CubColtPacer

When we are talking about the strength of the team, there are a lot of terms thrown around about different players-from above average to terrible-of course, those terms mean different things for each person. So, I thought it would be interesting if people would post 4 possible things: their expectation for each person, what they would consider over-performing from this person, what they would consider under-performing, and for players who they feel need to justify their contracts, what numbers they need to get to to be worth their contract. I'm only going to use OPS and ERA here (because I don't have a great deal of time at the moment) but feel free to expand on that. Barrett- Expected-840, over-880, under-790 Lee- Expected-940, over-1020, under-850 DeRosa-Expected-750, over-810, under-700, contract-750 Izturis-Expected-660, over-710, under-600 Ramirez-Expected-890, over-930, under-850 Murton-Expected-820, over-850, under-760 Jones-Expected-790, over-830, under-745 Soriano-Expected-870, over-920, under-815 Zambrano-Expected-3.35, over-3.00, under-3.70 Hill-Expected-3.80, over-3.30, under-4.40 Lilly-Expected-4.15, over-3.70, under-4.70, contract-4.2 Marquis-Expected-4.40, over-4.00, under-4.80, contract-4.5 Prior/Miller-Expected-4.25, over-3.50, under-5.00 Anyone else want to give it a try on what they expect out of these players?

I sure did. It's hard not to when someone pitches as flat out awesome as he has for the Cubs. It's not like he's come across as some kind of terrible human being...why wouldn't people "warm up" to him? I wholeheartedly agree with this. Prior was my favorite pitcher in 03-don't get me wrong, I loved Wood, but Prior made it look so easy that it was wonderful. I went to game 2 of the Atlanta series, and the Braves fans were talking about how impressive Wood was, but that they weren't sure if Prior was any good or not. I turned around and asked him if they had ever seen him pitch, and they said no. I said "Wait for game 3...you're in for a treat." Then he went out and beat Maddux in that game-also the Bonds-Prior staredown from earlier that season was beautiful as well. By that time, I think everyone was prepared for some of the Wood injuries (we had been hearing about his mechanics for years) but the Prior injuries hurt badly because they were so unexpected. I'd love to see him make a comeback and be that pitcher again, and I hope his shoulder cooperates one day.

what's so "proven" about marquis? that he's put up one slightly better than average year in the past five? wow, that's something to get excited about. and if marquis pitches anything like he did last year, i'd prefer that he not handle the work load of a full season. putting up a 5.50 era for 175 innings is pretty worthless. And I can ask you what's so proven about Gooz and Marshall? Again, nothing is a sure thing and I'd rather have too much pitching then not enough. If Gooz and Marshall are so much better they'll get their shot. no they won't. they're not going to bump marquis out of the rotation no matter how bad he is. oh, and guzman and marshall have proven that their paychecks are a lot smaller than marquis'. i'd agree with you that i'd rather have too much pitching than not enough, but not if you're paying 7 mil a year to the worst pitcher in baseball. Since when is he the worst pitcher in baseball? Are you kidding me? since the day the season ended? he had the worst era of any pitcher with more than 190 innings. he had the lowest vorp among pitchers with that many innings. carlos silva and joel pineiro gave him a run for his money, but they pitched less than him so what he "added" to the team hurt more. One bad (and it was, yes, REALLY bad) season after two solid ones should not qualify Marquis as the worst pitcher in baseball. It's not like he doesn't have decent stuff, and hes 28. With all the people on the boards who go on and on about "past preformance", I think I will use it in this case. Who cares what Marquis did last year? His combined ERA in the previous two seasons before 2006 was under 4. If Rothschild really found somthing he can fix, Marquis could be a huge bargian and pitch well. who cares what he did last year? are you kidding me? Not what I ment and you know it. Just saying thats what some people pretty much say about DeRosa. I think that's a somewhat good comparison (a little iffy in that Marquis has had another couple bad years in his career while DeRosa really hasn't had another very good year, but close enough)-if Marquis had a 2006 like his 04 and 05, he would have easily got 4/44 or more in this market-so he played himself out of quite a bit of money. DeRosa would probably have made about a million again as a utility player, and one good season propelled him to a over 4 million a year contract. The situations are pretty similar, and so should the questions if they are going to rebound to what they did previously, or if they are going to be what they were like last year. The interesting thing is, for the best results to happen, they both involve a change in style-batting stance for DeRosa (that he changed already), and pitching mechanical flaws for Marquis that were supposedly fixed this offseason.

