jjgman21

He has been outstanding this season. That drive should have ended, but [expletive] rules kept it alive. I disagree. I'm very underwhelmed by his play -- his tackling in particular. Look, you're in the end zone. Bulger is flushed. You need to be looking for the ball, not just staring at the receiver. I also think Till has been pretty solid this year. It's like he needs to be perfect or he gets criticized. Vasher's been burned this year too, but nobody says a word. I agree. I also don't think his tackling has been a problem. In fact, being left on an island so often, his tackling has been pretty outstanding for the most part. If anything, the problem has been soft play. flag. gimme a break. playing football is now a penalty.

Pro Bowl Rookie of the Year SuperBowl MVP?

I think they should allow Hester to sit in the net and return it.

how do they not see the lineman grab Urlachers foot on the first play of this drive?

DeRosa

how does the tie breaker work if both teams have the same conference record? if the Bears still have the tie breaker over NO, it would have been six of one, half dozen of the other. nonetheless, I don't want to have to face both a good football team and the refs during a playoff game, and that's exactly what would happen if the Romo-TO-Tuna show faces the Bears in January. will probably happen with the Bush-Breese-postKatrina show too, but not to the extent of the Romo-TO-Tuna show.

Then I suppose it's all just one big coincidence. whaaa? I was giving a reason why GMs wouldn't tamper. I'm the one that brought up the tampering issue in the first place.

Except it's the second recent example of whispers about Boston tampering (Lugo being the other). (beaten by cbbryan!) From a business standpoint, why not tamper? When's the last time a tampering complaint was filed, much less investigated? I think all MLB does -- if they even undergo an investigation and find cause to act -- is impose a token fine. Big whoop, with a top payroll, it's just part of the price of doing business and you still have your players. one reason is there are only 29 other people that you transact business with, and I imagine there are cliques within that group. you don't want to drive down the talent pool from which you can draw.

I was a big defender of Drew and his injuries his first trip through FA, and even a little bit this offseason, but didn't the guy miss big chunks of two different seasons due to beanballs, and another due to a crash into a fence or something like that? maybe there is something to an acutal "brittleness" argument. the things that cause him extensive injury doesn't seem all that out of the ordinary with the game of baseball, but they hurt Drew.

I heard some about this too, but also heard that the RedSox got busted for it and MLB was none too pleased. there's also been reports of tampering with JD Drew during the season last year, which is also a no-no; and if true, perhaps an insite into whether there was ever really a chance to sign him.

I'm torn. I would like to see the team put together properly over the period of two or three years making smart transactions. but the fact is, this team needed an immediate influx of talent, even if not top of the line talent, to be able to be competetive within the next couple years. you can't predict the future and what will be available, and I think we learned our lesson of relying too much on the future of a farm system built on pitching and with few positional prospects. at least now the Cubs are in position where a couple of trades with the prospects is even feasible. it really wasn't before signing the mediocre FAs. and not only that, but the right trade or two puts them over the top. we can now trade a couple of the pitching prospects. before we could not, because we had to rely on them as fallbacks. realistically as well, we have to look at the totality of the circumstances from the Trib and Hendry's standpoint. they have a loyal yet fickle fanbase and an intra-city rival that is approaching them in popularity. building from the ground up really isn't fiscally responsible for them. better to throw money at the problem and keep the turnstiles spinning from a business perspective.

jjg is trying to politely argue the merits of the young pitchers vs. Marquis with the Jon and Raisin (tough job just to keep up with those two!) The majority of people feel it was an awful deal and have expressed themselves to that effect in various manners. Much hyperbole has been used to describe how bad Marquis is. Some people have come out in support of the signing as being something the Cubs didn't have much choice about and there really weren't that many other dependable (from a health perspective) starters on the market. I think that's mostly it. sorry Tim, I can't let this pass. I was in no way defending the virtues of Marquis or his abilities in comparison to the young pitchers in the system. that's not what that was about. I just want to make it clear that I am actually undecided on what to think in that regard. it was a 'method of debate' discussion that didn't belong here and should probably be moved to rants by some enterprising mod.

