Amazing_Grace

No way do I trade ARam after the discount he gave us. ARod is going to be a declining player, while ARam's current contract takes him just to his early 30's. I'd move ARod to 2b if he can't play SS. He may no longer have the range for SS, but there's a great many old slow guys that have gotten by OK at 2b *cough*JeffKent*cough*. For that matter, we could trade Murton and put him in left, or trade Jones and Pie and put Murton in right. I agree if he really wants to play for the Cubs, you find a place for him, but ARam is about the last guy I'd move.

About the original article being discussed, it really seems like Soriano is being pretty flexible, and a lot of superstars aren't. I like how he's willing to move positions to help the team win. The guy will be with the Cubs a long time, so it's nice that he seems like a gracious guy and he's not starting out right away with a me first attitude. I really like what I hear from Lou in the Muskat article. It looks like Perez isn't Lou's first choice for the second backup infielder, which is good; he shouldn't be anyone's first choice for anything other than maybe bat boy. I liked that he talked to Cedeno about going deep in the count. That has to be almost a complete 180 from what Dusty advocated. I also think that last line about "we need another infielder here" is a not so subtle call for JH to get someone via trade. EDIT: As far as who to get, I'm with Vance. I think Todd Walker could be gotten for very little considering the fiasco with his contract arbritration and the speculation about the Padres releasing him. I bet we could get him for less than we got from the Padres when we traded him last year. The only question is would Jim actually do that, as he never seemed to like TWalk much?

If I don't "know" that Marquis and Lilly will definitely have an impact on resigning Z, then you don't "know" that Marquis and Lilly will not have an impact on resigning Z. This is true, but Hendry could have played it safe and only signed one FA pitcher. If it turns out the Cubs resign Zambrano anyway, then I'll cut Hendry some slack and assume he knew the money would be there. It may not come down to that particular choice, but the dollars work out about the same. One thing is certain; no team's budget is unlimited and the dollars you spend on one player are dollars you can't spend on another player. The question is how to get the most value for your dollars, and I don't believe that Jason Marquis at 3/21 is a very good value over the long term. Maybe so, but people always say things like "hindsight is 20/20" to defend GMs when saying this or that player was a bad acquisition when things go badly, but are more than willing to give GMs plenty of credit when things go well. I'm not using hindsight. I'm saying the Marquis deal is a bad deal now. If he defies all statistical evidence to the contrary and pitches decently for three seasons, then I'll be wrong, but at least I won't be second guessing the signing two years later, when anyone who can read the stat sheet can tell whether the deal was good or bad, after defending it when the deal was done. To say that we won't know for certain whether the Marquis deal is good or bad until we see what he does for three years is a tautology. The results will indeed tell who is right and wrong about the Marquis deal, but to me, if you're going to criticize a deal, you should have the courage to do so up front with the same information the decision maker has. Yes, I'm predicting what's going to happen. That's a big part of what Hendry and other GMs are supposed to do, take the available data about players and get the right ones to put together a winning team, within the constraints of the budget.

I'm still thinking about it, because your hypothetical really doesn't make much sense. What's not to understand. I'm saying that paying an extra 7M to retain Zambrano is money better spent than 7M to sign Marquis. I'm simply thinking of what CAN go wrong. If the Cubs don't go to 18M for Z, one will have to ask, why not? Well, there's 7 million dollars that could have made the Zambrano deal happen but instead went to Marquis. IMHO, Z should have been resigned before either the Lilly or Marquis deals were done. He's far more important than either of them.

Right on again. The issue here is, it seems for many the range of potential outcomes with Marquis never approaches positive territory. For them, it's just a question of exactly how bad the guy's going to be. For me, the question has very little to do with how good or bad Marquis is likely to be. Regardless of how good or bad he is this season, he's still signed over three years for a large amount of money that could have been used for resigning Zambrano, or upgrading other positions. The numbers say Marquis is likely to be mediocre at best and horrible at worst. If he's average, the contract probably isn't as bad as Hundley's, but the money still could have been used in other ways that will benefit the Cubs more than Marquis will. If he's horrible, then Hendry flushed 21M over three years. Here's something to think about. Z will be making 12.5M or so this year. He wants to make 18. So, if the Cubs hadn't signed Marquis, then his salary would easily pay for that raise to Zambrano. Would you rather have Zambrano and Guzman making 18M combined, or would you rather have Marquis and Lilly making about 18M combined? I know which one I'm picking. It may or may not come down to that, but it forces you to think about which is the better way to spend the money. Both the Marquis and Lilly contracts were bad, but Marquis was the later signing, the riskier signing, and is more likely to be the one we regret later because there's as good a chance he's terrible as there is that he's decent. Here's another what if. What if the money Marquis is making would have enabled the Cubs to both resign Zambrano, and add ARod next offseason? This is one reason why Hendry is a bad GM and is how the Cubs spent so much money to lose 96 games last year. He isn't looking at what he's getting out of the money he's spending or thinking about the long term implications of evaluating players individually rather than as parts of a larger team and organization. If the Cubs win this year, it will be mainly because Hendry was forced to fire Dusty, which I don't believe for a split second he would have done if not for the fans and media pressure, and that the Trib, for whatever reason, decided to dump a ton of extra cash into the team this year. It won't be because he's a good GM and he shouldn't get much credit for it.

