to "win."

 

The discussion went like this:

 

Why give this much money to marquis when we have cheap guys who could pitch as well as him?

 

I need proof that they will pitch as well as him!

 

Marshall has already done it.

 

 

YOU CANT USE LAST YEARS STATS TO PROVE MARSHALL WILL PITCH BETTER THAN MARQUIS NEXT YEAR!

 

 

 

 

the problem is that nobody said marshall will pitch better than marquis last year. Somebody said that he could and somebody else responded by saying that they needed to show evidence that suggests that he will. The only problem is why does the original poster need to show evidence to proove something that he never said? The proof that the original poster needed to show was that marshall could indeed pitch better than marquis and that proof is in the 2006 statistics.

 

that's my point about using selective stats. I could say that Soriano is going to put up .350/.560 next year. will you buy that Jon? you Raisen? he did it just last year.

 

But nobody was making any predictions in this discussion.

[Soul]

Marquis doesn't have a good K/BB ratio, which is mainly why his ERA suffers so much. At least he's young though, and a groundball pitcher.

 

His season last year was atypically bad actually. Not sure where he will end up this year. But I'm pretty sure of two things: 1) He'll be better than a 6.02 ERA and a dismal 73 ERA+, and 2) $20m/yr is insanely high for him.

Agreed! :lol:

 

LOL, whoops my bad. 3/20 is high :lol:

[DiamondMind]

look, Jason Marquis is an outstanding pitcher. he put up an ERA+ of 127 at age 22, and put together seasons of 113 and 103. clearly he's the best option over any of the dregs in the minors who proved last year they have no future at the major league level. great signing.

 

 

 

 

 

that's exactly what you guys are doing, only from the other side, and you don't even see it.

 

Totally agree.

 

People on this board hate everything. They hate the sun. They hate air.

[Soul]

It's a darn shame we no longer have Pierre and probably wont have Jacque. Marquis would have fit in quite well.

 

Jacque turned out to be a bargain.

[treebird]

I don't understand how this signing is defensible through any logic other than "it's not my money, and he might be good, so I like it" rationale. The problem with that rationale is that it basically concludes all signings are good, which means it is basically the opposite of critical. In short, people who like this deal are going to like ANY deal, so there is not much point in arguing with them.