CubColtPacer

It wasn't his stuff that was a problem when he came up to the majors though-it was his control. If he gets better control, he could be effective even at 89-90 with all the movement on his pitches.

I don't see any reason why he needs that. He's not lacking playing time on his resume. I don't see him learning anything more by playing everyday in AAA as opposed to subbing at the major league level. At some point guys have to sink or swim. The time for keeping guys in the minors playing everyday is when they are 21/22 with minimal professional experience. Cedeno is 24 and has plenty of experience. Now he has to establish himself as a major leaguer, and hope to be good enough to one day start. He had a good '04, was blistering in '05, and started out '06 on fire. Then he slumped after being overexposed to Dusty. I really think he can turn it back around with a little patience, and I think he's young enough to get it with the right coaching. If the choice is Izturdis or Cedeno, I'd rather see what Perry can do with Cedeno over the course of the year. At least with Ronny, there's a sliver of hope. Izturdis is going to hit like, well, like a turd. That's already known. I would argue that Izturis has shown just as much possibility for hope as Ronny has, but that's an old argument, so I'll probably stop there :D

At this point, I don't really care about what's best for Cedeno's development. I didn't think he stood a chance of being a good regular a few years ago. But I was intrigued by his brief success a couple seasons ago. Now that's he's 24, with about 3000 professional PA, I'm not worried about finding him playing time. He's a perfectly acceptable $350,000 backup middle infielder. I would tend to agree with that-he's the backup that stays on the bench in case somebody gets hurt and should only really pinch-hit if some of the other pinch-hitters have already been used. He would probably end up playing SS on the days Izturis didn't play there.

Also, if Theriot proves he can play CF it might spell the end for Pagan in favor of another backup middle infielder. let's hope so. Well, the alternative might be Cedeno, so I don't know how happy I'd be-Cedeno on the bench would maybe not be the best thing for him, but it would probably give the Cubs greater flexibility than if Pagan was on the bench (since the Cubs would still have Murton/Soriano/Jones/Floyd/Ward/Theriot/DeRosa to play the 3 outfield spots if needed, while right now they only have DeRosa/Izturis/Aramis/Theriot to play the 2B, SS, and 3B-they need another body there, especially since people like DeRosa, Izturis, and Aramis will have more days off than people like Soriano). If they don't bring another infielder along with Theriot, then it becomes hard to pinch-hit Theriot, and I wouldn't be too happy about that.

Also, if Theriot proves he can play CF it might spell the end for Pagan in favor of another backup middle infielder.

What does this mean? Will you be shocked if he has an era between 4 and 6? Marquis' ERA will definitely be a predictions contest category. Be sure to enter. I meant that the range of possibilities for Marquis is much bigger than most pitchers because he has no consistent year-his ERA is either good to great or terrible, with nothing in between.

Soriano.

That's true-and there was an article lately that had the difference between a good hitting pitcher and a poor hitting pitcher as something like .4 ERA, right? I think that was about the difference-it was somewhere in between .3 and .6 extra value that a good hitting pitcher brought to a team over a really poor hitting one. I'm interested and would like a link. Here it is-thanks to IMB for helping me remember where to look: http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/hitting-pitchers/ They have the difference between the best hitting pitchers and the worst at about half a run of ERA.

That's true-and there was an article lately that had the difference between a good hitting pitcher and a poor hitting pitcher as something like .4 ERA, right? I think that was about the difference-it was somewhere in between .3 and .6 extra value that a good hitting pitcher brought to a team over a really poor hitting one.

I edited my post-I didn't read your post on DERA or NRA until after I had finished my post, and as I said in that post, I'd need to know the exact calculations that went into it before attaching the credibility to I that it probably deserves. Which means you'll be coming back to admit he's not a league average pitcher in 3...2....1... Let's just say this-not anytime soon. Although I freely admit that I will not be surprsied if Marquis has an ERA below 4 or an ERA above 6, and there's not many pitchers I can say that about.

