davearm

I think betting on +/- 95 on the ERA+ scale is perfect. Marquis was signed to be a 5th starter. If he puts up an ERA+ in the mid-90s or better, he'll be doing that job effectively. FWIW, I'll take the over. This is a bit flawed. He was signed to a contract that pays him well over the average. He's not going to be the 5th starter. So I don't see the point in giving him the benefit of a sub average number to still be "doing his job". Contract has nothing to do with it. You don't line up your starting rotation from 1-5 based on salary. Marquis was most certainly signed to anchor the back of the rotation, behind Z, Lilly, Hill, and (ideally) Prior. Contract has everything to do with it. Do you think most of us would be nearly as pissed off about having Marquis here if we took a flier on him with a 1-3 million dollar contract? I don't. It was a terrible signing. Now some people want to say he'll be decent, some want to say he'll suck, and the people saying he'll be decent want to lower the standards of "suck?" Come on. Again, the contract has everything to do with it. Do you see people here starting threads about how bad Miller is and what a monumentally bad move it was to bring him in? I love it when people try to suggest that the contracts are irrelevant and that we shouldn't be worried about what the Cubs are spending on whom, as if they had unlimited resources and could just throw any amount of money at anyone. The Marquis signing is just another example of Hendry wasting resources on mediocre to bad talent. If you want to argue that Marquis is overpaid considering the role and expectations the Cubs have in mind for him, that's fine. You won't get much argument on that point from anyone. But that doesn't change what that role is, and what those expectations are, namely, back-of-the-rotation, league averageish innings eater. That's what Marquis was signed to provide, and an ERA+ of 95 or better would represent fulfilling that role adequately.

Contract has a lot to do with it. Ideally or not, he was signed as the 4th starter if anything. 5th starter has been discussed as a battle between Miller, Prior and kids ever since November. If he was a 5th starter then his status wouldn't have been as locked down as it is. There was never any question that he'd be in the major league rotation. He's not a 5th starter. His contract demands that he does a whole hell of a lot more than put up a 95 ERA+ type of season to be considered to have "done his job". I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, because my view is that Hendry will believe he got what he paid for if he gets 170+ IP of 95 or better ERA+ from Marquis. Whether the Cubs label him as a #4 or #5 starter is really pretty irrelevant. What's clear is that he's behind at least 3 guys (Z Lilly Hill), and a fourth if healthy (Prior). Call it #4.5 if you wish. Regardless, the expectations for a back-of-the-rotation guy like that are fairly modest.

Alcohol is not the only explanation for someone falling asleep at the wheel. Surely there are some other contributing factors here. It's even plausible that this could've happened had he not been drinking. That's not to defend Tony or try to minimize what he did. It's abundantly clear that he should not have been driving.

I think betting on +/- 95 on the ERA+ scale is perfect. Marquis was signed to be a 5th starter. If he puts up an ERA+ in the mid-90s or better, he'll be doing that job effectively. FWIW, I'll take the over. This is a bit flawed. He was signed to a contract that pays him well over the average. He's not going to be the 5th starter. So I don't see the point in giving him the benefit of a sub average number to still be "doing his job". Contract has nothing to do with it. You don't line up your starting rotation from 1-5 based on salary. Marquis was most certainly signed to anchor the back of the rotation, behind Z, Lilly, Hill, and (ideally) Prior.

Go watch the replay. He was so far inside that he was running on the grass. I'm not here to say Furcal is a bad man, or he deserves something bad to happen toh im. But he DID do something wrong. But so did Eyre in that matter. I've seen the replay. And if Furcal did something wrong, as you suggest, then why wasn't he called out for interference?

Gee thanks, I hadn't noticed. :roll: I hadn't really realized that your ENTIRE BODY must be on the inside of the base bath in order to touch first base, what was I thinking? They should get rid of that pesky rule whereby an out is called if a play that could have been made is an interference on the runner's part if he is inside the baseline. Why should he avoid a collision? Oh I don't know, this isn't hockey? He's not attempting to break up a throw to second or knock the ball out of the catcher's mitt on a play at the plate, so a collision doesn't provide any advantage, other than injuring the other team's best player I suppose. Why do I care if he apologized or not? I don't really, but showing some remorse for being involved in an unnecessary collision that leads to a guy being injured and unable to do his job seems sort of natural to me, but hey, I've never looked at a baseball diamond before. :roll: Did the umpires rule interference on Furcal? I seem to recall that they did not. And Furcal didn't go looking for a collision. He was looking for the fastest route to the base, just like anyone should expect him to on a bang-bang play. Unfortunately, DLee happened to step into that route trying to flag down his teammate's lousy throw. Considering the totality of circumstances, the obvious conclusion is that Furcal did nothing wrong. So perhaps you should kwitcherbichin and realize that, sadly, sometimes there's nobody to blame life's misfortunes on.

