twothousandfive

I think it might be better to cite those signed that same off-season -- or at least that makes it more fair to both Marquis and Hendry. I think includes Jeff Suppan, Gil Meche, Ted Lilly, Tomo Ohka, and others certainly. But on price, performance, and contract length, Marquis stacks up reasonably well against all those guys (thankfully Lilly has turned it around since Apri). I think when 2009 is added, the average is $9 million/year for Marquis, which is stunning. But Suppan is at $8 million + per year, and Meche is more than $11 million. At the very least, the Cubs $9 million mistake is an average #5 starter in the majors. It's better than having Carl Pavano.

I agree that's the perception and also the reason for the intense opinions. I'd argue, though, that the data don't support the perception. (And even the perception doesn't even extend to Rich Hill. He's more at fault than Marquis for Marquis being in the rotation, but Hill is beloved.) Marquis had not given up more than five runs in a game this year before yesterday. Through this week, he's now given up 7 in one game, five runs four times, four runs once, and three or less nine times (more often than his 4+ run games. And I'm ignoring earned runs, so it's possible one or two games might be off with a different method.) He's clearly the last guy in the rotation, and more than half the time he let's up fewer than three runs. I think it is tough to argue a typical fifth starter gives you any more than that. As for the post-season, Piniella banished him last year. I don't remember if Marquis squawked about it, but given the thing this spring, Piniella knows what he's got with Marquis -- and he's not going to bank on him in a big game. Which leads to two other things - 1) if Marquis could get these numbers AND pitch more innings, he'd be much more valuable. He can't, and that's a hidden frustration. In fact, I'm sure he's left with guys on base, and had they scored, the ERA would be higher. Since he's a "veteran" he ought to be held to higher standard in that regard. 2) It's pumpkin time for Jason Marquis. I've argued the hatred was misplace all season, but the argument of more than half the time with 3 runs or less wilts in the heat. June-thru-Oct last year, he gave up five or more nine times, 4 four times, and three or less 10 times (so it is still surprising how often he pitches well.) When he gives up a lot he leaves very early, so bad performances as it get hotter put the Cubs in a hole early and eat up the pen. And if he starts on a double-header it can get ugly. If they had an innings eater going before him in the rotation, maybe that could work, but they don't really (I'm thinking a knuckle-ball or Tommy John kind of guy). It is time to skip Marquis liberally, for almost any excuse -- a start for Leiber to "stretch him out" want to see how Z holds up on three days rest before October comes around, want to give Gallagher and Marshall the chance to settle in on an every five days schedule. Even the return of Rich Hill should put Marquis in the bullpen at some point in August.

Won't this reduce the RBI opportunities for Soto? I have to think he and DeRosa were the biggest winners in line-up construction -- when the guy in front of you is on base 40% of the time, good things happen. I'd even argue that, unless and until Theriot stops getting on base, he should bat behind Edmonds, and ahead of Soto and DeRosa. It's nice to think when your 7 & 8 hitters get an extra base hit, it scores a run.

So there's no need to panic? That line is fantastic for a catcher, especially one who also plays great defense. An OBP of .320 with an SLG of .460 for the second half gets him to roughly that line for the full year. I think it's fair to suggest that an OPS below .800 for an extended period (more than just a slump) is a disappointment, based on expectations coming into the season. Acceptable, certainly, given his defense, the rest of the league and the Cubs recent history. Nonetheless, disappointing -- but it isn't at all uncommon for a rookie to tire as the year goes on. I'm still confident on a .800+ OPS for the next several years.

They would, but Gallagher currently is a starting pitcher for the Cubs, they will need someone to replace marquis in a matter of weeks (let's say that's Marshall) and one Cedeno/Patterson/Fotenot is the back-up infielder. (let's say that's Fontenot) Cedeno, Murton, Veal, Patterson, Colvin, Hill, Pie is not real compelling except for an Expos/Marlins sort of tank job with nothing but minimal payroll in mind. Thankfully, the Cubs don't need much, but if Zambrano is out for a while Hill, Marshall, Gallagher become even more important -- they might need 2 pitchers back in exchange for those three.

