ESPN: Cedeno & Olson Traded for Heilman (P. 4)

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I think you are way too optimistic about Zambrano, Ramirez and Lee having better years. Those guys had their prime years and are done with them. They'll still be good, but they aren't likely getting back to the old levels.

 

And even if Zambrano pitches better, he's not going to have a near .900 OPS again.

[cubsfan26]

It means he was a .999 OPS hitter last season, and did it with a ridiculous BABIP while playing in a ridiculous park that could probably turn me into a .800 OPS hitter. Hes got a career 118 OPS+. We're more likely to get his career .827 OPS than his .999 OPS from last year. Personally I'd be very happy with a high .800's OPS.

 

I agree that he probably isn't a 999 OPS guy, but I'm willing to bet that his OPS is alot closer to 900 then 827 next year. When you factor in what he has hit the last two years, and on the road in 05-06.

 

But unless payroll is a problem, wth was DeRosa dumped for?

 

I think there was a payroll problem, before Ricketts took over. But the main reason DeRosa was traded was to give Fontenot 400 plus AB's. Even Crane Kenney said on the radio yesterday that when the Cubs had their meetings, one of the goals was to find more AB's for Fontenot. They did that and were able to cut some salary at the same time.

[cubsfan26]

I think you are way too optimistic about Zambrano, Ramirez and Lee having better years. Those guys had their prime years and are done with them. They'll still be good, but they aren't likely getting back to the old levels.

 

 

Zambrano is entering his prime in many people opinions(age 28-31), and Ramirez is still in his. Lee might not be in his prime any longer, and I don't expect him to be a 900 plus OPS guy. But I think it's very possible that last season was just a down year, and is capable of being a 850-860 OPS guy still.

Edited January 29, 2009 by cubsfan26

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I think you are way too optimistic about Zambrano, Ramirez and Lee having better years. Those guys had their prime years and are done with them. They'll still be good, but they aren't likely getting back to the old levels.

 

 

Zambrano is entering his prime in many people opinions(age 28-31), and Ramirez is still in his. Lee might not be in his prime any longer, and I don't expect him to be a 900 plus OPS guy. But I think it's very possible that last season was just a down year, and the guy is capable of being a 850-860 OPS guy still.

 

People whose opinions are that primes are 28-31 are people who are wrong about when primes are.

[cubbinalltheway]

Where on earth are we going to find another starter better than Marquis that's not Peavy?

what?

 

how about, anywhere?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Where on earth are we going to find another starter better than Marquis that's not Peavy?

what?

 

how about, anywhere?

 

Take an honest look at Marquis' stats, and then look at the back halves of rotations around the league.

 

Anyone who is better than Marquis is not a scrap-heap starter and would have been snapped up ages ago.

[cubbinalltheway]

Where on earth are we going to find another starter better than Marquis that's not Peavy?

what?

 

how about, anywhere?

 

Take an honest look at Marquis' stats, and then look at the back halves of rotations around the league.

 

Anyone who is better than Marquis is not a scrap-heap starter and would have been snapped up ages ago.

oh i agree that marquis was a fine 5th starter. a damn expensive 5th starter, but a productive one.

 

the "where on earth are we going to find someone better than marquis" is absurd though and what i was responding to.

[SouthSideRyan]

Where on earth are we going to find another starter better than Marquis that's not Peavy?

what?

 

how about, anywhere?

 

Take an honest look at Marquis' stats, and then look at the back halves of rotations around the league.

 

Anyone who is better than Marquis is not a scrap-heap starter and would have been snapped up ages ago.

oh i agree that marquis was a fine 5th starter. a damn expensive 5th starter, but a productive one.

 

the "where on earth are we going to find someone better than marquis" is absurd though and what i was responding to.

 

Ok, tell me. Who's available that is a lock to be better than Marquis for cheaper than Marquis?

[erik316wttn]

Not to mention trading one of our most valuable prospects (Ceda) for Wood's lackluster replacement. And trading probably our 2nd biggest prospect in Pie (yeah, not saying much) for a guy we flipped for Aaron Heilman. This is not a 97-win team. I doubt it's even a 90-win team.

 

None of these things have any bearing on the Cubs' probable win total, since Pie and Ceda likely weren't going to contribute anything significant to the Cubs in 2009. Or ever, arguably.

 

You can say that, but they could have been traded for someone who would have made a difference.

[David]

Where on earth are we going to find another starter better than Marquis that's not Peavy?

what?

 

how about, anywhere?

 

Take an honest look at Marquis' stats, and then look at the back halves of rotations around the league.

 

Anyone who is better than Marquis is not a scrap-heap starter and would have been snapped up ages ago.

oh i agree that marquis was a fine 5th starter. a damn expensive 5th starter, but a productive one.

 

the "where on earth are we going to find someone better than marquis" is absurd though and what i was responding to.

 

Ok, tell me. Who's available that is a lock to be better than Marquis for cheaper than Marquis?

 

Marshall has a pretty solid chance of being better, although I wouldn't call it a lock.

[SouthSideRyan]

Where on earth are we going to find another starter better than Marquis that's not Peavy?

what?

 

how about, anywhere?

 

Take an honest look at Marquis' stats, and then look at the back halves of rotations around the league.

 

Anyone who is better than Marquis is not a scrap-heap starter and would have been snapped up ages ago.

oh i agree that marquis was a fine 5th starter. a damn expensive 5th starter, but a productive one.

