Cubs Sign Marquis to 3/21

CoolHandLuke · December 10, 2006

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.

I was referring to the frenchness. :D

CubColtPacer · December 10, 2006

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.

There are other rationales to that one to think that this signing "could" be a good one. Have they found the flaw in his mechanics? Is that the reason for his 2006 numbers? If he pitches like he did in 2004/2005 for at least 2 out of the 3 years he's here, it's a good contract. If he pitches closer to 2006 for 2 out of those 3 years, then it's a horrible one. If he pitches somewhere in between, it's a poor contract, but not terrible.

UK1679666180 · December 10, 2006

I think Marquis will outpitch Marshall next year, I think Marquis is a better bet to stay healthly depending on any tweak this off-season mechanically as well.

Financially and length of duration, will it be worth it over someone like Marshall, Guzman, and possibly Gallagher/Veal over the length of his contract?

I think that's the main debate moreso than trying to answer a question of outproducing one another next year from a limited sample. I think it can be answered better with terms like stuff, maturity, health, command, control, etc. moreso than traditional stats since Marshall has limited experience above Daytona.

If you believe there's not enough of a difference between Marshall and Marquis next year, does it translate into the following year if you don't believe that? Will Marshall with a year and a half of ML starting exper. be equal or close to what you expect from Marquis that next season?

CaliforniaRaisin · December 10, 2006

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.

No, no it isn't.

CoolHandLuke · December 10, 2006

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.

Have you seen the sun's isolated discipline?!?! yuck

vance_the_cubs_fan · December 10, 2006

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.

Not true. I love alcohol. I love sex. I love pizza. I love a really good seafood gumbo.

jjgman21 · December 10, 2006

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.

let's go back. the poster said

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

now to me that says make a case, not throw out a selective stat to show it is possible. so you are right, noone did make a prediction, but one poster requested a critic of the signing and advocate of a youngster over the signed player give a prediction. that is not what he got. he got a stat line from a single season as a proxy for the argument. that's as lame as it gets.

CaliforniaRaisin · December 10, 2006

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."

What the hell? What am I doing that is dishonest?

treebird · December 10, 2006

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.

There are other rationales to that one to think that this signing "could" be a good one. Have they found the flaw in his mechanics? Is that the reason for his 2006 numbers? If he pitches like he did in 2004/2005 for at least 2 out of the 3 years he's here, it's a good contract. If he pitches closer to 2006 for 2 out of those 3 years, then it's a horrible one. If he pitches somewhere in between, it's a poor contract, but not terrible.

do you really think you should have 3/20 or 3/28 or whatever for a guy who was TERRIBLE last year because you think you might have figured out how to fix him? and that YOU figured out how to fix him after dave duncan couldn't?

if you want to throw a small one-year deal at him and be willing to cut him loose if he pitches bad, that's one thing, but there's absolutely no reason to sign him to this deal. if some other team desperately wanted him, let him go and don't think twice. go sign some other terrible guy if that's going to be the way you want to do things this offseason.

CaliforniaRaisin · December 10, 2006

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.

Here's the difference.

One person said Marshall COULD outperform Marquis. COULD.

You are saying Soriano WILL do something.

CoolHandLuke · December 10, 2006

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.

let's go back. the poster said

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

now to me that says make a case, not throw out a selective stat to show it is possible. so you are right, noone did make a prediction, but one poster requested a critic of the signing and advocate of a youngster over the signed player give a prediction. that is not what he got. he got a stat line from a single season as a proxy for the argument. that's as lame as it gets.

That poster was way off base for asking for some substance to prove that A will outperform B. Previous post didn't say A will outperform B, it said A could outperform B. Previous poster has no obligation to provide evidence to back up something he didn't say.

CaliforniaRaisin · December 10, 2006

I think Marquis will outpitch Marshall next year, I think Marquis is a better bet to stay healthly depending on any tweak this off-season mechanically as well.

Financially and length of duration, will it be worth it over someone like Marshall, Guzman, and possibly Gallagher/Veal over the length of his contract?

I think that's the main debate moreso than trying to answer a question of outproducing one another next year from a limited sample. I think it can be answered better with terms like stuff, maturity, health, command, control, etc. moreso than traditional stats since Marshall has limited experience above Daytona.