How much does Marshall make? That is just mind boggling that we are going to give 9 or so million to a guy who was outperformed by someone who is probably making under a million. Sorry dont know where to find the exact numbers that Marshall makes. That's not a very fair comparison to make because it leaves out one very important item - IP. You simply cannot count on Sean Marshall to hold down a rotation spot for a year when he has yet to complete a season without significant DL time. Now, you could make an argument that the pitcher who threw less innings at the above quality level was better, but that's kinda beside the point. :D When I quoted this initial post, I had no idea it would become such a lengthy argument point! Sorry to have rubbed this in. :oops: I'm sorry for my part in the diversions.

You honestly think, as it stands now (thats for wolf :wink: ) the Cubs are a 3rd place team? Yup, if that. The Cubs have done very little to address the glaring weaknesses that made them fail in 2006 (and 2005) including OBP and starting pitching in general. Neifi Perez - .266 OBP, 236 AB's with the Cubs Juan Pierre - .330 OBP, 699 AB's with the Cubs John Mabry - .283 OBP, 210 AB's with the Cubs Ronny Cedeno - .271 OBP, 534 AB's with the Cubs along with a hoarde of other players that saw significant starting in the cubs lineup, that shouldnt see any this coming year. Replace with Izturis - Career .295 OBP Soriano - Career .325 OBP Ward - Career .314 OBP DeRosa - Career .331 OBP League average OBP is around .330. I don't see how we got better OBP wise other then getting Lee's bat back in the lineup... do you really think career OBP is the best way to evaluate? shouldn't you use something a little more indicative of what the future holds? three year splits, last year, Zips? now I don't see the Cubs to be league leading in OBP, but I think they will improve over last year. I mean consider: C - .341 1B - .337 2B - .326 SS - .275 3B - .340 LF - .346 CF - .333 RF - .337 I think a fair assessment is that the Cubs will remain the same or drop off a little at C (don't forget that Barrett missed a third of last year due to injury and suspension, but I do see some regression by him); get a boost dramatically at first, improve slightly at second, improve fairly dramatically at short (not that it will be acceptable); improve slightly at third (Aram may miss some time, but his replacement won't drag the numbers down as significantly as Moore and Neifi did for him last year); LF significant improvement whether Murton is full time or platooned; CF/RF assuming Jacque/Soriano a scratch, possibly improved with an acquisition. they should also get a boost in the ninehole with the addition of Marquis and a better bench. however, the Cubs should also be vastly improved in another area that was not up to par last year and that is power. they were 9th in the league in HR and 10th in Slg. the Cubs hit 166 HRs last year. it is not unlikely that three players alone will hit 115. the Cubs were last in the league in doubles last year. I guaranty they will be near the top this year. now the offense if far from ideal, but it is vastly improved over last year right now, without getting into what will happen between now and April and now and October.

I gave my thoughts on the matter here viewtopic.php?t=37300&start=15 as I have mentioned a couple times in the other thread, one advantage of Marquis is the depth of pitching that is now available, so this scenerio is even more doable as when I posted it.

I don't know that I've directly called you dishonest at all. I think I did call one of your arguments dishonest, and I've made a couple of comments about dishonest arguments in general. I don't remember the exact words I used, but I can imagine that it might have come off as me accusing you as being a lier, as oppsed to making a dishonest argument, so I do apologize for not choosing my words better. to give meaning to what I just said, the difference between being dishones and making a dishonest argument is the difference between lieing and spinning/framing/hidden agenda/parsing and argument. Stalinist journalis v. FoxNews as a metaphor. now I suppose this argument you are making about what the prior discussion was about might be an hosest argument, but for your sake I hope it is not. now you are a mod and I know your first responsability is to enforce the code of conduct, but I think you should appreciate what I have been trying to say and what this has all been about. it is about not being FoxNews, but rather a source for meaningful even if vigorous and heated debate designed to get at the truth of the subject at hand.