 

the "where on earth are we going to find someone better than marquis" is absurd though and what i was responding to.

 

Ok, tell me. Who's available that is a lock to be better than Marquis for cheaper than Marquis?

 

Marshall has a pretty solid chance of being better, although I wouldn't call it a lock.

 

I was under the impression he was talking outside pitchers.

[wastra]

Given his history, Jason Marquis isn't a lock to be better than (or as effective as) Jason Marquis was last year.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Where on earth are we going to find another starter better than Marquis that's not Peavy?

what?

 

how about, anywhere?

 

Take an honest look at Marquis' stats, and then look at the back halves of rotations around the league.

 

Anyone who is better than Marquis is not a scrap-heap starter and would have been snapped up ages ago.

oh i agree that marquis was a fine 5th starter. a damn expensive 5th starter, but a productive one.

 

the "where on earth are we going to find someone better than marquis" is absurd though and what i was responding to.

 

Who is available *right now* who is better than Marquis?

 

I didn't mean "find one" in the sense of saying "a-ha, there you are. I see you!" to Bronson Arroyo.

 

I meant someone we could actually acquire.

[cubbinalltheway]

Where on earth are we going to find another starter better than Marquis that's not Peavy?

what?

 

how about, anywhere?

 

Take an honest look at Marquis' stats, and then look at the back halves of rotations around the league.

 

Anyone who is better than Marquis is not a scrap-heap starter and would have been snapped up ages ago.

oh i agree that marquis was a fine 5th starter. a damn expensive 5th starter, but a productive one.

 

the "where on earth are we going to find someone better than marquis" is absurd though and what i was responding to.

 

Ok, tell me. Who's available that is a lock to be better than Marquis for cheaper than Marquis?

well first tell me how good are you expecting marquis to be this year?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Given his history, Jason Marquis isn't a lock to be better than (or as effective as) Jason Marquis was last year.

 

Nobody is a lock, especially pitchers, but Marquis was remarkably consistent. His 2008 was incredibly similar to his 2007 and 2005, and not that much worse than his 2004.

[David]

 

Marshall has a pretty solid chance of being better, although I wouldn't call it a lock.

 

I was under the impression he was talking outside pitchers.

 

I got that impression, too, I just didn't understand why.

 

Marshall can easily take that spot for much cheaper and while we certainly get weaker in that role, it's not that big of a loss when you downgrade there. Sure, it can be, given the health situation, but going from a B+ to a C at 6th starter isn't that big of a deal in the big picture.

 

But I did arrive late to the discussion and haven't read the previous pages, so this point might be totally irrelevant. *shrug*

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Ok, tell me. Who's available that is a lock to be better than Marquis for cheaper than Marquis?

well first tell me how good are you expecting marquis to be this year?

 

Roughly the same pitcher he was three of the last four years: a league average starter.

[cubbinalltheway]

Who is available *right now* who is better than Marquis?

 

I didn't mean "find one" in the sense of saying "a-ha, there you are. I see you!" to Bronson Arroyo.

 

I meant someone we could actually acquire.

ben sheets is the obvious answer. randy wolf, kris benson... there's three off the top of my head. want me to name more?

[cubbinalltheway]

Ok, tell me. Who's available that is a lock to be better than Marquis for cheaper than Marquis?

well first tell me how good are you expecting marquis to be this year?

 

Roughly the same pitcher he was three of the last four years: a league average starter.

you cant just look at ERA+ and conclude he was league average for a starter. ERA+ is based on all pitchers, not just starters.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I was talking about outside, since the original discussion started out as "we'll pick up a pitcher..." or something along those lines.

 

But I'd say Marshall/Marquis is about a wash. Marshall's a little better when on the mound, Marquis is a little more durable. (Throw in Marquis' bat too, which isn't great for a pitcher but better than Marshall's)

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Ok, tell me. Who's available that is a lock to be better than Marquis for cheaper than Marquis?

well first tell me how good are you expecting marquis to be this year?

 

Roughly the same pitcher he was three of the last four years: a league average starter.

you cant just look at ERA+ and conclude he was league average for a starter. ERA+ is based on all pitchers, not just starters.

 

That improves his standing as a starter, since relievers tend to have a much lower ERA. You do know that, right?

[cubbinalltheway]

That improves his standing as a starter, since relievers tend to have a much lower ERA. You do know that, right?

what's the league average for a SP and a RP?

[CubColtPacer]

That improves his standing as a starter, since relievers tend to have a much lower ERA. You do know that, right?

what's the league average for a SP and a RP?

 

Last year

Starter: 4.46

Reliever: 4.09

 

2007

Starter: 4.64

Reliever: 4.20

[cubbinalltheway]

That improves his standing as a starter, since relievers tend to have a much lower ERA. You do know that, right?

what's the league average for a SP and a RP?

 

Last year

Starter: 4.46

Reliever: 4.09

 

2007

Starter: 4.64

Reliever: 4.20

thanks. i didnt think that it was "much lower" as kylejrm said.

 

where'd you find that info, by the way?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Who is available *right now* who is better than Marquis?

 

I didn't mean "find one" in the sense of saying "a-ha, there you are. I see you!" to Bronson Arroyo.

 

I meant someone we could actually acquire.

ben sheets is the obvious answer. randy wolf, kris benson... there's three off the top of my head. want me to name more?

 

Ben Sheets is hurt, Randy Wolf and Kris Benson are close, but not superior to, Marquis.