If you believe there's not enough of a difference between Marshall and Marquis next year, does it translate into the following year if you don't believe that? Will Marshall with a year and a half of ML starting exper. be equal or close to what you expect from Marquis that next season?

I agree that Marquis will outperform Marshall and it's pointless to compare players based on one season (though I think Guzman has a good chance of outproducing Marquis).

Uber · December 10, 2006

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.

I love lamp.

CubColtPacer · December 10, 2006

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.

There are other rationales to that one to think that this signing "could" be a good one. Have they found the flaw in his mechanics? Is that the reason for his 2006 numbers? If he pitches like he did in 2004/2005 for at least 2 out of the 3 years he's here, it's a good contract. If he pitches closer to 2006 for 2 out of those 3 years, then it's a horrible one. If he pitches somewhere in between, it's a poor contract, but not terrible.

do you really think you should have 3/20 or 3/28 or whatever for a guy who was TERRIBLE last year because you think you might have figured out how to fix him? and that YOU figured out how to fix him after dave duncan couldn't?

if you want to throw a small one-year deal at him and be willing to cut him loose if he pitches bad, that's one thing, but there's absolutely no reason to sign him to this deal. if some other team desperately wanted him, let him go and don't think twice. go sign some other terrible guy if that's going to be the way you want to do things this offseason.

It's an absoutely huge risk, I agree. It has a decent chance of paying off, but it could completely blow up in their face. My guess is that they probably think Marquis is their best chance to put up a good (around 4 or less) ERA next year. Could he be terrible? Definitely-but if you think you need a very goood performance next year from a starter, then Marquis gives you that potential best for next season out of the starters left available. This will be one of those moves that labels the GM as either a genius or an idiot, and I'm really not sure which way it's going to go with a guy like Marquis.

A New Era · December 10, 2006

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.

Not exactly. Because Marquis has been good, and has upside. You couldn't say that about ALL signings. You couldn't give the same contract to Neifi, or Macias, and logically argue it COULD turn out well. .

UK1679666180 · December 10, 2006

I think Marquis will outpitch Marshall next year, I think Marquis is a better bet to stay healthly depending on any tweak this off-season mechanically as well.

Financially and length of duration, will it be worth it over someone like Marshall, Guzman, and possibly Gallagher/Veal over the length of his contract?

I think that's the main debate moreso than trying to answer a question of outproducing one another next year from a limited sample. I think it can be answered better with terms like stuff, maturity, health, command, control, etc. moreso than traditional stats since Marshall has limited experience above Daytona.

If you believe there's not enough of a difference between Marshall and Marquis next year, does it translate into the following year if you don't believe that? Will Marshall with a year and a half of ML starting exper. be equal or close to what you expect from Marquis that next season?

I agree that Marquis will outperform Marshall and it's pointless to compare players based on one season (though I think Guzman has a good chance of outproducing Marquis).

I have to see Guzman go thru that inital phase in the majors, it's hard to say he did last year b/c was that him getting healthy again as to why he performed poorly (espec. control) or was it the inital adjustment to the majors? I think it was him getting back into the flow.

Personally, I don't think he's made that adjustment yet to the majors. When he does and he can stay healthy (if), his ceiling is higher than Marshall and what should be expected from Marquis.

CaliforniaRaisin · December 10, 2006

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.

let's go back. the poster said

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

now to me that says make a case, not throw out a selective stat to show it is possible. so you are right, noone did make a prediction, but one poster requested a critic of the signing and advocate of a youngster over the signed player give a prediction. that is not what he got. he got a stat line from a single season as a proxy for the argument. that's as lame as it gets.

Seems like you've altered what really happened.

The stat line was used to point out that Marshall outperformed Marquis last season so it's possible he CAN do it again.

CoolHandLuke · December 10, 2006

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.

let's go back. the poster said

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

now to me that says make a case, not throw out a selective stat to show it is possible. so you are right, noone did make a prediction, but one poster requested a critic of the signing and advocate of a youngster over the signed player give a prediction. that is not what he got. he got a stat line from a single season as a proxy for the argument. that's as lame as it gets.

Seems like you've altered what really happened.

The stat line was used to point out that Marshall outperformed Marquis last season so it's possible he CAN do it again.

Exactly! what is so hard to understand here?

CaliforniaRaisin · December 10, 2006

I think Marquis will outpitch Marshall next year, I think Marquis is a better bet to stay healthly depending on any tweak this off-season mechanically as well.