Raisin- here's the problem with pointing to what Disgruntled said....Luke was responding to BW, so what Disgruntled said was essentially irrelevant. he asked for an argument that Marshal WILL outperform Marquis. my responding to you was essentially because you just backed Luke up, instead of doing what you would have done in other contexts, point out one year does not mean one player will or will not outperform another. why you and other fail to see this is beyond me. it is quite obvious that is how the conversation went. its all there in black and white to see. look at BW's sentance before the part I bolded. are you really missing the shift he made in the debate here? seriously, is it not blatantly obvious that BW was calling for an argument that goes beyond just a bald statement of what can (and by implication will) happen and a request for a discussion of what will happen?

weren't you gone until next year? j/k

The discussion went like this: Why give this much money to marquis when we have cheap guys who could pitch as well as him? I need proof that they will pitch as well as him! Marshall has already done it. YOU CANT USE LAST YEARS STATS TO PROVE MARSHALL WILL PITCH BETTER THAN MARQUIS NEXT YEAR! the problem is that nobody said marshall will pitch better than marquis last year. Somebody said that he could and somebody else responded by saying that they needed to show evidence that suggests that he will. The only problem is why does the original poster need to show evidence to proove something that he never said? The proof that the original poster needed to show was that marshall could indeed pitch better than marquis and that proof is in the 2006 statistics. that's my point about using selective stats. I could say that Soriano is going to put up .350/.560 next year. will you buy that Jon? you Raisen? he did it just last year. But nobody was making any predictions in this discussion. let's go back. the poster said now to me that says make a case, not throw out a selective stat to show it is possible. so you are right, noone did make a prediction, but one poster requested a critic of the signing and advocate of a youngster over the signed player give a prediction. that is not what he got. he got a stat line from a single season as a proxy for the argument. that's as lame as it gets. Seems like you've altered what really happened. The stat line was used to point out that Marshall outperformed Marquis last season so it's possible he CAN do it again. I think just the opposite. that you are trying to change it into what you say here, when it's pretty clear that is not the case. edit - what makes it so clear is his use of the word "will" instead of "might, can, possibly," etc. which is necessary for the the discussion to have said what you claim it said.

The discussion went like this: Why give this much money to marquis when we have cheap guys who could pitch as well as him? I need proof that they will pitch as well as him! Marshall has already done it. YOU CANT USE LAST YEARS STATS TO PROVE MARSHALL WILL PITCH BETTER THAN MARQUIS NEXT YEAR! the problem is that nobody said marshall will pitch better than marquis last year. Somebody said that he could and somebody else responded by saying that they needed to show evidence that suggests that he will. The only problem is why does the original poster need to show evidence to proove something that he never said? The proof that the original poster needed to show was that marshall could indeed pitch better than marquis and that proof is in the 2006 statistics. that's my point about using selective stats. I could say that Soriano is going to put up .350/.560 next year. will you buy that Jon? you Raisen? he did it just last year. But nobody was making any predictions in this discussion. let's go back. the poster said now to me that says make a case, not throw out a selective stat to show it is possible. so you are right, noone did make a prediction, but one poster requested a critic of the signing and advocate of a youngster over the signed player give a prediction. that is not what he got. he got a stat line from a single season as a proxy for the argument. that's as lame as it gets. That poster was way off base for asking for some substance to prove that A will outperform B. Previous post didn't say A will outperform B, it said A could outperform B. Previous poster has no obligation to provide evidence to back up something he didn't say. if he's arguing that is the direction the Cubs should have gone, then indeed he should be obligated to make that argument. you're getting into symantics here anyway. you see my point plain as day.

The discussion went like this: Why give this much money to marquis when we have cheap guys who could pitch as well as him? I need proof that they will pitch as well as him! Marshall has already done it. YOU CANT USE LAST YEARS STATS TO PROVE MARSHALL WILL PITCH BETTER THAN MARQUIS NEXT YEAR! the problem is that nobody said marshall will pitch better than marquis last year. Somebody said that he could and somebody else responded by saying that they needed to show evidence that suggests that he will. The only problem is why does the original poster need to show evidence to proove something that he never said? The proof that the original poster needed to show was that marshall could indeed pitch better than marquis and that proof is in the 2006 statistics. that's my point about using selective stats. I could say that Soriano is going to put up .350/.560 next year. will you buy that Jon? you Raisen? he did it just last year. But nobody was making any predictions in this discussion. let's go back. the poster said now to me that says make a case, not throw out a selective stat to show it is possible. so you are right, noone did make a prediction, but one poster requested a critic of the signing and advocate of a youngster over the signed player give a prediction. that is not what he got. he got a stat line from a single season as a proxy for the argument. that's as lame as it gets.