This is exactly correct, in my opinion. I would have no problem with signing Marquis to a one year deal. You risk one year's salary of him there's a possibility he'll rebound. You don't risk three years commitment on a "maybe he'll rebound".

Good, now the last thing we need to hear before the season starts for me to have good feelings about this season is "Tomas Perez did not make the cut" or "Tomas Perez was cut from the team" or "Tomas Perez...well you get the idea.

One of your posts claimed Marquis to be "trash" if that isn't hyperbole I don't know what is... His response is as mature as you saying "sand castles in the sky" because you didn't agree with an opposing argument. You can have all the stats in the word and still not prove Marquis is the worst pitcher in MLB. Most importantly, it can not be proven that the Cubs are incapable of winning with Marquis on the staff. It's one thing to provide statistical evidence to support a claim, it's quite another to present it in a condescending "god some of you just don't get it" manner. Statistics can only help to predict actions based on the past, they are not absolute so please stop talking down to people as if you can see the future. Your post contains a link to the thread that contains your post, that contains a link to the thread that contains your post. It's like when you put two mirrors in front of each other and can stare into infinity. Hehe, I know I know, the link is to a different page, but still :lol:

I think there's a decent chance he would be worth 21 million over 3 years compared to the other pitching salaries that were given out this year-now, he may not be worth his contract each year, but he may be worth more than his contract in 1-2 of those years (for example, people were paying 10 million for 4.2-4.5 ERA's this year-so if Marquis can do that, he makes up 10 of the 21 right there). Now, you can certainly argue that all the pitchers were overpaid this offseason, but that's going to be a league problem-we'll see what happens with the market next year. The question in my mind is not whether his numbers are worth 7M per compared with other pitchers pitching for different teams and with different salaries. The question is whether Marquis was the best way to spend that 7M per for the Cubs.. Considering the Cubs in-house options, Marshall, Guzman, and Veal/Gallagher in a year or so, plus the fact we needed money to resign Z and maybe upgrade SS, plus the fact we already had signed Lilly to an expensive deal, I can't see Marquis being a good way to spend 21M over three seasons. To win this year, he might be worth 10M for one season, but no way do I do a 3 year deal for a player of that caliber. He's just not worth the commitment.

The problem with Marquis isn't so much that he has gone from mediocre to crappy during his career, nor, in fact, is it that he's making 7 million dollars. The problem is that the Cubs signed him for 3 years, which was galactically stupid. It's a risky enough proposition to believe Marquis can turn it around for one season, but it's a bad bet altogether to tie up 21M over three seasons betting on Marquis being worth it all three years. If Hendry went to Vegas, he'd come back broke. I'm not going too far out on a limb to say that the Marquis contract is going to be the worst the Cubs have signed since Hundley at least. Now, I'm not hating on Marquis. I'm criticizing Hendry for paying him too much. Marquis can't help that Hendry is a fool of a GM willing to try anything to save his job. All he can do is pitch. If he keeps his ERA under 5, he'll exceed my expectations, and I'll have no problem with him. If his ERA is over 5, I'll suggest we have better options and say he should be benched, contract be damned. People do criticize players too much when they are overpaid, because 100% of the time, some GM had to offer the contract before the guy signed it.

Did the Braves trade him at the best possible moment or what? I think Javy will probably wind up on an AL team where he can DH. I don't think he's much of a catcher anymore.

