Cubs Sign Marquis to 3/21

[Shavo]

Lilly and Marquis will make $22 mil in 2009. What a bargain.

 

For now, it's the market.

[frostwyrm]

Lilly and Marquis will make $22 mil in 2009. What a bargain.

 

For now, it's the market.

 

Doesn't mean you have to committ $22M in one season for these guys, not unless your GM is Jim "Captain Backload" Hendry.

[CubsWin]

Lilly and Marquis will make $22 mil in 2009. What a bargain.

Yuck.

[CubsWin]

what's so "proven" about marquis? that he's put up one slightly better than average year in the past five? wow, that's something to get excited about.

If that were remotely true, I'd agree with you. But fortunately for the Cubs, he has been above average in 2 of the last 3 seasons, one of them well above average.

 

and if marquis pitches anything like he did last year, i'd prefer that he not handle the work load of a full season. putting up a 5.50 era for 175 innings is pretty worthless.

I agree. If he puts up a 5.50 ERA, the Cubs would likely get better out of one of their young arms. If Rothschild can make an impact, Marquis is very capable of getting his ERA around 4.50 or lower. If he can do that, he'll probably be an improvement over what the Cubs young arms would have done.

 

Judging by last year's contracts, he won't be worth what he's being paid if he posts an ERA around 4.50, but if the Cubs win more games than they would have otherwise, I say spend it. That's a pretty big if right now, we'll have to wait and see...

[abuck1220]

 

I can see saying that about Prior and Miller, both are major league pitchers, and if healthy could out perform Marquis. But Guzman and Marshall are unproven on the ML level, so we have no way of knowing if they can outperform Marquis, let alone handle the work-load of a full season.

 

what's so "proven" about marquis? that he's put up one slightly better than average year in the past five? wow, that's something to get excited about.

 

and if marquis pitches anything like he did last year, i'd prefer that he not handle the work load of a full season. putting up a 5.50 era for 175 innings is pretty worthless.

 

And I can ask you what's so proven about Gooz and Marshall? Again, nothing is a sure thing and I'd rather have too much pitching then not enough. If Gooz and Marshall are so much better they'll get their shot.

 

no they won't. they're not going to bump marquis out of the rotation no matter how bad he is.

 

oh, and guzman and marshall have proven that their paychecks are a lot smaller than marquis'. i'd agree with you that i'd rather have too much pitching than not enough, but not if you're paying 7 mil a year to the worst pitcher in baseball.

 

Since when is he the worst pitcher in baseball? Are you kidding me?

 

since the day the season ended?

 

he had the worst era of any pitcher with more than 190 innings. he had the lowest vorp among pitchers with that many innings. carlos silva and joel pineiro gave him a run for his money, but they pitched less than him so what he "added" to the team hurt more.

[abuck1220]

what's so "proven" about marquis? that he's put up one slightly better than average year in the past five? wow, that's something to get excited about.

If that were remotely true, I'd agree with you. But fortunately for the Cubs, he has been above average in 2 of the last 3 seasons, one of them well above average.

 

he was right at average (era+ of 103 in '05) and above average in '04 (113 era+). even in his best season of late ('04) he allowed a fair number of baserunners (1.42 whip)...he was really fortunate to have such a low era given how many guys got on base against him.

[CubsWin]

what's so "proven" about marquis? that he's put up one slightly better than average year in the past five? wow, that's something to get excited about.

If that were remotely true, I'd agree with you. But fortunately for the Cubs, he has been above average in 2 of the last 3 seasons, one of them well above average.

 

he was right at average (era+ of 103 in '05) and above average in '04 (113 era+). even in his best season of late ('04) he allowed a fair number of baserunners (1.42 whip)...he was really fortunate to have such a low era given how many guys got on base against him.

I thought 100 was average making 103 slightly above and 113 safely above.

 

Again, I'm no great fan. Just trying to keep things accurate.

[abuck1220]

what's so "proven" about marquis? that he's put up one slightly better than average year in the past five? wow, that's something to get excited about.

If that were remotely true, I'd agree with you. But fortunately for the Cubs, he has been above average in 2 of the last 3 seasons, one of them well above average.

