davearm

How so? First and foremost, negligent usage by an inept manager that most likely led to some of his injuries. Secondly, the Cubs have more or less played along with the crowd who believes Prior is a wuss who isn't man enough to pitch through pain. They repeatedly said there's nothing wrong with him, when in fact, it turns out there was some serious problems. That's a highly disingenuous characterization of the situation. It was the doctors and the medical reports that were saying there's nothing wrong with Prior. And as I recall, that includes Prior's own doctor(s), whom he consulted with on his own. The Cubs were simply passing along those findings to the media when asked. The simple fact is that whatever serious problems existed (and when they existed) were a mystery to everyone until this spring -- Prior and his personal doctor(s) included.

This is a key point here. Look, what folks really need to realize is that things have reached the point where free agent signings are not measured on a typical good-to-bad scale. They're basically all bad, and it's simply a matter of degree. Seriously, go have a look at all of the FA signings throughout baseball for the last couple of years, and see how many significant ones (say $20M+) you can look at and go, "wow, that was a really great signing -- that guy's really underpaid." You won't find many, and a guy like Ted Lilly for 4/$40 is going to be one of the best ones out there. The truth is that GMs hate to be in the FA market looking to fill holes. But what they hate even worse is handing a regular job to an overmatched rookie that belongs in AA or AAA. Getting league average production from a Marquis or a Jones for $5-7M beats the heck out of getting an 8.50 ERA or a .600 OPS for $400K. So given proper context, Hendry's signings don't look nearly so bad.

LOL at Cameron Maybin being likened to some random AA player. If both Monroe and Maybin were on the Cubs, people would be pulling every last hair out of their head if Monroe was playing, and Maybin was left stuck in the minors. Think (Geo Soto)^3.

His 2003 season alone makes him worth every penny the Cubs have paid him to date. He doesn't owe the Cubs anything. With that said, I'd be interested in a Wood-type incentive based deal and I think Prior might take it. I could be wrong, but he's under the property of the Cubs for 2 more years. His contract can only go down a certain percentage (someone mentioned 20% earlier) by rules. Therefore, he cannot sign to a Wood-type contract of $1M + incentives. Prior certainly can sign for $1M + incentives prior to an arbitration hearing. Heck he could sign for the league min if he wanted to. But if the matter goes to arbitration, the figure the Cubs submit cannot be less than 80% of his 2007 number.

I think you're right about that. His problem before being moved to the pen was cramping.Exactly. Guzman was forced out of the rotation by recurring cramping/dehydration issues. Piniella/Hendry responded to the situation in the only logical way -- by finding a way to use him without bumping him up against his pitch count threshold. The "jerking him around" theory is highly flawed and a prime example of "blame it on Hendry/Piniella" syndrome.

I suspect this as well. I think it's likely that the Cubs' only chance to keep Prior for another year is to tender a contract and fork over the $3M.

Cedeno's AAA numbers suggest he can't possibly be as bad as he has shown in MLB. Meanwhile Cedeno's MLB numbers suggest he can't possibly be as good as he has shown in AAA. Hence, the most logical conclusion is that Cedeno's MLB potential lies somewhere in between his AAA numbers and his MLB numbers.

I don't necessarily think the argument impacts anything, but very few baseball players have EVER played under the pressure that Smarz faced while at ND. Not even those in the CWS. That Notre Dame-USC game was ridiculous pressure wise. That being said, I don't think that's an argument for bringing him up, but who cares if he makes an appearance or two. He gets a taste of wrigley, enjoys the excitement of a pennant race. He isn't gonna be used all that much. I know I'd enjoy it. I don't think a team in contention for the playoffs should be making September call-up decisions based on who will enjoy it most. Samardzija doesn't deserve a call-up, he hasn't been good this year, and has been terrible for much of it. There's absolutely no reason to even consider it. As for the pressure at ND storyline. A big league pitcher is going to deal with a hell of a lot more pressure than a freaking college receiver. Sorry badger, you're not getting called up. :wink:

