Ouch! Roroworld Disses Marquis

[goonys evil twin]

We will have to go with an over/under here.

 

Someone needs to determine what metric and what number will equal mediocore. I nominate Tim.

 

Take the over and you are betting that Marquis will be good

Take the under and you are betting that Marqui will not be good

 

Whatever the metric and whatever the number, I'm taking the under.

 

Based on the way the market worked this summer, you could make a case for IP to be the most important stat. With anybody who pitches over 170 innings considered good and under 150 to be bad. So would you take the under at 160 IP?

[CubinNY]

We will have to go with an over/under here.

 

Someone needs to determine what metric and what number will equal mediocore. I nominate Tim.

 

Take the over and you are betting that Marquis will be good

Take the under and you are betting that Marqui will not be good

 

Whatever the metric and whatever the number, I'm taking the under.

 

Based on the way the market worked this summer, you could make a case for IP to be the most important stat. With anybody who pitches over 170 innings considered good and under 150 to be bad. So would you take the under at 160 IP?

 

That is a tough one. I don't think it is an appropriate metric, which I'm almost sure you don't either. But for argument sake, let say it is.

 

I think I still take the under. With the bullpen I think Lou will have a quick hook. Much quicker than TLR.

[CubColtPacer]

We will have to go with an over/under here.

 

Someone needs to determine what metric and what number will equal mediocore. I nominate Tim.

 

Take the over and you are betting that Marquis will be good

Take the under and you are betting that Marqui will not be good

 

Whatever the metric and whatever the number, I'm taking the under.

 

Based on the way the market worked this summer, you could make a case for IP to be the most important stat. With anybody who pitches over 170 innings considered good and under 150 to be bad. So would you take the under at 160 IP?

 

That is a tough one. I don't think it is an appropriate metric, which I'm almost sure you don't either. But for argument sake, let say it is.

 

I think I still take the under. With the bullpen I think Lou will have a quick hook. Much quicker than TLR.

 

I'm not sure that would help you either unless Marquis got pulled from the rotation altogether, because he had enough games even last year where he pitched well enough to get to that number of innings. He had 110 innings in games where he gave up 3 or less runs, and he had 16 other starts-so even if Lou gave him a quick hook in those games (I put games where Marquis pitched 7 and gave up 4 runs in the second category because Lou might have pulled him an inning or two earlier), he would still likely get over 50 IP over those 16 starts.

[CubinNY]

So are we going to have a bet between

 

Rocket Sauce and Richhillisabeast or what?

[sethuel1]

I will take on basebal789864734. Pick a stat, dude.

[wade]

If I thought Prior and Miller would be healthy, I'd bet Marquis wouldn't have 100 innings pitched by year's end.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

I will take on basebal789864734. Pick a stat, dude.

 

Arm angle.

[indifferent]

Don't bet Vance. It's a sure loser.

 

I agree with CubsColtsPacers, a quick hook won't get it done with Marquis. When he sucks, he usually sucks right out of the gate.

[Rob]

I will take on basebal789864734. Pick a stat, dude.

 

Wins.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I will take on basebal789864734. Pick a stat, dude.

 

Wins.

 

:lol:

[rocket]

So are we going to have a bet between

 

Rocket Sauce and Richhillisabeast or what?

 

LET'S DO IT, ERA +

[davearm]

How about the bet is if Marquis can crack a 95 ERA+.

 

Fair?

I think betting on +/- 95 on the ERA+ scale is perfect.

 

Marquis was signed to be a 5th starter.

 

If he puts up an ERA+ in the mid-90s or better, he'll be doing that job effectively.

 

FWIW, I'll take the over.

[baseball7897]

I will take on basebal789864734. Pick a stat, dude.

 

Wins.

 

Sounds good to me.

[baseball7897]

I will take on basebal789864734. Pick a stat, dude.

 

Arm angle.

 

That sounds even better.

[goonys evil twin]

How about the bet is if Marquis can crack a 95 ERA+.

 

Fair?

I think betting on +/- 95 on the ERA+ scale is perfect.

 

Marquis was signed to be a 5th starter.

 

If he puts up an ERA+ in the mid-90s or better, he'll be doing that job effectively.

 

FWIW, I'll take the over.

 

This is a bit flawed. He was signed to a contract that pays him well over the average. He's not going to be the 5th starter. So I don't see the point in giving him the benefit of a sub average number to still be "doing his job".

[davearm]

How about the bet is if Marquis can crack a 95 ERA+.

 

Fair?

I think betting on +/- 95 on the ERA+ scale is perfect.

 

Marquis was signed to be a 5th starter.