 

he was right at average (era+ of 103 in '05) and above average in '04 (113 era+). even in his best season of late ('04) he allowed a fair number of baserunners (1.42 whip)...he was really fortunate to have such a low era given how many guys got on base against him.

I thought 100 was average making 103 slightly above and 113 safely above.

 

Again, I'm no great fan. Just trying to keep things accurate.

 

ok

[Shavo]

 

I can see saying that about Prior and Miller, both are major league pitchers, and if healthy could out perform Marquis. But Guzman and Marshall are unproven on the ML level, so we have no way of knowing if they can outperform Marquis, let alone handle the work-load of a full season.

 

what's so "proven" about marquis? that he's put up one slightly better than average year in the past five? wow, that's something to get excited about.

 

and if marquis pitches anything like he did last year, i'd prefer that he not handle the work load of a full season. putting up a 5.50 era for 175 innings is pretty worthless.

 

And I can ask you what's so proven about Gooz and Marshall? Again, nothing is a sure thing and I'd rather have too much pitching then not enough. If Gooz and Marshall are so much better they'll get their shot.

 

no they won't. they're not going to bump marquis out of the rotation no matter how bad he is.

 

oh, and guzman and marshall have proven that their paychecks are a lot smaller than marquis'. i'd agree with you that i'd rather have too much pitching than not enough, but not if you're paying 7 mil a year to the worst pitcher in baseball.

 

Since when is he the worst pitcher in baseball? Are you kidding me?

 

since the day the season ended?

 

he had the worst era of any pitcher with more than 190 innings. he had the lowest vorp among pitchers with that many innings. carlos silva and joel pineiro gave him a run for his money, but they pitched less than him so what he "added" to the team hurt more.

 

One bad (and it was, yes, REALLY bad) season after two solid ones should not qualify Marquis as the worst pitcher in baseball. It's not like he doesn't have decent stuff, and hes 28.

 

 

With all the people on the boards who go on and on about "past preformance", I think I will use it in this case. Who cares what Marquis did last year? His combined ERA in the previous two seasons before 2006 was under 4. If Rothschild really found somthing he can fix, Marquis could be a huge bargian and pitch well.

 

Lilly and Marquis will make $22 mil in 2009. What a bargain.

 

For now, it's the market.

 

Doesn't mean you have to committ $22M in one season for these guys, not unless your GM is Jim "Captain Backload" Hendry.

 

First off, since when are the two making a combined 22M? Even if the contracts weren't backloaded, I don't think the number would be this high.

 

Secondly, I'm not a Lilly fan or a Marquis fan but they could easily pitch very well next season, with Marquis having lots more upside. What would you have done if you were GM?

Edited December 21, 2006 by Shavo

[abuck1220]

 

I can see saying that about Prior and Miller, both are major league pitchers, and if healthy could out perform Marquis. But Guzman and Marshall are unproven on the ML level, so we have no way of knowing if they can outperform Marquis, let alone handle the work-load of a full season.

 

what's so "proven" about marquis? that he's put up one slightly better than average year in the past five? wow, that's something to get excited about.

 

and if marquis pitches anything like he did last year, i'd prefer that he not handle the work load of a full season. putting up a 5.50 era for 175 innings is pretty worthless.

 

And I can ask you what's so proven about Gooz and Marshall? Again, nothing is a sure thing and I'd rather have too much pitching then not enough. If Gooz and Marshall are so much better they'll get their shot.

 

no they won't. they're not going to bump marquis out of the rotation no matter how bad he is.

 

oh, and guzman and marshall have proven that their paychecks are a lot smaller than marquis'. i'd agree with you that i'd rather have too much pitching than not enough, but not if you're paying 7 mil a year to the worst pitcher in baseball.

 

Since when is he the worst pitcher in baseball? Are you kidding me?

 

since the day the season ended?

 

he had the worst era of any pitcher with more than 190 innings. he had the lowest vorp among pitchers with that many innings. carlos silva and joel pineiro gave him a run for his money, but they pitched less than him so what he "added" to the team hurt more.

 

One bad (and it was, yes, REALLY bad) season after two solid ones should not qualify Marquis as the worst pitcher in baseball. It's not like he doesn't have decent stuff, and hes 28.