Financially and length of duration, will it be worth it over someone like Marshall, Guzman, and possibly Gallagher/Veal over the length of his contract?

I think that's the main debate moreso than trying to answer a question of outproducing one another next year from a limited sample. I think it can be answered better with terms like stuff, maturity, health, command, control, etc. moreso than traditional stats since Marshall has limited experience above Daytona.

If you believe there's not enough of a difference between Marshall and Marquis next year, does it translate into the following year if you don't believe that? Will Marshall with a year and a half of ML starting exper. be equal or close to what you expect from Marquis that next season?

I agree that Marquis will outperform Marshall and it's pointless to compare players based on one season (though I think Guzman has a good chance of outproducing Marquis).

I have to see Guzman go thru that inital phase in the majors, it's hard to say he did last year b/c was that him getting healthy again as to why he performed poorly (espec. control) or was it the inital adjustment to the majors? I think it was him getting back into the flow.

Personally, I don't think he's made that adjustment yet to the majors. When he does and he can stay healthy (if), his ceiling is higher than Marshall and what should be expected from Marquis.

I think last year was a good step because it should limit the number of adjustments he's going to have to make to the major leagues once he's healthy again. He certainly hasn't made the complete adjustment, but even a half season in the big leagues where he's also getting acclimated to pitching healthy again has to help him down the road.

cbbryan · December 10, 2006

There's alot of love in this thread! Alot of love!

/sarcasm

jjgman21 · December 10, 2006

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.

let's go back. the poster said

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

now to me that says make a case, not throw out a selective stat to show it is possible. so you are right, noone did make a prediction, but one poster requested a critic of the signing and advocate of a youngster over the signed player give a prediction. that is not what he got. he got a stat line from a single season as a proxy for the argument. that's as lame as it gets.

That poster was way off base for asking for some substance to prove that A will outperform B. Previous post didn't say A will outperform B, it said A could outperform B. Previous poster has no obligation to provide evidence to back up something he didn't say.

if he's arguing that is the direction the Cubs should have gone, then indeed he should be obligated to make that argument. you're getting into symantics here anyway. you see my point plain as day.

December 10, 2006

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.

He gives up far too many home runs to be considered an effective groundball pitcher, and those home runs are the bane of his existence even more so than his middling K/BB ratio.

Marquis has a career Fielding-independent ERA of 5.07, hardly encouraging when projecting his future numbers. Also troubling is the direction his key indicator stats seem to be heading. He's been striking out fewer and fewer batters as time has progressed (from around 6.7 K/9 during his early years in Atlanta to just 4.3-4.4 K/9 his last couple years with the cards) while his HR allowed rate has shot from 1.16 to 1.62 per game over the past three years. (On the bright side, his control has improved slightly since he broke into the majors.)

His performance to date as measured by ERA has been a mixed bag, but looking at his peripheral numbers leads me to believe he's more likely to come in at the bottom end of expectations rather than have another season like 2001 or even 2004.

Is a pitcher who will probably put up ERAs in the 5.00 neighborhood worth $20 ($28?) million over the next three years? Heading into this offseason I would have answered an emphatic no, but judging by the crazy totals other free agents have been getting it doesn't seem as crazy.

Edited December 10, 2006 by Anonymous

jjgman21 · December 10, 2006

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.

let's go back. the poster said

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

now to me that says make a case, not throw out a selective stat to show it is possible. so you are right, noone did make a prediction, but one poster requested a critic of the signing and advocate of a youngster over the signed player give a prediction. that is not what he got. he got a stat line from a single season as a proxy for the argument. that's as lame as it gets.

Seems like you've altered what really happened.

The stat line was used to point out that Marshall outperformed Marquis last season so it's possible he CAN do it again.

I think just the opposite. that you are trying to change it into what you say here, when it's pretty clear that is not the case.

edit - what makes it so clear is his use of the word "will" instead of "might, can, possibly," etc. which is necessary for the the discussion to have said what you claim it said.

Edited December 10, 2006 by jjgman21

TruffleShuffle · December 10, 2006

SERENITY NOW!

jjgman21 · December 10, 2006

SERENITY NOW!

weren't you gone until next year?

j/k

Cubs Sign Marquis to 3/21

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Member Statistics

Prospect News & Highlights

Recent News

Notes & Rumors

Recent Blogs