I can't decide if that makes it more likely that GT will win in the Gator Bowl or lose-my first instinct was like when any starting QB goes out, that this would make them much more vulnerable-when I stopped to think about it, I'm not so sure about it-depending on Bennett's talent level, it might actually make them better, especially if Bennett will get the ball to Calvin Johnson.

I definitely agree with this. The offseason is almost over and the payroll is not that close to the limit yet. If Floyd is healthy, then the splitting of time will likely be an upgrade, and when you consider the help to the bench it will certainly be an upgrade to the current team. If he struggles or is not healthy, he is not being depended on to be a starter, Murton will play most everyday, and the money that would just stay unspent otherwise is simply overpaying for a decent bench player (even if he struggles, he'll still be a pretty good bench option).

what's so "proven" about marquis? that he's put up one slightly better than average year in the past five? wow, that's something to get excited about. and if marquis pitches anything like he did last year, i'd prefer that he not handle the work load of a full season. putting up a 5.50 era for 175 innings is pretty worthless. He's had 5 years with at least 15 starts-he's been very good, good, and slightly above average in 3 of those-in the other 2, one of them was bad, and one of them was simply awful. He also had 1 season in the bullpen thrown in where he was very bad also. While he's been way up and way down, I certainly think you're understating his career to insinuate that he has not had significant times during his career where he has pitched as an above average starter to go with the significant times where he has pitched as a below average or worse starter.

Replacing cedeno with Izturis is at best a lateral move. I would say at worst it's a lateral move-there will likely be a small upgrade offensively (probably around 30-40 points of OPS, with 25-30 points of that coming from OBP) and a decent upgrade defensively. The contract is a different story, but Izturis's 2007 is probably going to be a lateral move at its worst from Cedeno's 2006 campaign. It may be an upgrade over what we got from Cedeno last year, but I hardly imagine Izturis will provide four million dollars worth of upgrades over what Cedeno is capable of this coming year. I would agree with that-I just said that because these posts in these threads are talking about just the upgrades on the field, not really the contracts. Was the upgrade to Cedeno to Izturis worth the money that Izturis commands? No-most likely not. Is SS going to be better this year than it was last year? Almost certainly yes.

To make such a proclamation is a bit premature, I would think. I would agree with you that DeRosa is better with the glove than Walker, and better with the bat than Neifi. But to state that this makes him "better by far" than those two is a logical fallacy. If I were to state to you that DeRosa were considerably worse with the bat than Walker, and considerably worse with the glove than Neifi, would that be enough to say he'd be "worse by far?" For my money, I would have rather retained Walker over DeRosa any day of the week... though I will do my best to give DeRosa a chance to prove last year wasn't so far above his head as I believe it to be. I would agree with that-DeRosa is a little bit of Neifi mixed with a little bit of Walker. If he hits even somewhat close to last year (anything over a 750 OPS) he'll be an upgrade at the position. He goes between a 700-750, and with his defense he'll probably be about the same as Walker/Neifi. Under a 700, and he becomes a definite downgrade at the position.

Replacing cedeno with Izturis is at best a lateral move. I would say at worst it's a lateral move-there will likely be a small upgrade offensively (probably around 30-40 points of OPS, with 25-30 points of that coming from OBP) and a decent upgrade defensively. The contract is a different story, but Izturis's 2007 is probably going to be a lateral move at its worst from Cedeno's 2006 campaign.