I edited my post-I didn't read your post on DERA or NRA until after I had finished my post, and as I said in that post, I'd need to know the exact calculations that went into it before attaching the credibility to it that it probably deserves.

I'm saying you can't call all 3 years as luck and defense-3 good years out of 6 with 2 different clubs is not likely to be luck. He started out with more strikeouts and walks in 01, and then in 04 he cut down on both his strikeouts and walks. Don't you think Marquis must be doing something to create some of this "luck" to have as many good years as he has had? http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/marquja01.php If you look at these numbers, and in particular the NRA and DERA numbers (click them for an explanation), you'll find that Marquis actually only has two good seasons (good = anything above average) and that he's had the benefit of pitching in front of a good defense every year of his career. I also see how they have him as about a career league average pitcher-which is how I see him, an average pitcher. Edit: When I said that, I was looking at his translated statistics, which I'm still not sure about either-I would have to know the exact calculations that went in to DERA and NRA before I'm ready to attach the credibility to it that it probably deserves.

I'm saying you can't call all 3 years as luck and defense-3 good years out of 6 with 2 different clubs is not likely to be luck. He started out with more strikeouts and walks in 01, and then in 04 he cut down on both his strikeouts and walks. Don't you think Marquis must be doing something to create some of this "luck" to have as many good years as he has had?

and 2001 was the same way? Is it really that likely that a pitcher would have 3 highly lucky years out of 5? He actually knew what a strikeout was in 01. It's pretty damn obvious that he can't strike guys out, walks too many and wasn't even a groundball pitcher in 2005-2006. The difference between 2001 and 2004 for strikeouts and walks was decently small: 01: 6.8K/9 4.1BB/9 K/BB ratio-1.66 04: 6.17K/9 3.13BB/9 K/BB ratio-1.97 I don't see how 01's numbers are so much better than 04's, in fact they are a little worse overall-they are a little better than 05 though.

and 2001 was the same way? Is it really that likely that a pitcher would have 3 highly lucky years out of 5?

Yeah I agree. He could go out an perform well and shut some of these critics up. But right NOW, none of them will say it is in ANY WAY possible. Just like they did for Jones. They had him not batting above .250 with an OBP not at .300. Yeah, that bet that somebody made to give everybody something if Jones accomplished certain marks came a little closer than he wanted, although by the last week he was safe. :D

Basically these stats boil down to 2 things: Marquis is not a strikeout pitcher, and Marquis had a horrible year last year. Those are important to know, as is the next post that points out that Marquis's good years have been his first couple years with a new club.

Problem for them is that since they didn't beat any of the good teams they played earlier(they still play Mo. State, but they're a bubble team), and the Big South is so terrible(29th of 32 Conferences in RPI) that they'll likely be in a situation like last year, having to beat a real good team in the first round(they're 3-4 against the RPI Top 200). True, but they'll probably be better than a 15 seed like they were last year. Bracketology has them as a 12 right now, and if they finish out the year strong I don't see too many teams passing them that are that far down, so they would be at least a 13 in that scenario-facing a 4 or a 5 seed is a lot easier than facing a 2. And the fact that they are undefeated in conference this year (they had 3 losses in conference last year) and that they have 3 less losses right now than last year won't hurt either. Well, yes, if you want to what actually matters or something silly like that :D

Problem for them is that since they didn't beat any of the good teams they played earlier(they still play Mo. State, but they're a bubble team), and the Big South is so terrible(29th of 32 Conferences in RPI) that they'll likely be in a situation like last year, having to beat a real good team in the first round(they're 3-4 against the RPI Top 200). True, but they'll probably be better than a 15 seed like they were last year. Bracketology has them as a 12 right now, and if they finish out the year strong I don't see too many teams passing them that are that far down, so they would be at least a 13 in that scenario-facing a 4 or a 5 seed is a lot easier than facing a 2.

