Cubs Sign Marquis to 3/21

[TXCubsFan]

puke :-&

 

This signing blows if indeed true. Living in St Louis, I can tell you that the problems Marquis is having is not within his mechanics - he's a head case. For a couple million bucks, he'd be worth the risk. But for this kinda $, I would've much rather seen the kids battle out a spot.

 

In the long run, some of the Cubs' prospects or rehab projects might surpass him. At some point in the future, the Cubs could trade Marquis or even Lilly. The key is that, unlike last year, the Cubs are fully hedged for a starting rotation and for setup and closer

 

Starting rotation

Z

Hill

Lilly

Marquis

Prior

 

Competing for a spot in starting rotation (2007-2008)

Miller, Marshall, Guzman (this year)

Gallagher, Veal (next year)

 

Setup or closer

Howry

Dempster

 

Competing for setup or closer this year

Wood

Marmol

 

Expensive hedges for the starting rotation, but hey, the Cubs have the money. In retrospect, Hendry should have traded for more middle relief in 2003 and starting pitching in 2006. Jim does learn from his mistakes (however slowly).

Edited December 9, 2006 by TXCubsFan

[Southpaw191679666239]

Now we can see if the Cubs' brass really still hates Sosa.... if they give Marquis #21. :twisted:

[NewUserName]

Put me down for not understanding. So far what we have done this offseason with the pitching staff is puzzling. Is this really better than Marshall and Guzman?

 

As much as I did think that Zito is going to be way overpaid. I would have rather signed him with the money we have given Lilly and Marquis and gone with the best out of Marshall, Guzman or Marmol as the fifth if Prior isnt ready. This kind of reminds me of when the Cubs didnt resign Maddux and Larry Himes saying that we could get 2 quality arms for what we would have had to pay Maddux. I remember Greg Hibbard being one of those quality arms. I dont remember the other. I am guessing at that point in his career Hibbard was a better pitcher than either Lilly or Marquis.

[UK1679666180]

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

 

Not directed towards you Rocket, but I've never understood this concept.

 

If you take away his real bad performances and chalk them up to he had a bad day, what happens with a real good performance?

 

Honestly, could someone take away his 3 outing where he allowed 2 ER thru 24IP and then try and formulate something from it? 6.76 for those scoring at home.

[Iceblink]

And game tickets and cable bills and cups of beer go up just a little bit more while the team doesn't get appreciably better.

 

To me, "this market" translates to "people haven't stopped paying us what we're charging, so we can take this huge profit and over-spend it on average or even below-average players."

 

It makes sense to spend the money to improve the team. Like I said in the Lilly thread, spending isn't improving.

[Mizzou]

Now we can see if the Cubs' brass really still hates Sosa.... if they give Marquis #21. :twisted:

Very interesting, I hadn't thought of that. I personally will be pretty pissed off if they do.

 

Thanks for computing that, Rocket. While that's still bad, if you take out the two obvious anomalies, he wasn't nowhere near as bad as he seems on the surface.

[jjgman21]

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.

 

nonetheless, can a mod change the thread as to make the deal as digestable as possible for the masses?

[E.J.]

3 years? :shock:

 

I don't understand this at all. Are we done getting pitchers now then? If we are, then I'm definitely disappointed in what Hendry has done. We have Z, the potential in Hill, and then a bunch of 5th starters.

[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.

 

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

 

Not directed towards you Rocket, but I've never understood this concept.

 

If you take away his real bad performances and chalk them up to he had a bad day, what happens with a real good performance?

 

Honestly, could someone take away his 3 outing where he allowed 2 ER thru 24IP and then try and formulate something from it? 6.76 for those scoring at home.

Well, my point was that he wouldn't have given up that many runs in normal circumstances, so the ERA isn't really reflective of his season. The Cardinals had no choice but to leave Marquis in there against the White Sox that day (and against Atlanta, I'm assuming). He took one for the team big time.

[CubFanPhilly]

Any bets on who drops off the 40-man when Ward & Marquis are added?

[CubColtPacer]

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

 

Not directed towards you Rocket, but I've never understood this concept.