Does Colvin, Patterson, Veal get Beltre from Seattle? I'm not sure it does. It would probably be enough to get Miguel Batista, though.

Johnson is batting less than .250 against righties this year and you can argue Troy Percival is a better than average pitcher. So, the odds of Johnson getting a hit ( a walk doesn't help, and the likelihood of errors is low) are about 20%. I think it is fair to say his bunting skills are good enough to get the bat on the ball, get it on the ground, bunt it fair. With all that, even on turf with a solid third-baseman, I'd say he's got a better than 10% chance of success. The bunt wasn't the best play, but I think the criticism overstates how bad it was. And of course, it wasn't that close -- I don't know what the broadcasters were watching. It's not like Neifi bunting with the tying run on first base, is it? At least Johnson had a chance at the desired outcome, even if that chance was a bit lower than if he swung away.

Then they aren't the future. They are flotsam and jetsam. Trading young players who need help via an act of God to be all-star caliber players is easy. Pedro Martinez comes back healthy after the All-Star break, and throws two consecutive seven inning, one-run games. On July 30, the Mets say you can have him in exchange for Gallagher, Hill, Marshall, Hart -- none of whom are a key to the season so far. Deal or no deal?

This question doesn't really get fun until what the Cubs give up hurts, and the player(s) they get back are over 28 and have a contract that ends after this year or next year. So, on the give up side -- if every need to make this team better could be addressed in a single deal, and a very average catcher was included, do you trade Soto? Would you trade him for Brad Penney and Rafael Furcal, and an average catcher LA picked up somewhere? (Not that the Dodgers need a catcher.) Would you trade him for Bedard and Roberts (and Ramon Hernandez), with DeRosa moving to LF and playing super-sub when Soriano comes back? (Not that one team has both those guys, anymore.) How about Beltran, Maine and Schneider from the Mets? If you are offering up middling prospects from the minors, it isn't mortgaging the future. It's gotta' really hurt before you are playing the game. I'd say no to all three deals, because the Cubs are in good position to make the post-season, and short post-seasons are fluky. I would most certainly trade Cedeno/Hart for a masher who could be a late season PH and World Series DH, if they get there. Say Jason Giambi. That comes close to the spirit of mortgaging the future. If you answered "yes" to the question, but oppose all of those deals, I think you need to change your answer to "no."

I suspect, though, there is a correlation between inherited runners stranded and close wins -- however that can be defined. If you buy the argument that Kerry Wood's wildness requires room for error (such as entering with the bases empty) while Marmol can excel without that room for error, then they are in the correct roles. I'm not sure that even expanding the stats to include HBP really support that, though. Wood's K/BB ration is better. Marmol's K/9 is notably better. Which sort of ends up in the best spot, anyway. With runners, the best outs are strikeouts, since the ability to advance on a K is very limited.

I don't know a lot about the Jays, but they seem to have four lefty pitchers. If they are all relievers, then maybe Murton is the better choice -- the Cubs more likely to use a pinch hitter late in the game against a relief pitcher, and that relief pitcher for the Jays is likely to be a lefty. Given that someone will replace Marquis, but the rest of the pitching staff is pretty solid, is there a chance the Cubs would be able to package a starter, a lefty reliever, a righty reliever, and RH bat and a LH bat for a key piece at the deadline? Does Marshall, Cotts, Ascanio, Murton and Hoffpauir get Michael Young from Texas? Furcal from LA? Swap Pie for Murton and get Nate McLouth and Jack Wilson from Pitt? I'm sure some would say all those Cubs are border-line major leaguers, but would the sheer number of role players get a top prospect from a contender?