Well, I have reached the title game with a rotation of QB's. Here are the ones currently on my roster: Trent Green vs Oakland Jake Delhomme vs Atlanta Big Ben vs Baltimore I also have the options of free agent quarterbacks like: Alex Smith vs Arizona David Garrard vs NE Jay Cutler vs Cincy Any opinions?

Unfortunately for you, the Chargers haven't quite clinched HFA yet-LT will be his own self this week, and then they'll see if they can rest him in week 17 or not.

Sure, if that's a guarantee, but I don't buy it. I think Lilly/Marquis at 200 IP each would give you better years than Guzman/Marshall over 200 IP each. But that's MY opinion vs. yours... I really don't think Guzman or Marshall would have to do much to outpace Marquis 2005 and 2006 numbers. As Goony said, stable badness isn't worth much. I don't see how it pitching 200 bad innings is worth anything, 2006 definitely, but 2005? I think Guzman or Marshall would have to do a little more than you think to become a slightly above average pitcher in the league like Marquis was in 2005 (4.13 ERA, 103 ERA+). I think you're right, but I also think it's entirely possible for them to achieve that, either individually, or combined. I agree-and I think if we sent out our 5 rookies as our starters next year, at least one of them would have a great year. I think all of them have the potential to put up a season like that, but the problem is that I'm not sure which one it would be. I think any one of them alone only has a small chance of being the starter who breaks out. If one of them does end up spending a significant amount of time in the rotation though, they shouldn't automatically be dismissed from having that type of season-just IMO, a heavy dose of skepticism instead.

This still upgrades the team for next year. Is it nearly as much as upgrading some of the other positions? No-but a Floyd/Murton platoon (which I hope isn't a straight platoon, but hopefully at least more of an equal share of the at-bats (with my real hope that Murton gets at least a decent majority, but I will happily settle for equal) will likely outproduce what Murton can do by himself. In addition, that means a big bat is going to be sitting on the bench every single day, which means the Cubs will finally have some good options coming off the bench in key situations. While I agree with the poster above that Murton is not a problem and therefore shouldn't have been nearly the highest priority to upgrade, this still makes the team better in 2007.

Sure, if that's a guarantee, but I don't buy it. I think Lilly/Marquis at 200 IP each would give you better years than Guzman/Marshall over 200 IP each. But that's MY opinion vs. yours... I really don't think Guzman or Marshall would have to do much to outpace Marquis 2005 and 2006 numbers. As Goony said, stable badness isn't worth much. I don't see how it pitching 200 bad innings is worth anything, 2006 definitely, but 2005? I think Guzman or Marshall would have to do a little more than you think to become a slightly above average pitcher in the league like Marquis was in 2005 (4.13 ERA, 103 ERA+).

Again, in fairness, nobody has any idea if Marquis even wants to wear #21 right now-it's all just speculation because of what his number was before.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2607 I understand the point, but without the threat of the stolen base some of those disruptions by a runner on first do not exist, such as the first baseman could simply play back. That suggests a team should steal just enough to keep the threat very much alive in the opponents heads, but no more. Do they factor errors into the equation when calculating the percentage though, if it be the pitcher mis-throwing the pickoff throw or the catcher throwing the ball into center field?

I think the rule is that if it is ruled a fumble, the Bengals would get the ball at the point of the fumble (therefore the same as a sack).

Carson Palmer should know to never run backwards against the Colts D. The Colts ends like to rush outside, and frequently are behind the QB-if the QB starts running backwards, things like that can happen. Not that I'm complaining-let's go Colts! :D

Negative points are possible because there are deductions for things like giving up points. I got negative points from Grossman in one of my leagues a few weeks ago. Yes, everyone knows negative points are possible, but the odds of the Cincy defense giving up the 40 or so points necessary to get negative points without getting any sacks, fumble recoveries, or picks are quite small. In the standard yahoo scoring, a team gets -1 for giving up 28 or more, and -4 for giving up 35 or more-I could easily see the Cincy defense giving up 35 and only getting 1 turnover, which would give them a -2 overall. I would bench them. Of course, the Colts defense might give up even more-but that's another discussion. :D