The good thing is that the Cubs have allocated their payroll well. If you have $100M to spend, you'd want to distribute it to: ~5 big-dollar stars in the $10M+ category ~5 solid complementary players in the $4-$7M category 2 or 3 vets making a few million or less ~12 or so young guys making pre-arb money The thing you want to avoid is having to pour a big chunk of your payroll into too many guys in that $4-$7M middle class, forcing you to to skimp on the star, impact guys because your farm system can't adequately stock the bottom price tier. Fortunately the Cubs aren't in that situation. Then with that roster/payroll framework in place, you need your stars to produce like stars (Z, Lee, Soriano, ARam, Lilly); your complementary veterans to fill their roles (Jones, Marquis, Howry, Dempster, DeRosa); your veteran depth to contribute (Blanco, Floyd, Ward); a few of your kids to provide production that far exceeds their cost (Hill, Pie hopefully, Marmol); several more to hold their own in significant roles (Theriot, Wuertz, Fontenot, Marshall, Murton); and the rest to be adequate bench/bullpen contributors (Fox, Pagan, Pignatiello, Cherry, Petrick, Gallagher, etc). The Cubs certainly have the personnel in place to carry out the plan, so I feel pretty good about the future. Ideally, they'd use their surplus of guys in the bottom price tier in trades to upgrade their overall talent pool (in RF, particularly) without adding significantly to the payroll. Guys like Brad Hawpe and Alex Rios would be targets.

This tells me that the Cubs must plan to be ahead or behind by double-digits a few times in September.

Actually the whole system treads mighty close to collusion, IMO. Competitors are not allowed to work together to suppress or inflate prices, and obstruct market forces.

At the top, I'd go right back to what was working a month ago: Soriano Theriot Lee Ramirez 5 thru 8 goes: Jones CF (vs RHP)/Murton RF (vs LHP) DeRosa 2B Murton RF (vs RHP)/Jones CF (vs LHP) Kendall C Pitcher

I'd be willing to bet against the Cards (25-33 on the road) sweeping the Brewers (39-20 at home).

Because tons of people bet on the Cubs so when the Cubs finally win they can look like geniuses. But because it's such a popular bet, the odds are high. So essentially those "odds" say more about the betting habits of gamblers than it does about the likely hood of actually winning. Exactly. Betting odds are not probabilities.

Amongst the 59 pitcher in the NL with >100IP: Marquis' IP ranks 30th. Marquis' IP/GS ranks 44th. Marquis' VORP ranks 33rd.

Typically the guy replacing the injured starter is a minor leaguer, most teams dont usually have a swingman like the Cubs last year. BFD. Regardless of whether a replacement comes from the bullpen or from the minors, the very fact that he's a replacement immediately points to the conclusion that he's not as good as the guy he's replacing. Are you serious?BFD? You just completely contradicted your argument about the use of a swingman. Priceless Also thats BS saying since he is a replacement he is obviously not as good as the guy hes replacing. That is a big load of crap. Where did I contradict my argument? My argument: Regular starter > swingman replacement. Regular starter > minor league replacement. Either one is a downgrade from the regular starter, so whenever the regular starter can't take the ball, he's hurting his team and putting added stress on the rest of the pitching staff.

Well "into the 6th inning" is completely different than "past the 6th inning". For the math impaired, there's a whole inning's worth of difference there. So let's see if we can make some sense of this jumbled statement. Most guys regularly pitch into the 6th inning -- Marquis has done so almost always (21 of 24 starts). Fewer guy regularly pitch past the 6th inning. Marquis has done so in exactly half of his starts (12 of 24). So the INTO part he most certainly does consistently. The PAST part he does half the time. What does that have to do with whether or not he eats innings? Quit trying to distort the issue. LOL! Some bigtime pot-kettle stuff there. Perhaps if you'd have heeded your own advice earlier, you wouldn't have your feelings hurt now.

Typically the guy replacing the injured starter is a minor leaguer, most teams dont usually have a swingman like the Cubs last year. BFD. Regardless of whether a replacement comes from the bullpen or from the minors, the very fact that he's a replacement immediately points to the conclusion that he's not as good as the guy he's replacing.

No people brought up that Marquis was signed as an "innings eater" and they say hes been doing that. Anze and Myself are arguing that he isnt doing that, as he rarely makes it into and past the 6th inning. Marquis had a good first month in a half and outside of that all of his stats are horrible plain and simple. What you meant to say is, Marquis rarely doesn't make into the 6th.