Why should he have to apologize for running to first base. If anyone should have had to apologize it should have been Eyre for that garbage throw. Furcal was just running to the base. Yeah, just running to the base on the inside of the base path, which was the reason for the collision. He shouldn't have been there in the first place. Though, an apology for running into a player's wrist and making no effort to avoid a collision would have been out of character for that jerk. You can't be serious. Go check out a baseball diamond sometime. What you'll notice is that the bases are on the fair side of the baseline. Therefore, if you intend to actually touch first base, by the time you reach it you must necessarily cross over from the runner's lane to the inside of the base path. Furcal did nothing wrong whatsoever. He's under no obligation to make an effort to avoid a collision. And why the heck do you care if the guy apologized or not?

I think betting on +/- 95 on the ERA+ scale is perfect. Marquis was signed to be a 5th starter. If he puts up an ERA+ in the mid-90s or better, he'll be doing that job effectively. FWIW, I'll take the over.

It's perfectly fine to be more outraged at a higher level. What's disgusting and ignorant is the dismissive attitude toward the light end. "That used to be legal." Nonsense like that is absurd. "That used to be legal" is not absurd nonsense. It's a fact. DUI is a legal definition, and one that has changed over time. By your absolute "DUI is DUI" logic, your reaction to the situation should change from whatever you'd label it now to basically no reaction at all if LaRussa had blown a 0.93 a couple of years ago instead of now. There are very few things I believe should be absolute, but DUI laws are one of them. The problem is that people try and turn drunk driving into a subjective thing: "I'm fine at .08," or other ways of trying to mitigate it. They have been lowering the limits for a reason, that they were too high. Just because a .93 wouldn't have garnered a reaction a few years ago doesn't make it remotely acceptable. And the level of drunkenness should not dictate the punishment. While people at lower levels may not be as dangerous, they still pose a real threat. And someone who is at .09 should be able to exercise more judgment than someone at .20 and not get in the driver's seat. And someone at .08 is just as capable of killing people on the road as some one at .20. If you drink and drive, you are definitively in the wrong. This is running pretty far afield of anything baseball related, but I have to disagree with you strongly here. DUI is not, and should not, be treated as an absolute. Driving after one drink is different than driving after 6, which is different than driving after 16. Each step of the way, you increase the danger to yourself and everyone around you. Anyone is capable of killing people on the road, even stone cold sober ones. The issue is that the sober ones are less likely to do so than the borderline drunk ones, and the borderline drunk ones are less likely to do so than the stumbling drunk ones. And some sort of graduated punitive system should reflect these realities. A 0.093 should be punished differently than a 0.193. None of this is to excuse what LaRussa allegedly did last night. He was absolutely in the wrong. But a relevant question to ask is, how far in the wrong was he? Or more specifically, how big of a risk did he pose out on the road last night? I'm not sure why the "DUI is DUI" crowd is either unable or unwilling to consider this question.

It's perfectly fine to be more outraged at a higher level. What's disgusting and ignorant is the dismissive attitude toward the light end. "That used to be legal." Nonsense like that is absurd. "That used to be legal" is not absurd nonsense. It's a fact. DUI is a legal definition, and one that has changed over time. By your absolute "DUI is DUI" logic, your reaction to the situation should change from whatever you'd label it now to basically no reaction at all if LaRussa had blown a 0.93 a couple of years ago instead of now.

The courts will take it into account. If he had been .25, it would have definitely been worse for him. How does that justify pretending this isn't a big deal? DUI is DUI. He's lucky he didn't kill anybody. Obviously he was in no shape to drive. You've said "DUI is DUI" twice now. That sure seems to ignore the fact that the societal risk increases in direct proportion to BAC. A driver at >0.20 presents a much different, and more serious, risk than the same driver at <0.10. For that reason, it's perfectly appropriate for people's level of outrage to be in proportion to the BAC reading, as well.

No they wouldn't. The other GMs around the league will realize that there's no chance of actually getting him with a claim, so why would they go out of their way just to piss off a fellow GM? What's the sense in doing that? i see no reason why jocketty wouldn't do that, if it could complicate how the cubs handle their roster to start the year. we're never going to make a big trade with the cards, so there's no reason to worry about bad feelings between organizations. Another GM filing a claim, knowing that the Cubs would just pull Prior back, has the following effects: * it pisses off Hendry; * it compromises the offending GMs image around the league; * it undermines the player's recovery process, further damaging the offending GM's image with players and agents. .. all for no direct benefit, and a very miniscule indirect benefit to the claiming GM and his club. Perhaps it's naive for me to think that professional courtesy and general business ethics would dictate that you don't screw around like that just because you can.

No they wouldn't. The other GMs around the league will realize that there's no chance of actually getting him with a claim, so why would they go out of their way just to piss off a fellow GM? What's the sense in doing that?

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.

Wrong? Hendry did a terrible job at constructing a team that lost 90+ games, how were people critical of his moves wrong? They were wrong about Jones. Stick to the subject. Jones hasn't fulfilled his contract yet. You are the one who decided to include criticism of Hendry under things people were wrong about. Those who were critical have proven to be much closer to right than those who have praised his moves. You are also stretching the truth a bit by suggesting people thought Jones would be as bad as Hundley. Jones ended up a little better than I thought, but still not anything to write home about. His performance was within the range of expectations, albeit on the topside. He could easily prove to be much worse in 2007 and 2008. Jason Marquis has shown he can be god awful or halfway decent. People who aren't expecting much out of him aren't wrong for not expecting much. No, they're wrong for assuming he'll be god awful, as many here are. Many of these same folks assumed the same thing about Jones a year ago.