 

If you take away his real bad performances and chalk them up to he had a bad day, what happens with a real good performance?

 

Honestly, could someone take away his 3 outing where he allowed 2 ER thru 24IP and then try and formulate something from it? 6.76 for those scoring at home.

 

I do agree that to be fair for just plain ERA if you are going to take his worst outings away that you should take a couple of his best outings away also. What they are trying to prove is that he is not that bad in the majority of games, and giving up 6 runs in a couple innings vs 12 in one game doesn't make a whole lot of difference. If I could have a pitcher who gave up 2, 2, and 12 in 3 games, or 4, 4, and 8-I would take the 1st pitcher every time. Therefore, his ERA might be inflated a little bit by 2 horrifically poor outings in which it reached a point where it didn't matter if he gave up more runs or not. However, that still doesn't mean he didn't have a really bad year last year-he most certainly did, it just might mean it wasn't quite as bad as his ERA would say it was overall.

[jjgman21]

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

 

Not directed towards you Rocket, but I've never understood this concept.

 

If you take away his real bad performances and chalk them up to he had a bad day, what happens with a real good performance?

 

Honestly, could someone take away his 3 outing where he allowed 2 ER thru 24IP and then try and formulate something from it? 6.76 for those scoring at home.

Well, my point was that he wouldn't have given up that many runs in normal circumstances, so the ERA isn't really reflective of his season. The Cardinals had no choice but to leave Marquis in there against the White Sox that day (and against Atlanta, I'm assuming). He took one for the team big time.

 

there was a thread a couple months back when the Cards re-upping Marquis was a rumor where a Card fan defended him on this same basis. the way I looked at it was what his ERA would have been if he was pulled at the right time in the game, but for resting the bullpen. it didn't dip the ERA as much but it still put a dent in it. the next question is which of the 6-7 inning affairs went the same way, Marquis being left in when he rightfully should have been pulled.

[Soriano12]

On the bright side, since we didn't get a major FA pitcher, maybe Z will get locked up to a long term deal before the season starts.

[CubColtPacer]

3 years? :shock:

 

I don't understand this at all. Are we done getting pitchers now then? If we are, then I'm definitely disappointed in what Hendry has done. We have Z, the potential in Hill, and then a bunch of 5th starters.

 

Does a guy have to be consistently under 4.20 ERA to be better than a 5th starter here? I mean, the league average is higher than that-so certainly a 5th starter would probably be projected to put up an ERA closer to 5. Z will of course be an ace, Hill will definitely be better than that, Lilly will almost certainly be a good deal better than that, one of Prior/Miller will probably be, and Marquis is about 50/50 (depending if it's one of his on years or off years). I just don't see a great deal of 5th starters, but rather Z, the potential of Hill, and a bunch of average starters (decent #3, good to great #4's)-that would seem as a much better comparison.

[beer_man]

he sucks...good luck. It wasn't just his era, he led the league in long balls for a reason and with all the pitching questions the Cards had going into the post season everyone knew the Cards did not trust him to pitch...he is a headcase that arguably the 2 best pitching coaches in the game had to give up on. He will show some flashes of what could be, and you think man this guy can pitch and then bam...it is like he forgets what he is doing out there...

[JonnyRed]

3 years? :shock:

 

I don't understand this at all. Are we done getting pitchers now then? If we are, then I'm definitely disappointed in what Hendry has done. We have Z, the potential in Hill, and then a bunch of 5th starters.

 

What healthy pitcher will sign for less than 3 years these days?

 

I hope we aren't done and that a trade for a better #2 option is still availabe (ie Brad Penny) but my fear is that it's not. And Lilly, Marquis and Cotts aren't exactly what I had in mind for strengthening our pitching staff. Sori OTOH I'm counting down the days before we can see him in Cubs pinstripes.

[UK1679666180]

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

 

Not directed towards you Rocket, but I've never understood this concept.

 

If you take away his real bad performances and chalk them up to he had a bad day, what happens with a real good performance?

 

Honestly, could someone take away his 3 outing where he allowed 2 ER thru 24IP and then try and formulate something from it? 6.76 for those scoring at home.