The 61 innings in those 11 starts would have had to come from someone else and they way they are treating Hill is way beyond choosing Marquis over Hill. Gallagher's in the rotation, so he can't replace Marquis. The "purpose" I believe is to get some innings and starts from Marquis in the early part of the season, where he typically has done better. He has been worse than usual, but in the 11 starts, he has gone at least 5 innings in all, and let up 5 runs three times, four runs once. The rest have been three or less. That means 11 starts where they aren't out of the game when Marquis is done, and seven where they are certainly within three runs. Typically, he gets worse from here, so sometime in June they need to boot him from the rotation. That should be for Hill or Marshall -- and they get the benefit of "saving" those 60 plus innings from their younger pitchers. With a likely spot start for Leiber and/or Marquis, and the ability to potentially trade off between Marshall and Gallagher, they have a decent chance of keeping all these guys fresh into Sep and Oct. But there are also reasons to believe there are worse on the Cubs, also. Like, so far this year, maybe Lilly, though at his best he is clearly much better than Marquis. Just as 5th starter isn't a real position, there isn't really "meaningful" and "not meaningful" starts. Apr and May count as much as Aug and Sep -- but for whatever reason Marquis has been much better in Apr/May than later. So he gets starts then, and gets yanked before he can show us all his 6+ ERA in Jul/Aug. Piniella didn't let him pitch in the post-season, got angry when Marquis was mouthing off in the spring, and was clearly livid last night. At some point I also remember Piniella noting that Marquis struggles post-ASB. Marquis won't last the year in the rotation, and there is every reason to believe they are planning to have Hill or Marshall take Marquis' spot soon. What's really missing is someone making it clear to Piniella and Hendry that they are a better choice than Marquis. Rich Hill, please stop walking batters in Iowa. We're waiting for you.

I thought a late season trade last year was the right idea -- Murton could probably have brought back a A or AA pitcher who might make the difference in a deadline deal this year for the Cubs. Unfortunately his 18 at-bats in June and July didn't help make that case -- but August and Sep sure did. I suppose he is injury protection for Soriano (but I'm not sure Piniella or Hendry see it that way) which isn't bad, but his value just keeps diminishing. Cubs fans have more observations, and certainly bias, but if another team were able to offer a package that was a mirror image of Murton, Cedeno, Hill, Pie -- as a contending team, what should the Cubs be willing to give up? DeRosa , Wuertz and Gallagher? Marshall, Hart, Donaldson, Vitters? They are letting value in terms of 2008 benefits to the Cubs or in the trade market diminish quickly.

Pushing Zambrano past 100 in the previous start against Pitt, with a 7-run lead, was equally questionable. But he'd had his short stint the start before that, so there was every reason to believe he'd be fine, and possibly could use a longer outing. I'll argue argue that 73-109-130 is a better progression than 73-90-130. (or whatever it would have been). If the real injury risk is "pitches thrown after being tired," the 109 pitches may have built up just a bit more stamina to go to 130. But it also highlights the difficulty of predicting the future. If the Cubs "knew" it would be close against the Dodgers, would they have pulled Z an inning sooner against Pitt? Neither Marmol or Wood entered that game -- and they are the pitchers most likely to be used in a one-run game. It wasn't really clear what Ascano could do (still isn't), and Marmol is the guy who typically comes in during an inning. Given that the first two batters (the top of the order) were retired -- Z was going well, and not yet beyond a reasonable pitch count threshold. As others have said, once there is a guy on, then two, who's the pitcher you'd most like to see on the mound? Someone named Carlos, and Marmol seemingly was given the day off. If it works well, and he can go anywhere between 85-100 in his next start, I think this becomes a non-issue. Piniella has shown a tendency to do just that sort of thing. I suspect we will see at least one more 120+ pitch outing this season, and I think that is a good thing. Come October (if it all works out), every team the Cubs face will know if they are trying to run up the pitch count against Zambrano by taking a lot of pitches, they are playing with fire. They just might "take" their way to a complete game victory for Z and the Cubs.

Except that it's not. He never had a season with a significant number of starts where he's more than 2 games under .500. Look at who else has been number 5 or better on the Cubs recently -- Rusch? Mitre? Estes? Maddux? Clement? They are all still floating around, and though Maddux is a wonder, Marquis is a clear upgrade on the others. Look at it this way, if your #5 starter is two games under .500, and your #4 starter is at .500, it's reasonable to expect your team to be at least 20 games over .500, with a strong performance from the pan and the rest of the rotation. Zambrano and Dempster have held up their ends this year, the others haven't. Yet, the problem in the rotation is the number 5 starter, even though they are .500 in his starts, and he has a better ERA than Lilly? There is every reason to believe Marquis will get bumped in the second half. Until then, he is performing exactly as would have been expected -- as a major league #5 starter. And no one has done enough to take that job away from him.