 

 

With all the people on the boards who go on and on about "past preformance", I think I will use it in this case. Who cares what Marquis did last year? His combined ERA in the previous two seasons before 2006 was under 4. If Rothschild really found somthing he can fix, Marquis could be a huge bargian and pitch well.

 

who cares what he did last year? are you kidding me?

[Shavo]

 

I can see saying that about Prior and Miller, both are major league pitchers, and if healthy could out perform Marquis. But Guzman and Marshall are unproven on the ML level, so we have no way of knowing if they can outperform Marquis, let alone handle the work-load of a full season.

 

what's so "proven" about marquis? that he's put up one slightly better than average year in the past five? wow, that's something to get excited about.

 

and if marquis pitches anything like he did last year, i'd prefer that he not handle the work load of a full season. putting up a 5.50 era for 175 innings is pretty worthless.

 

And I can ask you what's so proven about Gooz and Marshall? Again, nothing is a sure thing and I'd rather have too much pitching then not enough. If Gooz and Marshall are so much better they'll get their shot.

 

no they won't. they're not going to bump marquis out of the rotation no matter how bad he is.

 

oh, and guzman and marshall have proven that their paychecks are a lot smaller than marquis'. i'd agree with you that i'd rather have too much pitching than not enough, but not if you're paying 7 mil a year to the worst pitcher in baseball.

 

Since when is he the worst pitcher in baseball? Are you kidding me?

 

since the day the season ended?

 

he had the worst era of any pitcher with more than 190 innings. he had the lowest vorp among pitchers with that many innings. carlos silva and joel pineiro gave him a run for his money, but they pitched less than him so what he "added" to the team hurt more.

 

One bad (and it was, yes, REALLY bad) season after two solid ones should not qualify Marquis as the worst pitcher in baseball. It's not like he doesn't have decent stuff, and hes 28.

 

 

With all the people on the boards who go on and on about "past preformance", I think I will use it in this case. Who cares what Marquis did last year? His combined ERA in the previous two seasons before 2006 was under 4. If Rothschild really found somthing he can fix, Marquis could be a huge bargian and pitch well.

 

who cares what he did last year? are you kidding me?

 

Not what I ment and you know it. Just saying thats what some people pretty much say about DeRosa.

[CubColtPacer]

 

I can see saying that about Prior and Miller, both are major league pitchers, and if healthy could out perform Marquis. But Guzman and Marshall are unproven on the ML level, so we have no way of knowing if they can outperform Marquis, let alone handle the work-load of a full season.

 

what's so "proven" about marquis? that he's put up one slightly better than average year in the past five? wow, that's something to get excited about.

 

and if marquis pitches anything like he did last year, i'd prefer that he not handle the work load of a full season. putting up a 5.50 era for 175 innings is pretty worthless.

 

And I can ask you what's so proven about Gooz and Marshall? Again, nothing is a sure thing and I'd rather have too much pitching then not enough. If Gooz and Marshall are so much better they'll get their shot.

 

no they won't. they're not going to bump marquis out of the rotation no matter how bad he is.

 

oh, and guzman and marshall have proven that their paychecks are a lot smaller than marquis'. i'd agree with you that i'd rather have too much pitching than not enough, but not if you're paying 7 mil a year to the worst pitcher in baseball.

 

Since when is he the worst pitcher in baseball? Are you kidding me?

 

since the day the season ended?

 

he had the worst era of any pitcher with more than 190 innings. he had the lowest vorp among pitchers with that many innings. carlos silva and joel pineiro gave him a run for his money, but they pitched less than him so what he "added" to the team hurt more.

 

One bad (and it was, yes, REALLY bad) season after two solid ones should not qualify Marquis as the worst pitcher in baseball. It's not like he doesn't have decent stuff, and hes 28.

 

 

With all the people on the boards who go on and on about "past preformance", I think I will use it in this case. Who cares what Marquis did last year? His combined ERA in the previous two seasons before 2006 was under 4. If Rothschild really found somthing he can fix, Marquis could be a huge bargian and pitch well.

 

who cares what he did last year? are you kidding me?

 

Not what I ment and you know it. Just saying thats what some people pretty much say about DeRosa.