Z said he would accept a 5 year deal-so 5/90 would be the equivalent of Zito's offer. I'm sure it will go up to somewhere like 5/94 or 5/95 before it's all said and done, but I wouldn't call it insulting.

I wouldn't quite go that far: Soriano's best 3 OPS+ Numbers 132, 131, 128 Matthews 119, 109, 101 I'm not trying to compare which one is better-it is obvious that it is Soriano. Soriano's 2006 campaign was not nearly as much of an aberration as Matthews though-in fact, Soriano has had 2 other years that were very close to it in OPS+, while Matthews was much better than any season previously.

People need to get over the TE fascination. The Bears TE group is fine. There are only a handful (maybe 5?) really good TE in football. Unless you get one of those, there's no reason to be spending 1st round picks on them. Every year there's 2-3 guys who are considered can't miss TE who are picked early and flame out. Clark/Heap/Crumpler/Gates/Gonzalez/Whitten/Shockey/Winslow( So and no, goony, the Bears TE core is not fine. I like Desmond Clark, so he is solid, but Gilmore/Reid are practice squad caliber TE. So yeah, count me as one who believe the Bears offense would be better, if they had an IMPACT TE on the team. TEs are having bigger impacts on Offense in today's game, then ever before, and if the Bears continue to "ignore" the problem, it's going to hurt the offense. Not to mention neither Bradley/Berrian have established themselves as "true threats" consistantly. So, until then, I like to give Grossman, or whoever will be the QB in 2007 as many OFFENSIVE weapons as possible. Ignoring the TE is a problem, because sooner or later you will have to replace Clark. So to get Olsen/Miller or Chandler this yr, would go a long ways to help the offense. So goony, it's not a "TE fascination", it's fact. If the Bears miss out on a TE in this yr's draft, then perhaps Angelo is "asleep at the wheel." I heard the same crap last year and the Bears went from a bottom of the barrel scoring team to top of the league. Blahblahblah. Clark is perfectly fine. How many teams have better backup TE's than the Bears, and how does that make a difference? Actually, several names just on that list have better backup (or 2nd) TE's than the Bears. Dallas, SD, Colts come to mind (along with the Patriots and Titans to name a couple that are not on that list)-2 tight end sets can be very productive. I actually think running 2 tight ends more would be very good for Grossman-it allows the Bears to still run the ball effectively while having an extra middle of the field outlet for him.

This DID happen yesterday, after all! She must be a demon in the sack. ;) It actually happened on Monday night, but nice try.

Z Hill Lilly Prior Miller Marquis becomes a long man. My guess is that someone (Marquis, Hill, Prior, or Miller) will get traded for a SS who can hit at the end of July. If they're all healthy, to begin the season Miller makes the most sense there...I don't think you can trade marquis till June or so since we just signed him... Z, Hill, Lilly, Prior, Marquis That probably makes much more sense. I just have no confidence in Marquis at all. He's been through Duncan and Mazzoni and they both couldn't "figure him out". I have no faith that Larry will do any better. On the flip side, Marquis has been great in his first year with each of his two clubs (if you disregard the cup of coffee he had in 2000), so I'm hoping that extends to the Cubs as well.

I'll send everyone a pm with the League ID & password. You'll need a Y! account, if you don't already have one. We still need to figure out what type of draft to have. Live online (where you can be there in person or just preset your rankings) or offline. I'm fine with either, though if we do live online, it could take a long time to draft 250 or so players. On the other hand, as anyone who has been following the other fantasy league draft on nsbb knows, if you do offline in baseball, you'll probably have a couple people pick a player that's already been taken. I'll see what the options are for live online drafts tomorrow. If we can do it online through Y! but over a few days rather than try to hammer it out in a few hours, that might be best. I can't see how it would take you more than 2, 2 1/2 hours at the absolute very most to pick your players in a 10 team league-just letting you know so that you have more information when trying to decide what type of draft to have.