So, is it the money? If no other team wants the contract, the Cubs can either release him and take the hit, eat it in a trade, in which case they may get something back in value, or they can live with Marquis as a #5 starter who is paid like a #3 starter. Tribune's owner doesn't need the money -- so then the question is where does the better #5 starter for now come from? Is Gallagher a better #5 starter now? Hardly, though there is every reason to believe he could be next year or even later this year. Marshall? He didn't exactly set the world on fire last year, but if it is clear he can go 5+ innings, he may well be an improvement over Marquis -- except that right now, Marshall looks more likely to replace Gallagher than Marquis. Maybe the Cubs could swap #5 starters with someone else, say, Philly for Adam Eaton, Min for Boof Bonser, Wash for Odalis Perez, SD fr Randy Wolf, KC for Gil Meche? They are all major league starting pitchers, and (without going to deep on the varying stats) their career ERAs basically match what Marquis has done in the first half each of the last three years. Marquis even has at least one fewer start than any of those guys this year, because he is the one in the Cubs rotation most likely to be skipped. He is major league #5 starter. Until someone else can reliably perform better than Marquis in that role, he'll stay there. Clearly he fades in the second half (though occasionally he can do a decent job after the break). The Cubs know that. Piniella lived thru it last season and mentioned it this spring. Thus they have options (Leiber, Marshall, Gallagher, Hill?) for when they need them. But to act as though Marquis isn't a major league pitcher is just silly. Six innings, three runs is a 4.50 ERA. Six inning four runs is a 6.00 ERA. Somewhere in between is where #5 starters fall. As does Marquis, the Cubs #5 starter, who gets paid a bundle by Sam Zell, who has way more than a bundle.

On the TV broadcast, Kasper said Piniella had already stated that he would give Lee the night off, tonight. The logic seemed to be that with an off-day tomorrow, it would be a good rest. The conversation suggested Lee would object - he's seems willing to argue that a night off is a night at home watching TV, not coming to the ballpark, getting dressed and sitting in the dugout. I like the idea. Ramirez and Soriano have gotten "rest" due to injury, and it is really Lee and Fukudome who might be the first to show signs of fatigue. And Soto should be a concern, as well. If it were me, I'd arrange to give Soto Friday off and then rest him again on Sunday. That would mean the only player to worry about, on a general basis, would be Fukudome, and if anyone can benefit from day-in day-out for the first few months, it is him. For DeRosa, Theriot, Johnson -- there's enough depth that rest will work itself out. There also may be a small benefit to giving Hoffpauir a start, but that should get very little weight, if any. Kasper wondered if the outcome of last night's would have any impact in the decision. I can't imagine it would -- if Piniella determined Lee needs a day off, why would be it be different, win or lose the prior day?

I can't imagine managers of the major league teams spend any time consulting with minor league medical staffs. He is likely making those assumptions based on what he has heard from his normal source on the health of minor leaguers -- perhaps Hendry or someone close to Hendry. I think it was terrible decision to send Hill to the minors, but following that decision, I'm sure Piniella is waiting to hear that Hill has regained his control and is ready or close to being ready to help the Cubs.

Hmmm, I'd disagree with that sentiment. This board existed before Sean Gallagher was with the Cubs, right? This is not a high school player being discussed, who may or may not choose professional sports -- it's a major league athlete. Jim Hendry has a father, doesn't he? (Though perhaps he is no longer with us, I don't know.) If one of my parents chooses the internet to bask in the pleasure of my professional success, and it gets noticed by people who have an interest in or knowledge of my career, they'd have plenty of people ready to note what an ass I am. (But of course, they wouldn't, and if they didn't, it wouldn't get noticed.) I disagree that for a starter in May, Gallagher is better than Leiber and Marquis. I surely hope that for starter in Jul/Aug/Sep, and pitcher on the roster in the post-season, he's a better option than both those guys. And if Marquis' dad or Leiber's dad reads this, I don't have any apologies. It's my opinion of what is best for the Cubs. .