If he's having a lot of good starts where he gives up a few, and a lot of really terrible starts where he gets creamed, and getting an average of 4ER/7IP, can't the manager and pitching coach's decisions help the team a lot on days when he's having a terrible start? I mean, when you see he doesn't have it, you can pull him early, and if your long man is effective, you still have a chance to come back and win. Marquis got 200+ innings last year, but maybe he shouldn't have, and we should be looking at Duncan/La Russa as contributing to his problems by leaving him out there too long when he obviously wasn't effective. This is another reason why I wouldn't mind seeing Guzman end up winning the long man role. If Marquis has a tank start, you basically have another starter so there's no issue with pulling him in even the first 3 innings. I can think of at least two occasions where TLR left Marquis out to dry after a bad start. I think one of which was against the White Sox. I could be wrong, but I think they were trying to "give him a lesson" or something. A lesson for what I don't know. That's a good question. Leaving a starter in too long when he's struggling doesn't really help the situation in any way. Punishing a guy for pitching badly is a bit like spanking a kid for having a cold.. It's not like he's out there trying to give up 5 runs in 3 innings. Leaving him out there just puts more abuse on the guy's arm, increasing the likelihood of injury in the future, and pretty much guarantees the team loses the game. Some guys are good enough to have success when they don't have their best stuff or they're off on their control. Marquis is not one of those guys and TLR should know better than that. If he was really trying to teach Jason a lesson, I think the only lesson that was likely to be taught is that TLR is a real jerk.

If he's having a lot of good starts where he gives up a few, and a lot of really terrible starts where he gets creamed, and getting an average of 4ER/7IP, can't the manager and pitching coach's decisions help the team a lot on days when he's having a terrible start? I mean, when you see he doesn't have it, you can pull him early, and if your long man is effective, you still have a chance to come back and win. Marquis got 200+ innings last year, but maybe he shouldn't have, and we should be looking at Duncan/La Russa as contributing to his problems by leaving him out there too long when he obviously wasn't effective. This is another reason why I wouldn't mind seeing Guzman end up winning the long man role. If Marquis has a tank start, you basically have another starter so there's no issue with pulling him in even the first 3 innings.

I'll believe that when he gets to the mound at Wrigley. You speak as if there's a ton of time before opening day to sort things out with Prior. There isn't. He who has his stuff together now is likely the guy who will have his stuff together 3 weeks from now. There's time to work out some issues, that's what spring training is for, but rebuild a pitcher from scratch? Nay. I think this is definitely the case. Prior has been out for so long for so many injuries, and he's having to basically relearn how to pitch. The talent is still there, but the practice and polish isn't. Unless he makes spectacular improvements over the next 3 weeks, he needs to start the season in AAA.

If Perez is chosen it's Pagan he'll be bumping from the 40-man. I'd still prefer Pagan as he at least has some pop in his bat.

You mean beyond the fact that Pagan's complete lack of baseball talent makes him worthless? I mean that if Jones could not play an adequate CF that Pagan's necessity, in the eyes of Cubs management, is more likely. Jones ability to play CF allows the Cubs to focus more on another position of need for the bench. I'm scared that the last roster spot may end up going to either Perez or Pagan. I'd much rather see McGehee or Coats. Given the choice between Pagan or Perez, I'd take Pagan. He's younger, and won't require bumping someone off the 40 man roster. Perez is a garbage player that shouldn't be in baseball. He's worse than Neifi Perez and right up there with Augie Ojeda and Jose Macias in the "how the heck do these guys end up on a ML roster" list.

Oh please, God in Heaven, anyone but Tomas Perez.

If Lou really sticks to that date, March 20th, then he will probably end up going with Guzman. I don't see how Prior can improve enough to look like a ML caliber pitcher in just 1 or 2 appearances. As many have stated, including Piniella, you can't be effective with one pitch, and Prior doesn't have control of anything but his fastball at this point, and not great control at that. I just think Prior will have a longer road back, and may benefit from starting the season in AAA where there's no media pressure, no spotlight, and he can re-learn to pitch effectively.

Expendable perhaps, but not irrelevant. If he were pitching well, he'd be a great trade commodity at midseason. I personally hope both Guzman and Prior put Marquis in the pen, and then off the team via a midseason trade.