The discussion went like this: Why give this much money to marquis when we have cheap guys who could pitch as well as him? I need proof that they will pitch as well as him! Marshall has already done it. YOU CANT USE LAST YEARS STATS TO PROVE MARSHALL WILL PITCH BETTER THAN MARQUIS NEXT YEAR! the problem is that nobody said marshall will pitch better than marquis last year. Somebody said that he could and somebody else responded by saying that they needed to show evidence that suggests that he will. The only problem is why does the original poster need to show evidence to proove something that he never said? The proof that the original poster needed to show was that marshall could indeed pitch better than marquis and that proof is in the 2006 statistics. that's my point about using selective stats. I could say that Soriano is going to put up .350/.560 next year. will you buy that Jon? you Raisen? he did it just last year.

This is my opinion: Jason Marquis is a puzzling guy who has put up good ERAs in the past, but just put up a 6+ era last year. Even when he was good, his peripheral numbers were nothing special. I would take a flyer on him if he would take a low base one year contract with an option. But guaranteeing at least 20 million dollars to a guy coming off of a year that bad is insane. BAM! we have a winner! now, what does his past performance say about the future, and is there reason to think that anyone from the farm could do better. what benefits are there in these signings we don't see? is a trade for a big bat easier now?

Unfortunately, something this place has had very little of this offseason! It's been hard at points to read this board when you have to wade through pages and pages of arguements that lack reason, an objective view, and have some really skewed logic. The negativity (and I can understand it a bit) on this board has been SO bad this offseason it's crazy! Despite that, this is still head and shoulders above any other forum, I just wish more people would heed jjgman21's advise above. And posts like this one ^^^^ What do they accomplish? This isn't a thread on debate tactics, its a thread on the signing of Jason Marquis. I don't like it. There is a good chance that he will not get better and you will be on the hook for 21+ over 7 years. The following young pitchers can outperform Marquis. Sean Marhsall Carlos Marmol Juan Mateo There was really no point to this signing. Just trying to remind people about what made this board great and how it seems as though it has gotten completely out of hand this year (96 loss season do tend to do stuff like this though). There are a lot of stubborn people on here and I doubt that much will change, hopefully people realize how they have been acting and try to tone it down. Now what does your post accomplish? You tell me that 3 of our young guys can outperform Marquis, fair enough, but where is your logic behind it? Tell me why they will outpitch him, otherwise your post is just as pointless as you think mine was. I can say player A will outpeform player B all I want, give me something of substance to prove that point. BTW, personally I dont really like the signing much either. Sean Marshall outperformed Jason Marquis last year. Is that not the kind of evidence you are looking for. Exactly. Marshall: 5.59 ERA, 1.52 WHIP, .270 BAA, 77 K/59 BB, 20 HR Marquis: 6.02 ERA, 1.52 WHIP, .289 BAA, 96 K/75 BB, 35 HR Marshall will be good in a couple of years. But he does not have a 4.45 carreer ERA like Marquis does. I don't like this signing particularly. But counting on Marshall is not a good idea. Seasoning him in AAA and viewing him as a possible future Cub, is a good idea. Yep. Why rush these kids? Didn't we learn our lesson with Wood and Prior? Let them build up the proper arm strength. bump. see the bold Jon. The bolded: The response to that: Exactly. Marshall: 5.59 ERA, 1.52 WHIP, .270 BAA, 77 K/59 BB, 20 HR Marquis: 6.02 ERA, 1.52 WHIP, .289 BAA, 96 K/75 BB, 35 HR What exactly is wrong here? ah, decontextualize the flow of the discussion. getting more honsest in debate by the minute there aren't you Raisen. it's all there to be seen what the discussion was about and what tactics were used to "win."

look, Jason Marquis is an outstanding pitcher. he put up an ERA+ of 127 at age 22, and put together seasons of 113 and 103. clearly he's the best option over any of the dregs in the minors who proved last year they have no future at the major league level. great signing. that's exactly what you guys are doing, only from the other side, and you don't even see it.