Cubs Sign Marquis to 3/21

[Mephistopheles]

"He was going to get $20 million to $21 million from three or four different teams. That was definite."

--Cubs general manager Jim Hendry, on signing Jason Marquis.

 

Is Jim Hendry still on a lot of medication?

[CubsWin]

"He was going to get $20 million to $21 million from three or four different teams. That was definite."

--Cubs general manager Jim Hendry, on signing Jason Marquis.

 

Is Jim Hendry still on a lot of medication?

So I take it from your comment you know for sure that there weren't 3 or 4 other teams willing to pay him that much?

[RichHillIsABeast]

"He was going to get $20 million to $21 million from three or four different teams. That was definite."

--Cubs general manager Jim Hendry, on signing Jason Marquis.

 

Is Jim Hendry still on a lot of medication?

So I take it from your comment you know for sure that there weren't 3 or 4 other teams willing to pay him that much?

 

Like it or not, the market for SP is ridiculous, both via trade (e.g. Jennings) and FA (Lilly, Meche, etc.).

 

No one wants to pay those prices. In an ideal world you have enough young SP in your farm system. We thought we did with Wood, Z, and Prior. It's pretty easy to fill in the other 2 spots in a rotation. It's going to take some time to get young pitching from our system now that Wood and Prior can't be counted on. You don't replace #1 starters easily.

 

Veal, Gallagher, and Pawelek are the next wave, but in the meantime we had to pay out the backside. Hendry knows it. He had a choice. Give up our B+ prospects (Pie, EPatt, Veal) via trade and kill our chances at cheap young pitching down the road, or overpay for #3-5 starters in the FA market.

[Mark Priors Calves]

"He was going to get $20 million to $21 million from three or four different teams. That was definite."

--Cubs general manager Jim Hendry, on signing Jason Marquis.

 

Is Jim Hendry still on a lot of medication?

 

Didn't he say the same thing when he signed Soriano?

[Jon]

Yeah, Hendry's main justification for these moves seems to be that other teams would have paid them that money.

 

It usually doesn't have much to do about whether or not that player is actually worth the money.

[indifferent]

"He was going to get $20 million to $21 million from three or four different teams. That was definite."

--Cubs general manager Jim Hendry, on signing Jason Marquis.

 

Is Jim Hendry still on a lot of medication?

So I take it from your comment you know for sure that there weren't 3 or 4 other teams willing to pay him that much?

 

Like it or not, the market for SP is ridiculous, both via trade (e.g. Jennings) and FA (Lilly, Meche, etc.).

 

No one wants to pay those prices. In an ideal world you have enough young SP in your farm system. We thought we did with Wood, Z, and Prior. It's pretty easy to fill in the other 2 spots in a rotation. It's going to take some time to get young pitching from our system now that Wood and Prior can't be counted on. You don't replace #1 starters easily.

 

Veal, Gallagher, and Pawelek are the next wave, but in the meantime we had to pay out the backside. Hendry knows it. He had a choice. Give up our B+ prospects (Pie, EPatt, Veal) via trade and kill our chances at cheap young pitching down the road, or overpay for #3-5 starters in the FA market.

 

While I give Hendry props for not repeating the mistake of running out quad A pitchers or not quite ready pitchers again, it seems as though you minimize the impact of overpaying for mediocre talent. Unless you view this overinflated market as static (i.e. it's not going to correct itself), those contracts could definitely come back to haunt the Cubs.

[Mephistopheles]

Um, he signed a AAAA pitcher for twenty million. It's better to run out our other AAAA pitchers who are younger, have better stuff and cost a whole four hundred thousand - a little less than six percent of the cost.

[RichHillIsABeast]

"He was going to get $20 million to $21 million from three or four different teams. That was definite."

--Cubs general manager Jim Hendry, on signing Jason Marquis.

 

Is Jim Hendry still on a lot of medication?

So I take it from your comment you know for sure that there weren't 3 or 4 other teams willing to pay him that much?

 

Like it or not, the market for SP is ridiculous, both via trade (e.g. Jennings) and FA (Lilly, Meche, etc.).

 

No one wants to pay those prices. In an ideal world you have enough young SP in your farm system. We thought we did with Wood, Z, and Prior. It's pretty easy to fill in the other 2 spots in a rotation. It's going to take some time to get young pitching from our system now that Wood and Prior can't be counted on. You don't replace #1 starters easily.

 

Veal, Gallagher, and Pawelek are the next wave, but in the meantime we had to pay out the backside. Hendry knows it. He had a choice. Give up our B+ prospects (Pie, EPatt, Veal) via trade and kill our chances at cheap young pitching down the road, or overpay for #3-5 starters in the FA market.

 

While I give Hendry props for not repeating the mistake of running out quad A pitchers or not quite ready pitchers again, it seems as though you minimize the impact of overpaying for mediocre talent. Unless you view this overinflated market as static (i.e. it's not going to correct itself), those contracts could definitely come back to haunt the Cubs.