 

If he puts up an ERA+ in the mid-90s or better, he'll be doing that job effectively.

 

FWIW, I'll take the over.

 

This is a bit flawed. He was signed to a contract that pays him well over the average. He's not going to be the 5th starter. So I don't see the point in giving him the benefit of a sub average number to still be "doing his job".

Contract has nothing to do with it.

 

You don't line up your starting rotation from 1-5 based on salary.

 

Marquis was most certainly signed to anchor the back of the rotation, behind Z, Lilly, Hill, and (ideally) Prior.

[goonys evil twin]

Contract has nothing to do with it.

 

You don't line up your starting rotation from 1-5 based on salary.

 

Marquis was most certainly signed to anchor the back of the rotation, behind Z, Lilly, Hill, and (ideally) Prior.

 

Contract has a lot to do with it. Ideally or not, he was signed as the 4th starter if anything. 5th starter has been discussed as a battle between Miller, Prior and kids ever since November. If he was a 5th starter then his status wouldn't have been as locked down as it is. There was never any question that he'd be in the major league rotation. He's not a 5th starter.

 

His contract demands that he does a whole hell of a lot more than put up a 95 ERA+ type of season to be considered to have "done his job".

[David]

How about the bet is if Marquis can crack a 95 ERA+.

 

Fair?

I think betting on +/- 95 on the ERA+ scale is perfect.

 

Marquis was signed to be a 5th starter.

 

If he puts up an ERA+ in the mid-90s or better, he'll be doing that job effectively.

 

FWIW, I'll take the over.

 

This is a bit flawed. He was signed to a contract that pays him well over the average. He's not going to be the 5th starter. So I don't see the point in giving him the benefit of a sub average number to still be "doing his job".

Contract has nothing to do with it.

 

You don't line up your starting rotation from 1-5 based on salary.

 

Marquis was most certainly signed to anchor the back of the rotation, behind Z, Lilly, Hill, and (ideally) Prior.

 

Contract has everything to do with it. Do you think most of us would be nearly as pissed off about having Marquis here if we took a flier on him with a 1-3 million dollar contract? I don't. It was a terrible signing.

 

Now some people want to say he'll be decent, some want to say he'll suck, and the people saying he'll be decent want to lower the standards of "suck?" Come on. Again, the contract has everything to do with it. Do you see people here starting threads about how bad Miller is and what a monumentally bad move it was to bring him in?

 

I love it when people try to suggest that the contracts are irrelevant and that we shouldn't be worried about what the Cubs are spending on whom, as if they had unlimited resources and could just throw any amount of money at anyone. The Marquis signing is just another example of Hendry wasting resources on mediocre to bad talent.

[davearm]

Contract has nothing to do with it.

 

You don't line up your starting rotation from 1-5 based on salary.

 

Marquis was most certainly signed to anchor the back of the rotation, behind Z, Lilly, Hill, and (ideally) Prior.

 

Contract has a lot to do with it. Ideally or not, he was signed as the 4th starter if anything. 5th starter has been discussed as a battle between Miller, Prior and kids ever since November. If he was a 5th starter then his status wouldn't have been as locked down as it is. There was never any question that he'd be in the major league rotation. He's not a 5th starter.

 

His contract demands that he does a whole hell of a lot more than put up a 95 ERA+ type of season to be considered to have "done his job".

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, because my view is that Hendry will believe he got what he paid for if he gets 170+ IP of 95 or better ERA+ from Marquis.

 

Whether the Cubs label him as a #4 or #5 starter is really pretty irrelevant. What's clear is that he's behind at least 3 guys (Z Lilly Hill), and a fourth if healthy (Prior). Call it #4.5 if you wish. Regardless, the expectations for a back-of-the-rotation guy like that are fairly modest.

[davearm]

How about the bet is if Marquis can crack a 95 ERA+.

 

Fair?

I think betting on +/- 95 on the ERA+ scale is perfect.

 

Marquis was signed to be a 5th starter.

 

If he puts up an ERA+ in the mid-90s or better, he'll be doing that job effectively.

 

FWIW, I'll take the over.

 

This is a bit flawed. He was signed to a contract that pays him well over the average. He's not going to be the 5th starter. So I don't see the point in giving him the benefit of a sub average number to still be "doing his job".

Contract has nothing to do with it.

 

You don't line up your starting rotation from 1-5 based on salary.

 

Marquis was most certainly signed to anchor the back of the rotation, behind Z, Lilly, Hill, and (ideally) Prior.

 

Contract has everything to do with it. Do you think most of us would be nearly as pissed off about having Marquis here if we took a flier on him with a 1-3 million dollar contract? I don't. It was a terrible signing.