Well said, CCP. You don't have to make any outlandish or unreasonable assumptions to reach the point where Marquis is league average or better (as he has been in two of the past three years). And if he is league average or better, that makes him a strong #5, and worth $7M for a team like the Cubs.

Wrong? Hendry did a terrible job at constructing a team that lost 90+ games, how were people critical of his moves wrong? They were wrong about Jones. Stick to the subject.

Of course it doesn't. But that's not the point at all. ok, so what is the point? The doomsday predictors don't know as much as they think they know. I love how everything someone says that they think someone will be terrible, someone else shows up to say that they "might not". Really geniuses? You're telling me that there's a chance he might be bad, and also a chance he might be good. Well, gee, that sounds, almost like every other player in baseball. Marquis last year was as bad as Pujols was good. If you start a thread about how Pujols is going to be great this year, I'm not going to come in the thread and say "Yeah, but he might be bad too! You dont know as much as you think you do!" That'd be fine if folks were merely saying "I think Marquis will be bad." But they're not. They're saying that he definitively *will* be bad, that Hendry is an idiot, that this contract is horrible, that this is Todd Hundley redux, and on and on and on. I think that's way over the top, and so I don't mind pointing out that the exact same sorts of things were being said last year about Jones, and they turned out to be wrong. Open your mind to the possibility that Marquis might actually be an asset and a key contributor, is all I'm saying. He was just that for our biggest rival for two of the past three years, after all.

I hated the Jacque signing, but I never thought he would be "absolute garbage." As far as Jacque being "above average," he was in the bottom 25% of qualified batters in OBP. and he had a .677 OPS against lefties. Predictions about his inability to get on base and his inability to hit lefties were spot on. I hope Marquis has an incredible season and the Cubs win the World Series, but I'd feel a lot better about the Cubs' chances if Marquis wasn't pitching every 5th day. If Marquis winds up with an ERA+ of 107 (matching Jones' OPS+ of 107 last year), I'll be happy to have him pitching every 5th day, and you should be too.

Of course it doesn't. But that's not the point at all. ok, so what is the point? The doomsday predictors don't know as much as they think they know.

Of course it doesn't. But that's not the point at all.

He was barely above average offensively. Even if the doomsday predictors said he would be below average, they had more evidence to say that than people had evidence to say he would be good. The point is that both of these bad ballplayers didn't deserve their contracts and Marquis more specifically doesn't deserve his rotation spot over someone like Guzman or Marshall, especially at 7 mil a season. You're making my point. The guy who many thought was absolute garbage actually turns out to be above average. Even despite the reams of statistical evidence (allegedly) suggesting otherwise. Could Marquis follow the same path? Sure seems plausible to me. Yet the doomsday predictors aren't really allowing for this possibility. For them, the jury's already in -- Marquis is trash, Hendry's an idiot, the contract's insane, blah blah blah. These folks really ought to learn from recent history not to jump to conclusions so quickly. So after 1 slightly above average seasons by Jacque Jones you feel comfortable coming to the conclusion that he's good? I'm comfortable coming to the conclusion that the doomsday predictors that all but guaranteed that Jones would be absolutely terrible (and Marquis will be absolutely terrible) don't know as much as they think they know.

He was barely above average offensively. Even if the doomsday predictors said he would be below average, they had more evidence to say that than people had evidence to say he would be good. The point is that both of these bad ballplayers didn't deserve their contracts and Marquis more specifically doesn't deserve his rotation spot over someone like Guzman or Marshall, especially at 7 mil a season. You're making my point. The guy who many thought was absolute garbage actually turns out to be above average. Even despite the reams of statistical evidence (allegedly) suggesting otherwise. Could Marquis follow the same path? Sure seems plausible to me. Yet the doomsday predictors aren't really allowing for this possibility. For them, the jury's already in -- Marquis is trash, Hendry's an idiot, the contract's insane, blah blah blah. These folks really ought to learn from recent history not to jump to conclusions so quickly.

It's worth noting that top prospect or not, Miller didn't get taken until the #6 pick. That leaves at least a glimmer of hope that guys won't come off the board in exact order of their ranking this year, either.

Let me first say that I tend to fall on the (more) optimistic side of the fence when it comes to Jason Marquis, but I'll be the first to admit that he could turn out to be a total flop. The point I wanted to make, though, is that one could go back through the last 8 or so pages of this thread and replace "Jason Marquis" with "Jacque Jones," and "ERA" with "OBP", and get back a thread that would be virtually identical to many that floated around here a year ago, all the way down to the Todd Hundley/worst contract in decades dramatics. The nature of the argument then vs. now is so similar it's uncanny. I think it's fair to say that in the case of Jones, the doomsday predictors have been incorrect -- so far at least.