Well, my point was that he wouldn't have given up that many runs in normal circumstances, so the ERA isn't really reflective of his season. The Cardinals had no choice but to leave Marquis in there against the White Sox that day (and against Atlanta, I'm assuming). He took one for the team big time.

 

He was the scheduled starter each day & in the game vs. the Sox, he gave 9ER thru the 1st 2. He still would've likely given up 5-6 runs and not have been pulled with a rested pen.

 

So, instead of assuming maybe 5-6 runs thru 1 2/3 rather than 13 thru 5, it's better to assume that it never happened?

 

Same thing with the Braves game, that was spread out I don't think he allowed more than 3 runs in any inning and the Braves scored in almost every inning he pitched.

 

He still would've pitched and likely given up the 4-6 runs thru 2-3IP and been pulled rather than going 5 and giving up 12.

 

It makes no sense.

[OleMissCub]

 

there was a thread a couple months back when the Cards re-upping Marquis was a rumor where a Card fan defended him on this same basis. the way I looked at it was what his ERA would have been if he was pulled at the right time in the game, but for resting the bullpen. it didn't dip the ERA as much but it still put a dent in it. the next question is which of the 6-7 inning affairs went the same way, Marquis being left in when he rightfully should have been pulled.

 

The opp. BA last year against him was .289, compared to Marmol's at .250, Hill at .227 (wow), and Marshall's at .270

[cubweiser03]

Thats an awful lot of money for a pinch hitter. Or wait.....you are saying he is a pitcher?

[CoolHandLuke]

3 years? :shock:

 

I don't understand this at all. Are we done getting pitchers now then? If we are, then I'm definitely disappointed in what Hendry has done. We have Z, the potential in Hill, and then a bunch of 5th starters.

 

What healthy pitcher will sign for less than 3 years these days?

 

I hope we aren't done and that a trade for a better #2 option is still availabe (ie Brad Penny) but my fear is that it's not. And Lilly, Marquis and Cotts aren't exactly what I had in mind for strengthening our pitching staff. Sori OTOH I'm counting down the days before we can see him in Cubs pinstripes.

 

The answer should be: the kind that put up a 6+ era in his most recent season.

[hawkcub]

Ugly signing. We already had enough number 5's. Hopefully I'm proven wrong.

[Mizzou]

He was the scheduled starter each day & in the game vs. the Sox, he gave 9ER thru the 1st 2. He still would've likely given up 5-6 runs and not have been pulled with a rested pen.

 

So, instead of assuming maybe 5-6 runs thru 1 2/3 rather than 13 thru 5, it's better to assume that it never happened?

 

Same thing with the Braves game, that was spread out I don't think he allowed more than 3 runs in any inning and the Braves scored in almost every inning he pitched.

 

He still would've pitched and likely given up the 4-6 runs thru 2-3IP and been pulled rather than going 5 and giving up 12.

 

It makes no sense.

No, I definitely agree that that's the best way to look at it. I just didn't feel like looking to see when exactly he should have been pulled. What I was basically trying to say was that Marquis had (at least) two outtings last year where he would've been pulled in normal circumstances, but wasn't. Therefore he wasn't as bad as he ERA makes him out to be.

[BigbadB]

Did I get the title changed correctly? I never did see anything official and am trusting that 3/20 is correct.

[UMFan83]

Well this signing guarentees that we won't have a terrible rotation next year, but at the same time we are pretty much certain to have a mediocre/average one with little shot at having a good one.

 

That combined with no emphasis on OBP yet again on the offensive side, and we are pretty much locked into a 75 win team next year. On the plus side, having all these awful contracts on the team + a crappy season pretty much ensures the end of the Jim Hendry trainwreck.

 

Go Cubs!

[jjgman21]

On the bright side, since we didn't get a major FA pitcher, maybe Z will get locked up to a long term deal before the season starts.

 

another tangential effect of this and the Lilly deal is it allows the Cubs to trade away some minor league pitching without worrying about the depth chart. A trade or two before April is inevitable.