 

I think that's a somewhat good comparison (a little iffy in that Marquis has had another couple bad years in his career while DeRosa really hasn't had another very good year, but close enough)-if Marquis had a 2006 like his 04 and 05, he would have easily got 4/44 or more in this market-so he played himself out of quite a bit of money. DeRosa would probably have made about a million again as a utility player, and one good season propelled him to a over 4 million a year contract. The situations are pretty similar, and so should the questions if they are going to rebound to what they did previously, or if they are going to be what they were like last year. The interesting thing is, for the best results to happen, they both involve a change in style-batting stance for DeRosa (that he changed already), and pitching mechanical flaws for Marquis that were supposedly fixed this offseason.

[BigbadB]

I'd agree about the DeRosa/Marquis comparison, but DeRosa for 162 games at 4m and actually already having positive production from his mechanical change is not the same as Marquis and his unknown production change at 7m for 33 to 35 games.

 

Marquis is a tremendous gamble. DeRosa is actually cheap if he puts up numbers like he did last year.

[CubsWin]

I'd agree about the DeRosa/Marquis comparison, but DeRosa for 162 games at 4m and actually already having positive production from his mechanical change is not the same as Marquis and his unknown production change at 7m for 33 to 35 games.

 

Marquis is a tremendous gamble. DeRosa is actually cheap if he puts up numbers like he did last year.

I agree. He's a big gamble. The money is relative. Who knows what the market for starting pitching will look like in a year or two. But, in essence, Marquis is a 21 million dollar bet on Larry Rothschild's ability as a pitching coach. Marquis has already shown that he can perform above league average, but whether he will do so consistently over the next three seasons is a huge gamble and I'm not sure I like the odds. I'm not ready to write Marquis off like some people are, but I'm skeptical that Jason will perform at or above league average over the duration of his contract.

 

Larry, your reputation is on the line.

[abuck1220]

i'm not completely writing him off either, but the two things being counted on are 1) a pitcher who was horrendous last year turning it around 2) a pitching coach who has more bum arms and disappointments on his resume than success stories being the guy to help him do it.

[SCCubbieFAN]

The title of this thread says Marquis signed for 3/20 and attributes that to Cubs.com. As far as I can tell, the only article on Cubs.com about the Marquis signing has him at 3/21. Not a big difference, but...

 

The amount in that article has been changed from what it stated when it was originally posted.

[BigbadB]

I've kept pretty quiet with Marquis and Lilly. I'm going to give it a chance, but it's not what I had in mind this offseason. I did want pitching and I have to thank Hendry for recognizing that priority, but the years, the money and the players he sought are a REAL challenge.

 

I'm sure glad Hendry isn't extended beyond 2007 at this point, because I wouldn't want anything getting in the way of his firing at the first sign of trouble with this "patch it up and go" team.

 

The next GM needs to have an actual plan to improve the team.

[frostwyrm]

I've kept pretty quiet with Marquis and Lilly. I'm going to give it a chance, but it's not what I had in mind this offseason. I did want pitching and I have to thank Hendry for recognizing that priority, but the years, the money and the players he sought are a REAL challenge.

 

I'm sure glad Hendry isn't extended beyond 2007 at this point, because I wouldn't want anything getting in the way of his firing at the first sign of trouble with this "patch it up and go" team.

 

The next GM needs to have an actual plan to improve the team.

I pity the next Cubs GM. He'll be buried under all these backloaded contracts that Hendry gave out.

[goonys evil twin]

I've kept pretty quiet with Marquis and Lilly. I'm going to give it a chance, but it's not what I had in mind this offseason. I did want pitching and I have to thank Hendry for recognizing that priority, but the years, the money and the players he sought are a REAL challenge.

 

I'm sure glad Hendry isn't extended beyond 2007 at this point, because I wouldn't want anything getting in the way of his firing at the first sign of trouble with this "patch it up and go" team.

 

The next GM needs to have an actual plan to improve the team.

 

Hendry is extended through 2008.

 

A little parting gift from Andy.

[CubColtPacer]

I've kept pretty quiet with Marquis and Lilly. I'm going to give it a chance, but it's not what I had in mind this offseason. I did want pitching and I have to thank Hendry for recognizing that priority, but the years, the money and the players he sought are a REAL challenge.

