Ouch! Roroworld Disses Marquis

[CubColtPacer]

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 disagree, and I base it on all the other pitching salaries that were signed this offseason. Look at some of them that were around Marquis:

Name Last 3 years ERA+

Adam Eaton-87, 90, 92-3 years, 24.5 million

Miguel Batista-101, 109, 104-3 years, 25 million (note: being 36 by the time the season starts this year has a lot to do with his contract)

Vincente Padilla-96, 96, 104-3 years, 33.75 million

Mark Mulder-106, 117, 62-2 years, 13 million

Orlando Hernandez-136, 87, 95-2 years, 12 million (40 years old)

Here's Marquis-113, 103, 73-3 years, 21 million

 

All of these players have something bad about them, which is why they signed for as little as they did. For Batista and Orlando, it's age. For Eaton, it's just that he hasn't been good. For Marquis and Mulder, it was being terrible in 2006. Padilla has been a little better but still not great, but he got more money than everyone else on this list.

 

How many people on this list could you reasonably expect to be over 100 ERA+ this season? 1/3 of them? The money Marquis got in the most current pitching market is consistent with a slightly below average pitcher. Therefore, if he performs like that, he'll be right at what the market says he should be at.

 

Edit: BTW, that's all the salaries that are around him. I didn't just pick out the bad ones-I tried to pick out 2-3 year deals that were around the money per year that Marquis is making, and I think I got all of them. That is the whole market for paying that type of money to a pitcher.

Edited March 23, 2007 by CubColtPacer

[goonys evil twin]

You daves just confused the crap out of me.

 

Same here, I thought for a second that the same guy was arguing for and against my point.

[goonys evil twin]

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.

 

I might take that as well, only because there's a significant chance he'd be much worse. That still doesn't justify saying the man did his job. It's bad. Bad is not acceptable to me, especially not with a guy who signed for what he signed.

[woodchip2153]

You daves just confused the crap out of me.

 

Same here, I thought for a second that the same guy was arguing for and against my point.

 

I spent 5 minutes trying to figure out if the quotes got messed up or something, until I finally realized it was two different people.

[sethuel1]

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

 

Wins.

 

Sounds good to me.

wanna pick a category his performance will actually reflect on, or no?

[David]

lmao... I knew when I saw davearm start posting here that that was gonna happen. Maybe I should change mine up. I feel like a new name anyway.

 

Tim?