 

Lilly and Marquis will be movable later in their contracts, assuming they don't go down with injuries. Starting pitching is almost always movable. We may have to eat a couple mil and send out some B prospects to do it (worst case scenario IMO), but that's the tradeoff for keeping your better prospects right now and seeing just who can make it.

 

We're going to have Rich Hill in our rotation for a long time. Veal, Gallagher, and Pawelek will arrive in Chicago just in time to offset the backloaded contracts.

 

We will have a ton of decent arms in the pen making the league min as well (Rapada, Cherry, Marmol).

 

Looking down the road 3 years, we're going to be in good shape financially, even if the payroll goes down to the 100MM level. Wilken will make sure of that. That was the best signing the Cubs have made in the last 10 years, IMO. He knows how to get young talent that produces at the ML level.

[RichHillIsABeast]

Um, he signed a AAAA pitcher for twenty million. It's better to run out our other AAAA pitchers who are younger, have better stuff and cost a whole four hundred thousand - a little less than six percent of the cost.

 

Are you referring to Marquis?

 

2004: 3.71 ERA

2005: 4.13 ERA

2006: 6.02 ERA

 

That's not a 4A pitcher. It's a quality ML starter with one bad year in the last 3. The reasons for that bad year have been explained in other threads, so I won't do it here.

[Mephistopheles]

we dont need to beat a dead horse. ERA means pretty much jack xxxx when it comes to ERA.

 

Yes, I just said that.

[sethuel1]

whoa, his ERA has always been good.

 

Oh wait, you just bolded some and left the one you wanted us to gloss over unbolded.

 

Oh wait, that was last year.

[RammyFanny]

we dont need to beat a dead horse. ERA means pretty much jack xxxx when it comes to ERA.

 

Yes, I just said that.

 

I'm not sure I understand that statement. I'd say ERA is important when it comes to a players ERA :lol:

[RichHillIsABeast]

whoa, his ERA has always been good.

 

Oh wait, you just bolded some and left the one you wanted us to gloss over unbolded.

 

Oh wait, that was last year.

 

Oh wait, I actually specifically addressed that season.

[RichHillIsABeast]

we dont need to beat a dead horse. ERA means pretty much jack xxxx when it comes to ERA.

 

Yes, I just said that.

 

2003: 113 ERA+

2004: 103 ERA+

2005: 73 ERA+

 

Good luck finding a youngster in our system that will give us a healthy season with an ERA+ over 90.

 

Marquis had a bad season.

 

Just for reference, Sean Marshall threw up an 83 ERA+ last season and didn't even stay healthy.

 

It's one think to say that we could replace Marquis's production at a fraction of the cost and another to point out some guys in our system that are ML ready and actually capable of doing it.

 

Sean Marshall and Angel Guzman are the only really legit SP options for the '07 Cubs. Neither have shown the ability to approach league average production in the bigs. Neither has shown the ability to stay healthy.

 

Marmol and Mateo are bullpen material, IMO.

[Mephistopheles]

I'm not sure I understand that statement. I'd say ERA is important when it comes to a players ERA :lol:

 

Well it'll make sense when it comes to you.

 

2003: 113 ERA+

2004: 103 ERA+

2005: 73 ERA+

 

Good luck finding a youngster in our system that will give us a healthy season with an ERA+ over 90.

 

You know, usually when someone discredits a statistic for some reason you're supposed to change the argument. All you did was take the same statistic and show it to me in a different form. It's like you saying that Carlos Lee hits 50 homers per 800 ABs. And then I say that there are other ways to grade a hitter's performance than home runs, then refute my argument with, Carlos Lee hits homers at a rate 25% better than league average.

 

It's the exact same argument and my previous point remains. ERA has little to do with ERA.

 

It's one think to say that we could replace Marquis's production at a fraction of the cost and another to point out some guys in our system that are ML ready and actually capable of doing it.

 

I wouldn't say a guy with an ERA that's probably going to be five has much if any "production." And yes, Guzman and Marshall can certainly produce the same.

[Guest]

Would it be more clear to say that ERA is not a predictive stat? :D

[RynoRules]

Would it be more clear to say that ERA is not a predictive stat? :D

 

And that ERA+ is a better one.

[Soul]

I'm not sure I understand that statement. I'd say ERA is important when it comes to a players ERA :lol:

 

Well it'll make sense when it comes to you.

 

2003: 113 ERA+

2004: 103 ERA+

2005: 73 ERA+

 

Good luck finding a youngster in our system that will give us a healthy season with an ERA+ over 90.

 

You know, usually when someone discredits a statistic for some reason you're supposed to change the argument. All you did was take the same statistic and show it to me in a different form. It's like you saying that Carlos Lee hits 50 homers per 800 ABs. And then I say that there are other ways to grade a hitter's performance than home runs, then refute my argument with, Carlos Lee hits homers at a rate 25% better than league average.

 

It's the exact same argument and my previous point remains. ERA has little to do with ERA.

 

It's one think to say that we could replace Marquis's production at a fraction of the cost and another to point out some guys in our system that are ML ready and actually capable of doing it.