Who are you referring to consistently not making it into the 6th inning? Surely not Marquis. He's pitched into the 6th in all but 3 starts this year. But don't let those pesky facts get your way. This is just precious. Did you not see the absolutely horrific numbers that the Cubs' replacement starters had last year? You really want to live through that again? Runs allowed has nothing to do with eating innings. Once again your attempt to distort the question is obvious. Although I'm again curious about who you're referring to here, since Marquis has an ERA much closer to 4 than 5.

And what do you suppose happens to the bullpen when a guy like Rusch is forced to start a game because the scheduled starter can't go? Now you've got starter that's even more likely to leave the game early, but one fewer BP arm available to deal with the added stress. what in the world does that have to do with the argument at hand? i know rusch is/was a terrible pitcher. i don't know what you're getting at with that post. I thought the point was rather obvious. When a guy can't make a start, typically the guy that's forced to replace him is some blah swingman like Rusch. The result is added stress on the bullpen when the guy gets roughed up early, or simply doesn't have the stamina to go deep into the game. We saw this happen again and again and again last year with the parade of replacement starters the Cubs were forced to roll out. You said it yourself -- the Cubs' pen was the most overworked in the NL. That's because they didn't have anyone (besides Zambrano) to eat innings and save the bullpen. Marquis does that.

And what do you suppose happens to the bullpen when a guy like Rusch is forced to start a game because the scheduled starter can't go? Now you've got starter that's even more likely to leave the game early, but one fewer BP arm available to deal with the added stress. The fact is that the Cubs' pen was so overworked last year precisely because they didn't have a guy like Marquis to eat innings at the back of the rotation. Instead they were forced to hand out starts to guys like Walrond, O'Malley, Rusch, Jerome Williams, Mateo, and on and on. The results were as ugly as they were predictable.

LOL. 30th in the NL in IP; 55th in MLB in IP. Both figures would put him as a fringe #2, top #3 innings eater. A few NL notables behind him: Smoltz, Zito, Sheets, Odalis Perez, Chris Young. I'd suggest you retreat back to the trend mullarkey. He's talking about average innings per start. Zito is the only guy who is averaging fewer innings per start, and that's because he's been terrible this year. There is something to be said for health, but that wasn't the gist of his post. Chris Young, IIRC, has issues with his hands/fingers numbing. http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c194/vh2k6/ipperstart-1.gif Well then the gist of his post is misguided. I'm sure he wants to twist the argument to focus just on average innings per start, but that doesn't make it appropriate. Look each team has ~1500 innings that have to be pitched over the course of a 162 game schedule. The only question at hand here is how big of a piece of that pie is Marquis biting off. And the answer is that Marquis has helped the Cubs more than the guys that average a few tenths of an inning more per start, but have missed multiple starts. When a guy can't take the ball, the team has to scramble to find a replacement. That takes just as much of a toll on the staff, if not more. I wouldn't go so far as to call health a skill, but showing up and taking the ball every fifth day is absolutely an important part of the "innings eater" equation we're talking about here. I know you have to leave that element out if you want to get anywhere bashing Marquis, but that doesn't make it correct.

LOL. 30th in the NL in IP; 55th in MLB in IP. Both figures would put him as a fringe #2, top #3 innings eater. A few NL notables behind him: Smoltz, Zito, Sheets, Odalis Perez, Chris Young. I'd suggest you retreat back to the trend mullarkey.

Hes not a 5th starter, hes a number 3. No he is not. He is 4th at best in this rotation. Zambrano Lilly Marquis Hill Marshall is how the rotation is set. Hes number 3 in the rotation and is paid like a number 3, its not that difficult to see. LOL what a reach. Earlier in this thread you made a big point of how silly it is to harp on a guy's spot in the rotation. Now you're clinging to it as your argument crumbles with each new post showing how wrong you are. Look Marquis was signed to eat innings and provide a league-averageish ERA at the back of the rotation, behind Z, Lilly, Hill at least, and possibly behind another developing youngster (Guzman, Marshall being the top two contenders at the time Marquis was signed). Wanna argue that Marquis is not providing exactly what he was signed to provide? That $7M sure seems like money well spent when you consider what this team suffered through last year using unproven/unready kids at the back end when there was nobody like Marquis around.