 

Now some people want to say he'll be decent, some want to say he'll suck, and the people saying he'll be decent want to lower the standards of "suck?" Come on. Again, the contract has everything to do with it. Do you see people here starting threads about how bad Miller is and what a monumentally bad move it was to bring him in?

 

I love it when people try to suggest that the contracts are irrelevant and that we shouldn't be worried about what the Cubs are spending on whom, as if they had unlimited resources and could just throw any amount of money at anyone. The Marquis signing is just another example of Hendry wasting resources on mediocre to bad talent.

If you want to argue that Marquis is overpaid considering the role and expectations the Cubs have in mind for him, that's fine. You won't get much argument on that point from anyone.

 

But that doesn't change what that role is, and what those expectations are, namely, back-of-the-rotation, league averageish innings eater. That's what Marquis was signed to provide, and an ERA+ of 95 or better would represent fulfilling that role adequately.

Edited March 23, 2007 by davearm

[goonys evil twin]

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, because my view is that Hendry will believe he got what he paid for if he gets 170+ IP of 95 or better ERA+ from Marquis.

 

Whether the Cubs label him as a #4 or #5 starter is really pretty irrelevant. What's clear is that he's behind at least 3 guys (Z Lilly Hill), and a fourth if healthy (Prior). Call it #4.5 if you wish. Regardless, the expectations for a back-of-the-rotation guy like that are fairly modest.

 

The expectations for Marquis are low because he's not good. The expectations for a $21m investment should be significantly higher than the piss-poor numbers you're throwing up there to consider Marquis a success.

[davearm]

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, because my view is that Hendry will believe he got what he paid for if he gets 170+ IP of 95 or better ERA+ from Marquis.

 

Whether the Cubs label him as a #4 or #5 starter is really pretty irrelevant. What's clear is that he's behind at least 3 guys (Z Lilly Hill), and a fourth if healthy (Prior). Call it #4.5 if you wish. Regardless, the expectations for a back-of-the-rotation guy like that are fairly modest.

 

The expectations for Marquis are low because he's not good. The expectations for a $21m investment should be significantly higher than the piss-poor numbers you're throwing up there to consider Marquis a success.

Again, you're projecting *your* expectations for a guy with a 3/21 deal.

 

I'd suggest that your expecations are not the same as the Cubs' expectations.

[goonys evil twin]

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, because my view is that Hendry will believe he got what he paid for if he gets 170+ IP of 95 or better ERA+ from Marquis.

 

Whether the Cubs label him as a #4 or #5 starter is really pretty irrelevant. What's clear is that he's behind at least 3 guys (Z Lilly Hill), and a fourth if healthy (Prior). Call it #4.5 if you wish. Regardless, the expectations for a back-of-the-rotation guy like that are fairly modest.

 

The expectations for Marquis are low because he's not good. The expectations for a $21m investment should be significantly higher than the piss-poor numbers you're throwing up there to consider Marquis a success.

Again, you're projecting *your* expectations for a guy with a 3/21 deal.

 

I'd suggest that your expecations are not the same as the Cubs' expectations.

 

So, what's your point? Just because the Cubs might be happy with crap doesn't justify the fans being satisfied with crap. Obviously Hendry has different standards of measuring the worth of players than I do. That doesn't mean a 170 inning season of 95 ERA+ pitching is anything remotedly close to acceptable for Marquis.

[davearm]

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, because my view is that Hendry will believe he got what he paid for if he gets 170+ IP of 95 or better ERA+ from Marquis.

 

Whether the Cubs label him as a #4 or #5 starter is really pretty irrelevant. What's clear is that he's behind at least 3 guys (Z Lilly Hill), and a fourth if healthy (Prior). Call it #4.5 if you wish. Regardless, the expectations for a back-of-the-rotation guy like that are fairly modest.

 

The expectations for Marquis are low because he's not good. The expectations for a $21m investment should be significantly higher than the piss-poor numbers you're throwing up there to consider Marquis a success.

Again, you're projecting *your* expectations for a guy with a 3/21 deal.

 

I'd suggest that your expecations are not the same as the Cubs' expectations.

 

So, what's your point? Just because the Cubs might be happy with crap doesn't justify the fans being satisfied with crap. Obviously Hendry has different standards of measuring the worth of players than I do. That doesn't mean a 170 inning season of 95 ERA+ pitching is anything remotedly close to acceptable for Marquis.

I for one would take 170 and 95 from Marquis (and FWIW, I happen to think he will deliver it).

 

Just because you apparently don't like that particular threshold for "acceptable" doesn't automatically mean it's unreasonable.

[CoolHandLuke]

You daves just confused the crap out of me.