 

I wouldn't say a guy with an ERA that's probably going to be five has much if any "production." And yes, Guzman and Marshall can certainly produce the same.

 

Wait. Did you just discredit ERA as a worthwhile stat and then use it to make your point? :shock:

[Bull]

Yeah, Hendry's main justification for these moves seems to be that other teams would have paid them that money.

 

It usually doesn't have much to do about whether or not that player is actually worth the money.

 

Isn't that the definition of "worth"?

Edited December 27, 2006 by Bull

[CUBZ99]

I'm not sure I understand that statement. I'd say ERA is important when it comes to a players ERA :lol:

 

Well it'll make sense when it comes to you.

 

2003: 113 ERA+

2004: 103 ERA+

2005: 73 ERA+

 

Good luck finding a youngster in our system that will give us a healthy season with an ERA+ over 90.

 

You know, usually when someone discredits a statistic for some reason you're supposed to change the argument. All you did was take the same statistic and show it to me in a different form. It's like you saying that Carlos Lee hits 50 homers per 800 ABs. And then I say that there are other ways to grade a hitter's performance than home runs, then refute my argument with, Carlos Lee hits homers at a rate 25% better than league average.

 

It's the exact same argument and my previous point remains. ERA has little to do with ERA.

 

It's one think to say that we could replace Marquis's production at a fraction of the cost and another to point out some guys in our system that are ML ready and actually capable of doing it.

 

I wouldn't say a guy with an ERA that's probably going to be five has much if any "production." And yes, Guzman and Marshall can certainly produce the same.

 

Did you miss the entire 2006 season? The one in which Cedeno could easily outproduce Neifi's career numbers and any of the minor leaguers could certainly outproduce the 2005 version of Glendon Rusch?

 

There is no guarantee that Marshall or Guzman could even produce at a semi-acceptable level. The 2006 Marquis was definitely not a great pitcher, however, the Cubs must have seen something in him that makes them truly believe that he can get back on track and outproduce any of the younger pitchers.

 

You can discount ERA all you like, but many of us would be ecstatic if the Cubs #4 pitcher won 15 games with a 3.87 ERA.

[RammyFanny]

Wait. Did you just discredit ERA as a worthwhile stat and then use it to make your point? :shock:

My thoughts exactly.

 

If someone wants to say ERA isn't a great stat then say that. Saying ERA doesn't mean jack when it comes to ERA is just self-contradicting unless i'm missing something.

[Bull]

I'm not sure I understand that statement. I'd say ERA is important when it comes to a players ERA :lol:

 

Well it'll make sense when it comes to you.

 

2003: 113 ERA+

2004: 103 ERA+

2005: 73 ERA+

 

Good luck finding a youngster in our system that will give us a healthy season with an ERA+ over 90.

 

You know, usually when someone discredits a statistic for some reason you're supposed to change the argument. All you did was take the same statistic and show it to me in a different form. It's like you saying that Carlos Lee hits 50 homers per 800 ABs. And then I say that there are other ways to grade a hitter's performance than home runs, then refute my argument with, Carlos Lee hits homers at a rate 25% better than league average.

 

It's the exact same argument and my previous point remains. ERA has little to do with ERA.

 

It's one think to say that we could replace Marquis's production at a fraction of the cost and another to point out some guys in our system that are ML ready and actually capable of doing it.

 

I wouldn't say a guy with an ERA that's probably going to be five has much if any "production." And yes, Guzman and Marshall can certainly produce the same.

 

Wait. Did you just discredit ERA as a worthwhile stat and then use it to make your point? :shock:

 

I think he discredited ERA as a predictive stat. ERA is a good measurement of production. ERA+ even better.

[Bull]

Wait. Did you just discredit ERA as a worthwhile stat and then use it to make your point? :shock:

My thoughts exactly.

 

If someone wants to say ERA isn't a great stat then say that. Saying ERA doesn't mean jack when it comes to ERA is just self-contradicting unless i'm missing something.

 

You are. He meant ERA doesn't mean jack in predicting the next year's ERA. An overstatement of a decent point. BABIP, WHIP, and K/BB are better in predicting "next years" performance.

[RammyFanny]

Wait. Did you just discredit ERA as a worthwhile stat and then use it to make your point? :shock:

My thoughts exactly.

 

If someone wants to say ERA isn't a great stat then say that. Saying ERA doesn't mean jack when it comes to ERA is just self-contradicting unless i'm missing something.

 

You are. He meant ERA doesn't mean jack in predicting the next year's ERA. An overstatement of a decent point. BABIP, WHIP, and K/BB are better in predicting "next years" performance.

Thank you. That's all I was asking for.

[Jon]

Yeah, Hendry's main justification for these moves seems to be that other teams would have paid them that money.

 

It usually doesn't have much to do about whether or not that player is actually worth the money.

 

Isn't that the definition of "worth"?

That's just what people are willing to pay in the market. It doesn't actually say anything about their production value relative to their cost. Just because other GMs don't know what they're doing doesn't mean he's going to be worth $21 million when there are cheaper options available.