jjgman21

what do you fail to understand about "totality of the body of work and at least an attempt to make a reasoned prediction?" So you want us to back up our claims but we're not allowed to use stats? Makes sense. don't play daft. you know exactly what I am saying. you don't use one year to evaluate and compare two players potential for the future. I can say "Marquis had a 113 ERA+" and it would be true but that really doesn't encapsulate what we can expect next year or give us a basis to evaluate this signing, now does it? And that wasn't what they were talking about. you're wrong. that's exactly what the post was about. one poster said he didn't think there was much basis for saying Marshall would outperform Marquis next year, another poster said he did last year, Raisen "backed it up" with last seasons stats. I find it better to cut off prior posts when the quotes get too long, but if you look back a couple pages, you will in fact see that predicting Marquis and Mashall's future is EXACTLY what this has been about. Wrong. The point of discussion was about whether or not Marshall "can" out-perform Marquis. It wasn't about whether or not he will, but whether he has the ability to. I'd say those stats are plenty to backup that claim. When are you going to start making your own posts instead of criticizing everyone else's without offering any support of your own? how many times do I have to say that I don't have a dog in this fight, I only want to see honesty in the debate?

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.

what do you fail to understand about "totality of the body of work and at least an attempt to make a reasoned prediction?" So you want us to back up our claims but we're not allowed to use stats? Makes sense. don't play daft. you know exactly what I am saying. you don't use one year to evaluate and compare two players potential for the future. I can say "Marquis had a 113 ERA+" and it would be true but that really doesn't encapsulate what we can expect next year or give us a basis to evaluate this signing, now does it? And that wasn't what they were talking about. you're wrong. that's exactly what the post was about. one poster said he didn't think there was much basis for saying Marshall would outperform Marquis next year, another poster said he did last year, Raisen "backed it up" with last seasons stats. I find it better to cut off prior posts when the quotes get too long, but if you look back a couple pages, you will in fact see that predicting Marquis and Mashall's future is EXACTLY what this has been about.

I'm not criticisimg the entire board. I am criticizing hyperbolic posts that lack fairness, logic and reasoning. I am criticizing seletive use of stats instead of the entire body of work as a basis for predictions going forward. I don't know how I can make that any more clear, nor why argument has to be made on that point. I think it pretty self evident that it happens and that it gets nobody anywhere. I want this place to be more like NSBB and less like the ESPN board. I think we all do, and I think we can all pretty much agree posts like with the above characteristics are becoming more and more prevelant. I think it's a bad thing. just my two cents. I don't think he was talking about you, and I wasn't in my post. It just so happened the person I was talking about mentioned your name in his post. his reply was directly to me and in contravention of my post. I cut out the rest for the sake of readability (although my previous attempt to do that backfired).

what do you fail to understand about "totality of the body of work and at least an attempt to make a reasoned prediction?" So you want us to back up our claims but we're not allowed to use stats? Makes sense. don't play daft. you know exactly what I am saying. you don't use one year to evaluate and compare two players potential for the future. I can say "Marquis had a 113 ERA+" and it would be true but that really doesn't encapsulate what we can expect next year or give us a basis to evaluate this signing, now does it?

I'm not criticisimg the entire board. I am criticizing hyperbolic posts that lack fairness, logic and reasoning. I am criticizing seletive use of stats instead of the entire body of work as a basis for predictions going forward. I don't know how I can make that any more clear, nor why argument has to be made on that point. I think it pretty self evident that it happens and that it gets nobody anywhere. I want this place to be more like NSBB and less like the ESPN board. I think we all do, and I think we can all pretty much agree posts like with the above characteristics are becoming more and more prevelant. I think it's a bad thing. just my two cents.

I'd much prefer looking at the totality of the body of work and at least an attempt to make a reasoned prediction of the future based thereon rather than unfairly plucking stats selectively to make the worst case scenerio appear to be the likely outcome. is that really too much to ask? What are you talking about? I didn't pluck stats here - these are the stats I think are best to look at with pitchers (would rather use HR/9 and ERA+, but couldn't find the baseball-reference site in time). what do you fail to understand about "totality of the body of work and at least an attempt to make a reasoned prediction?"

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 I'd much prefer looking at the totality of the body of work and at least an attempt to make a reasoned prediction of the future based thereon rather than unfairly plucking stats selectively to make the worst case scenerio appear to be the likely outcome. is that really too much to ask?

I completely agree with this. People don't like the tone of the board of this transaction but they're not helping by just criticizing posters or the board as a whole. Why not defend your side of the argument, I would think it'd be easy since the other side doesn't use fair, reasoned or logical responses? I'm not the other side. I don't like this signing. I just find it absurd when people say things like "best case scenerio is a 4.5 ERA" or "we have a #1 and four #5's" or when people make illogical jumps to come to overly pessimistic conclusions. these things don't need debate. they need to not make it on the board in the first place because they are completely lacking in factual basis. we used to call it flaming.