Go to baseball reference, and then choose a franchise and year. I'm linking the 1998 Mariners to this post-once on a team page, one of the options right above team batting is a link to all the batting orders that a team used that year. It's actually quite interesting. http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/SEA/1998.shtml

It looks like it's taken from Muskat's last mailbag, and she is probably referencing the one where Lou talks about the batting order. You're right, it was a couple weeks ago that he said that, and we talked about this last week as well. My guess is DeRosa becomes the #2, which will push Izturis to 8-but other players could slide in at number 2 as well, as I'm pretty sure Lou wasn't at all settled with any lineup yet.

So do I and all the options are bad except finding a CFer or keeping JJ. Keeping Jones and playing him in CF is not a bad option. It's a mediocre option, but not bad. I think that's what he was saying, the options are bad except .... keeping JJ. I think the bad options are using DeRosa in the OF and playing Theriot everyday, or starting Pie. Jones in CF is the best realistic option at this point, unless some trade target becomes available. From the quotes that keep coming out, I don't think that the Cubs are planning to play Jones in CF whatsoever. Look at the quote carefully-it says for Soriano to play one of the corners, they first have to move Jones. If Jones ends up not getting moved, I bet the defensive alignment will have Soriano in center and Jones in right, although the Cubs would prefer to trade Jones, sign a center fielder, and have Soriano in right.

why? because i'm tired of hearing the "drew's going to fail in boston because he's not their kinda guy" stuff. it's weird how people somehow think they know players. not sure how you're not doing the same thing in this case. but I think the gist of the argument is people knowing a fanbase, not a player. while generalizations tend to be dangerous, there's a history here and general sentiments do develop. I personally would love to see Drew on the Cubs. but he's not, nor is he on a rival of the Cubs. thus, I don't give a rats ass how he does. not sure why that would be a badge of honor for you. how am i doing the same thing? and i didn't say it would be a badge of honor for me. well apparently you purport to know he will handle the pressures in Boston just fine, so apparently you know the player. of course you didn't say it would be a "badge of honor." but what would you call having some irrational hope that some player on a team you presumably don't care about does well simply to show you were right on a message board? sure Drew is a fine player, but do you really have this affinity for him or do you want this odd couple of Drew and Boston to work out just for the 'badge of honor' of saying I told you so? fine...you got me. i was going to get t-shirts printed up that say "i was right about jd drew, idiots!" haven't you ever just wanted people who say stupid things to be proven wrong? that's all i'm saying. hope that's good enough for you. People who say that the marriage between Boston and Drew will not work out are now saying something stupid? It may work out, but it's perfectly reasonable to say that it won't. 1) The majority of fans already hate the signing-being in Boston, they will certainly let him know that early and often. 2) Drew has been characterized as soft by former teammates, and I think that included mentally as well as physically (especially since Dodger teammates said that as well, where Drew didn't miss much time physically). 3. Drew doesn't do enough in the "traditional" stats to appease the common fans even if he is playing well for the amount of his contract. 4. There is still the possibility that he will get hurt for at least part of one of the next couple years, and that will make an angry fanbase even angrier. 5. The media in Boston will be all over everything, and Drew by his characterizations seems like somebody who would be affected by what the media said about him. If it works out for them, great. It's going to be much harder working out in a frenzied city like Boston though than if he had gone to a place where the spotlight was a little less bright.

It was a very entertaining game. Both teams played hard, IU got some lucky bounces on a couple 3's, and then the rebounding and turnover edge really helped IU. It was fun to watch a game with so much defensive intensity on both hands-good luck to your squad the rest of the season.

The Titans now have 3 defensive TD's on the day. It's 24-10 Titans, and they've had the ball on offense for only about 10 minutes through about 3 quarters now.