 

I'm sure glad Hendry isn't extended beyond 2007 at this point, because I wouldn't want anything getting in the way of his firing at the first sign of trouble with this "patch it up and go" team.

 

The next GM needs to have an actual plan to improve the team.

 

I think Hendry's contract is actually through the end of 2008-it's simply speculated that the team has to make a large improvement (likely contention, if not playoffs) for him to stay on through the length of his contract.

[frostwyrm]

I've kept pretty quiet with Marquis and Lilly. I'm going to give it a chance, but it's not what I had in mind this offseason. I did want pitching and I have to thank Hendry for recognizing that priority, but the years, the money and the players he sought are a REAL challenge.

 

I'm sure glad Hendry isn't extended beyond 2007 at this point, because I wouldn't want anything getting in the way of his firing at the first sign of trouble with this "patch it up and go" team.

 

The next GM needs to have an actual plan to improve the team.

 

Hendry is extended through 2008.

 

A little parting gift from Andy.

 

Isn't it a wacky coincidence that Hendry is signed thru 2008 and he keeps giving out contracts that have balloon payments due in 2009? I can only guess he figures either he'll field a winner soon and get a fat extension, maybe big enough for a comfortable retirement, or he'll be let go, in which case these back-heavy contracts will be someone else's problem.

[BigbadB]

I've kept pretty quiet with Marquis and Lilly. I'm going to give it a chance, but it's not what I had in mind this offseason. I did want pitching and I have to thank Hendry for recognizing that priority, but the years, the money and the players he sought are a REAL challenge.

 

I'm sure glad Hendry isn't extended beyond 2007 at this point, because I wouldn't want anything getting in the way of his firing at the first sign of trouble with this "patch it up and go" team.

 

The next GM needs to have an actual plan to improve the team.

 

Hendry is extended through 2008.

 

A little parting gift from Andy.

 

Ugh. #-o

 

Well, I don't think it would stop the front office from hiring a new GM. If they can throw millions at mediocre pitching, surely they can afford a few hundred thousand for a new GM and a fired GM.

[CubsWin]

The title of this thread says Marquis signed for 3/20 and attributes that to Cubs.com. As far as I can tell, the only article on Cubs.com about the Marquis signing has him at 3/21. Not a big difference, but...

 

The amount in that article has been changed from what it stated when it was originally posted.

It has?

Cubs.com[/url]"]The Cubs completed their rotation on Tuesday by inking Marquis to a three-year, $21 million contract.

Every other article I can find on the Marquis signing has him at 3/21.

 

Sun-Times

DailyHerald

DailySouthtown

 

What am I missing?

[Bull]

The title of this thread says Marquis signed for 3/20 and attributes that to Cubs.com. As far as I can tell, the only article on Cubs.com about the Marquis signing has him at 3/21. Not a big difference, but...

 

The amount in that article has been changed from what it stated when it was originally posted.

It has?

Cubs.com[/url]"]The Cubs completed their rotation on Tuesday by inking Marquis to a three-year, $21 million contract.

Every other article I can find on the Marquis signing has him at 3/21.

 

Sun-Times

DailyHerald

DailySouthtown

 

What am I missing?

 

Cubs.com originally reported it 3/20. When the Suntimes article came out 3/21, cubs.com changed theirs to 3/21.

[CubsWin]

The title of this thread says Marquis signed for 3/20 and attributes that to Cubs.com. As far as I can tell, the only article on Cubs.com about the Marquis signing has him at 3/21. Not a big difference, but...

 

The amount in that article has been changed from what it stated when it was originally posted.

It has?

Cubs.com[/url]"]The Cubs completed their rotation on Tuesday by inking Marquis to a three-year, $21 million contract.

Every other article I can find on the Marquis signing has him at 3/21.

 

Sun-Times

DailyHerald

DailySouthtown

 

What am I missing?

 

Cubs.com originally reported it 3/20. When the Suntimes article came out 3/21, cubs.com changed theirs to 3/21.

That's what I'm saying, okay...

 

So the title of thread is wrong. Again, not a big deal, but just trying to be accurate.