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. exactly what I am talking about. "good chance?" what does that mean? "can outperform." there's simply no basis for it. there is no point to this post. it is simply hyperbole, in no way based in facts or analysis, whatsoever. your conviction on the matter doesn't change the fact that your post lacks fairness, logic and reason.

as most of us are refugees from either espn or cubs.com, I think we can all agree the general intelligence and posting atmosphere in this forum is far better. why don't many of you realize that the constant barrage of hyperbole trashing players, the team and the GM when transactions that aren't lopsided in favor of the Cubs take place puts us right back from whence we came? there's plenty of room for criticism without resorting to these tactics. while concesus is virtually impossible, the utter nonsense that gets posted when a transaction is anything but just insanely perfect is mind numbing and flies in the face of the reasons many of us found our way here. fair, reasoned, logical analysis please.

another tangential effect of this and the Lilly deal is it allows the Cubs to trade away some minor league pitching without worrying about the depth chart. A trade or two before April is inevitable. Good point. Nice issue spotting counselor. I've been wondering if Hendry is going to surprise everybody with a trade of Rich Hill at his high point. You might be able to get a serious offensive upgrade if you're willing to part with him in a package. This is when I'd try and overwhelm Florida with all the prospects they want for Cabrera, or you offer to restock the Yankees farm team with just about anybody for ARod. The Cubs aren't going to win many 2-1 games with this staff, they need to rack up the runs. The Cubs are going to have to play a rope a dope game this season, lulling the opponent to sleep with the incredibly boring pitching staff. 3/20 doesn't reak of terrible. Marquis does have a chance to have a good year, and if he does, and some internal options figure things out, he'd make great trade bait next season. Well, here's to Larry working some magic on the guy and getting something out of Marquis. Actually I was going from Goonys post here. As I stated before jjgman21. then why didn't you say "I think Goony was on the right track. Hendry is going to trade Hill." whatever man. it was a joke. getting credit for being first to post an obvious idea really doens't mean that much to me.

Isn't it a lot more realistically going to look like this: Zambrano Lilly Marquis Hill Prior/Miller/Guzman/Marshall et al. I just can't see the lefties being set back to back. #1, #2, etc. are states of being, not the order in which they go through the rotation.

Riccardi isn't the best ppl person. It doesn't surprise me that he rubbed someone wrong in a crowd filled with Type A personalities. hey JP, last I checked, he chose the best division in baseball. serious sour grapes for missing out on both his targers here.

That's about best-case scenario. ah, so best case scenerio is significantly worse than what he did three seasons ago and slightly worse than what he did two seasons ago. again, you don't need to make things up to bash the signing.

I think you should give credit where it is due if you agree with that assessment. except hendry is stockpiling crappy pitchers...nobody that's going to help land arod. my post was a wise crack based on me being the one who suggested a trade is inevitable with the stockpile of pitchers. it had nothing to do with Hendry.

In this division, with the Astros regressing and the Cards not improving? No, the Cubs have as good a shot as anyone. In any other division you're right. I would agree. The Cubs may have plenty of question marks, but I can't see anyone in the division that I can point to as better than this team right now either. This is exactly how the Cubs seem to think. They want to compete within the division. I don't give a flying fig what Houston or the rest of the NL Central has done. Wining the divsion only means getting to the playoffs. I'd like for my team that has a top 5 payroll to be a lock to be above .500. I cannot understand how anyone could be happy with the Marquis signing when the Cubs have at least 2 guys under their control for the next two years that can be just as sucky. Everyone would love to have the best team in baseball, but winning your division and getting to the playoffs is what it's all about. The playoffs and the WS are a crapshoot. It's a matter of who gets hot at the right time. How often has "the best" team won in the playoffs and the WS? Look at all the wild card winners. Look at the "mediocre" 2006 Cards. I agree with your statement about the playoffs and find it weird that fact escpaes many who raise the same argument in other contexts. I do think a team with this payroll should be better and have fewer question marks, but what everyone needs to keep in mind is every team, no matter what the payroll, has question marks going into the season. for instance look at the Mets last year. it's easy to imagine the Mets fans saying "if Glavine can sustain at 40, if Pedro is healthy, if Floyd stays healthy, if Trachsel can just be a #4, if Heilman steps up, if Wright is the real deal, if Reyes lives up to his potential, if we can plug secondbase, if we can patch together a bullpen, and if Beltran returns to form, we might win the division." even so, most of the prognosticators picked a team with so many 'ifs' to win the division. and as I've said many times the past couple of weeks, no team goes into October with the same roster they had in April. "World Series caliber" teams are built throughout the season, not in December.