Maybe they wouldn't be interested in what the Cubs are offering and would be interested in somebody else's offer. I was just pointing out that opting out of his deal gives ARod the biggest freedom, without too much of a risk of throwing away money. That's true, but he'd have to take a discount to play for the Cubs. I can't imagine our budget could handle a 20M dollar player, not at least without trading one or more of Lee, Ramirez, Soriano, Marquis, Lilly and not re-upping Z. If he wants to play for the Cubs as this rumor suggests, his best shot to do so without giving up much cash is to get the Yanks to eat part of his remaining contract in some trade scenario. If he cares more about the money, he should opt out and sign with Boston, who would love the opportunity to pay back the Yanks for Clemens. I obviously don't know Arod, but I'd think after being the highest paid player and being unhappy for so many years, taking 15-17 per for 4 years or something like that and playing in a town that will worship you and a manager that you respect would be something he could swallow. Yes, but the Cubs couldn't. At least not if they resign Zambrano, who will very likely make about 15-18 per season. Now, if the Yankees were to pick up about 4-6M per year of ARod's remaining 3 years, that, combined with what Texas is paying, puts him down into the 12-15M area, and the Cubs might be able to afford that and Z also. If the Cubs don't resign Z, it becomes easier to sign ARod at the price you mentioned. That's really a difficult choice. It's hard to stomach paying any pitcher what Zito got, even one who's young and effective. If the Cubs let Z go, ARod would be a great alternative this offseason, if he indeed does opt out. I don't see the Cubs getting both barring an absolutely brilliant trade, and even then, it would probably mean putting the Cubs into the 110M range with payroll in a couple of years, and I doubt the Trib is going to go that high. 110 mil is the payroll this year-did you mean higher than that? Is it that high? ESPN's salary page isn't accurate for this time of year so it's hard to tell. I thought the payroll was going to be around 100-105M this season. In the thread Tracking Cubs 2007 payroll (a sticky in the transactions thread) they have the latest payroll as 113.58 million. Now, they might not be completely accurate, but they have the closest figures from all that has been reported, so it's probably somewhere around there. I found the thread, thanks. I had been estimating the payroll based on a site I use to lookup individual player salaries sometimes, and it doesn't always tell how much is paid per season or when the signing bonus is paid. I had come up with a payroll number of about 100M.

What he's saying is that when you go fishing, sometimes you use a bait and other times you use one of those new fangled fish agitators. When the fish get good and mad they might bite or else you go hungry, you know? ROFL

I think he was saying people were too comfortable under Dusty, and in order to have a winning team you need to have that "uncomfortability", or the sense that if you screw up, you're gone. Or perhaps if you screw up, you are held accountable. Something Dusty and Co. did not believe in. I get the feeling that if you feel comfortable with Lou, that is not necessarily a good thing. Meaning, you must continually improve/perform to stay in the lineup! Yeah, I think accountability is the word that would have made sense. Accountibility is something Dusty didn't seem to believe in or care about.

I read that Maddux told Marquis (being pretty close friends from what I understand) to pay close attention to what Rothschild has to say, and that he has much respect for Rothschild as well. Again, I really don't pin the blame of the pitching staff woes of the past few years on Larry. I blame Dusty for his perceived overrulings of Larry's opinions/decisions. Running guys out there consistently for 100+ pitches wasn't Larry's idea. That's the manager. That's why I'm reserving judgement :wink: One thing that puzzles me a little though...if Dusty really did override him as much as we all think, I'm surprised he opted to stay here and work with Dusty again instead of going to Detroit. Makes you wonder if Hendry spoke to him and Rothschild knew way before anyone else that Dusty's time was about to come to an end. If I were Rothschild, there's no way I would have come back to be an assistant under him again. It wasn't exactly a stunning surprise to anyone that Dusty was canned. Pretty much every sportswriter and commentator had him written off by midseason last year. There are a lot of reasons Larry could have stuck it out. Maybe he likes the city or he has family in the area. Maybe he's out to prove that the pitching problems were Dusty's and not his and salvage his reputation. I'm with you in reserving my judgment. We'll see how the pitching staff improves this season and what changes there are in the way the staff is used. Then we can better separate Dusty from Larry.

This is great news. Dusty would have Izturis penciled in the #2 spot by now despite all logic and reason. Izturis should hit 8th, and possibly 9th on days when Zambrano or Marquis is pitching. I still don't understand why it was necessary to trade Maddux to get Izturis. We could have let Maddux walk or traded him for nothing but public relations reasons (respecting a great player's wishes), and used the extra money we wouldn't be paying Izturis to outbid Boston for Lugo.

I don't know what anyone else thinks, but my guess about what Lou meant by "...not take anything for granted" is that Angel has a chance to win the spot. It isn't as far fetched as we might have thought a few days ago... Wow, reading that article, it sure does look like Lou hasn't seen what he wants from Prior and that if things continue as they are, Guzman could win the job outright. He sounded very positive about Guzman, but more significantly, very negative about Prior. "You can't pitch up here with one pitch" isn't exactly a ringing endorsement. Can Prior still be optioned to AAA, or would he have to accept a rehab assignment? Because if things keep going as they are, he may need one. It's encouraging that his velocity climbed so much, but without the control it's pretty meaningless. There's still 3 weeks of ST, so there's still a lot of time to make progress though.