4 starts, 19.2 innings? And that's a positive? I think it is fair to conclude he had an issue with stamina in August last year. Here's one way to avoid a repeat -- don't try to get him from mid-May to August as a starter. Start someone else in mid-May. Make him a starter beginning in, say June. Now, if he loses steam in September, well that's no improvement, and it's a bad time of year to find out, but hopefully other options are available to get to the post-season. If he doesn't fade, he may stay strong through October. Or start him in mid-May. If he has improved his stamina a bit, but not a lot, he fades in August/September, and you are still looking for a replacement for the post-season. Or, he maybe he's a gutsy guy and tries to pitch through weariness and ends up injuring himself. For April and May, go with a #5 starter who pitches like a # 5 starter. Then try to upgrade, with guys who can make it through the rest of the season.

Last August Sean Marshall's ERA was 6.21 over 27.2 innings in six starts. He'd pitched 70 innings, and pretty good innings, leading up to that, starting in late May. Now, I suspect another year of experience will generate some extra knowledge and endurance, but banking on him to be effective from mid-May through October 2008 would be a foolish gamble. It is reasonable to prefer to live with an ERA around 5 and maybe better from Jason Marquis (4.45 in April) up until July, when they think they'll have both more knowledge of their younger pitchers, and more confidence that they won't fade before the end of the year. Why turn a bunch of young pitchers into Jason Marquis? A bet on Marquis to be an average bottom of the rotation starter for the first half of the season is a pretty good bet. One that is actually paying off. They are 3-4 in his starts. In one victory they bailed him out. In one loss, a good outing was wasted. One under .500 in games by a number 5 starter suggests something dramatically better than .500 in games by the starters who are better than he is. (edit for W-L thru 5/14)

7 starts, 39.1 innings, 5.26 ERA. That's roughly 6 innings per start, and less than four runs per start. I think in the major leagues, that's fifth-starter ability. He had three straight solid starts in April. Last year he did something similar, struggled in mid-May, then did a nice job in June, before the slow second half fade. Something similar happened in 2006. That's what Jason Marquis is. It's not worth $9 million, but it's also not my money. IF Rich Hill is in the minors for his own good, unrelated to whether he is one of the five best starting options on the Cubs, sticking with Marquis isn't such a bad option. Rookies rarely stay strong for the entire year -- whether it is Gallagher or Marshall, adding them to the rotation after the break (even though it means 7 more starts from Marquis) might be the right way to go. And if Hill can come back to the Cubs by end of May, they may just be able to get something decent out of Marquis, then be in a position to jettison him or let him rust in the pen.

That's a pretty contrived situation, especially since even scenario 2 likely results in at least a tie in the ninth. When the first guy in the eighth got on, a reliever should have been brought in. If your second best reliever gives up a double to the first batter he faces in the eighth, and it's indicative of the kind of pitcher he is, there is no post-season for your team. If Marmol can warm up more quickly than Wood, which I think is the case, that's the only reason you need to not have Marmol as the ninth inning "closer."

What's the most reliable way to get official weather updates from the Cubs? I have tickets, but can't spend all morning listening to the radio. Do they post updates on their web site anywhere? I can't seem to find any.

Fontenot has more at-bats than Cedeno, Johnson has more at-bats than Pie, Hill was on the shortest leash possible. Something there doesn't jive. I can see deviating from a general strategy in order to take advantage of a hot player, but why isn't Cedeno playing every day with Ramirez injured? If they weren't expected to be contributors this year, that would have been a pretty7 nice off-season package. Would it be better than what the O's got for Bedard? It probably would have gotten Roberts. Does this team have a general strategy for evaluating and breaking-in young players? I'll live with the Corey Patterson disasters if all promising young players get the same opportunity. Doesn't Pie have the credentials Patterson did? Did Matt Clement have a better track record with Florida than Hill did prior to this year? I'd even be okay if the strategy differed for pitchers and regulars. And exceptions when opportunities arise will always come up. But they sold high on Mitre (for Pierre?!), why not do the same with Hill? If they believe Hill is much more talented, then I think he deserved a better shot than he was given this year. And if Cedeno isn't a starter, doesn't he at least have to be the first infield sub?