you know, all I heard (not necessarily from you of course) when the Braves traded him to the Cards was what a coup it was to get all this great young pitching talent for that bum JD Drew. I also heard so much 'Duncan was able to straighten him out' talk for his first two years as a Card when Cubs fans all predicted his eminant decline. now Cox and Duncan couldn't straighten him out? will someone provide me with a link to anybody ever saying that Cox and/or Duncan couldn't straighten him out? or is this all just a conclusion reached without any exploration of cause and effect? well the Cards do still have Wainwright from that trade(that will probably end up being the best coup) Marquis did decent the first couple of years and he was young and CHEAP. There is nothing wrong with him mechanically he just shakes off pitches and does not trust his sinker enough...his worst trait last year was that he did not keep the Cards in the game...he gave up a lot of runs early and just looks defeated. Like I said you will see flashes of hope but no consistency in his quality of starts... actually there was much talk about a problem in Marquis' mechanics last year and reports that he already worked it out. Rothschild was on WGN last night saying Marquis additioned for him shortly after the season and demonstarted he knew what the flaw was and it had already been worked out. FWIW.

I don't think there is confirmation on whether it is 20 or 28 M, much less other specifics.

and if he doesn't we may just be talking once again about the Kenny Williams that did the Todd Ritchie deal instead of giving credit to the guy that got lucky with virtually his entire 2005 roster. He also got David Wells for Mike Sirotka and a couple of other bums. how'd that work out for him? I see this similarly as the Podsednik move, trading away better talent to get players that only fit the mold of a traditional baseball analysis hack. he made the Wells move because Wells was a 'proven 20 game winner' even though Sirotka had put up superior numbers. he made the Podsednik move because he wanted a 'proven leadoff hitter' even though Carlos Lee is a far superior number (pre-emption, the money was just an excuse. there was plenty of money to keep Lee with Mags coming off the books). these are the same types of moves many of the same people defending Williams would hammer Hendry for.

I think you should give credit where it is due if you agree with that assessment.

What healthy pitcher will sign for less than 3 years these days? I hope we aren't done and that a trade for a better #2 option is still availabe (ie Brad Penny) but my fear is that it's not. And Lilly, Marquis and Cotts aren't exactly what I had in mind for strengthening our pitching staff. Sori OTOH I'm counting down the days before we can see him in Cubs pinstripes. This is what pisses me off about this signing. We could have passed on Marquis and swung a trade for Penny, using that money to get him to rework his contract or even give it to the Dodgers. Instead, we sign a guy who completely sucks for more money than I'll ever make in 10 lifetimes. you see, this is completely unnecessary. just look at the move for what it is. you don't need to claim trades that only exist in your fantasy were possible to criticize this move.

But what is going to make him change if he wasn't receptive towards some of the best pitching coaches in the bigs? Greg Maddux and Mark DeRosa's word are nice and all, but I'm not sure I have faith in Marquis listening and improving much. Three years? That sucks. again, which is it? was he listening to Duncan in 04-05, or was that strictly his stubborn side putting up solid #3 numbers? and back in 01, was he listening to Cox, or was that his stubborn side? where does this 'stubborn' / 'the best pitching coaches couldn't straighten him out' stuff come from other than looking at a situation and jumping to conclusions about cause and effect?

No, I definitely agree that that's the best way to look at it. I just didn't feel like looking to see when exactly he should have been pulled. What I was basically trying to say was that Marquis had (at least) two outtings last year where he would've been pulled in normal circumstances, but wasn't. Therefore he wasn't as bad as he ERA makes him out to be. in the game against ATL, he should have been pulled after the fourth. he'd just made the last out of the third inning, so pulling him then would not have even necessitated the need for a pinch hitter. so probably take 4 runs and 2 innings off his totals. http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/boxscore?gid=260718124&page=plays in the game against the White Sox, he should have been pulled after the second I feel. after the Thome homer cleared the bases, give him a chance to get you one more inning, so take 3 innings and four runs off the totals. http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/boxscore?gid=260621104&page=plays

you know, all I heard (not necessarily from you of course) when the Braves traded him to the Cards was what a coup it was to get all this great young pitching talent for that bum JD Drew. I also heard so much 'Duncan was able to straighten him out' talk for his first two years as a Card when Cubs fans all predicted his eminant decline. now Cox and Duncan couldn't straighten him out? will someone provide me with a link to anybody ever saying that Cox and/or Duncan couldn't straighten him out? or is this all just a conclusion reached without any exploration of cause and effect?