CubColtPacer

There are other rationales to that one to think that this signing "could" be a good one. Have they found the flaw in his mechanics? Is that the reason for his 2006 numbers? If he pitches like he did in 2004/2005 for at least 2 out of the 3 years he's here, it's a good contract. If he pitches closer to 2006 for 2 out of those 3 years, then it's a horrible one. If he pitches somewhere in between, it's a poor contract, but not terrible.

Tejada may be in trade rumors every offseason, but every time they go to make a deal it is rejected by Angelos. Tejada may be one of the most unavailable players in the major leagues, because Angelos continues to reject deals-he did it 2 or 3 times at the trading deadline alone with teams who were giving a great deal of talent back, something that the Orioles should never have rejected.

That's exactly how I feel. If you're not going to use Marshall next year, then you might as well trade him. He is the best right now to step into any teams rotation and so might get something in a trade, but Guzman and Marmol have better upsides overall.

In this division, with the Astros regressing and the Cards not improving? No, the Cubs have as good a shot as anyone. In any other division you're right. I would agree. The Cubs may have plenty of question marks, but I can't see anyone in the division that I can point to as better than this team right now either. This is exactly how the Cubs seem to think. They want to compete within the division. I don't give a flying fig what Houston or the rest of the NL Central has done. Wining the divsion only means getting to the playoffs. I'd like for my team that has a top 5 payroll to be a lock to be above .500. I cannot understand how anyone could be happy with the Marquis signing when the Cubs have at least 2 guys under their control for the next two years that can be just as sucky. I'm not saying I don't want better, I'm just disputing the notion that we don't have a chance next year. Already, we have just as much of a chance as anyone in the division, and when you get in the playoffs anything could happen-so we most definitely have a chance. I would love if we could continue to improve so we become the clear-cut favorite in the division though and competing for the best in the league, but I am certainly not throwing in the towel already if this is close to it. I hope some of our young pitching and bullpen arms can fetch a little bit in a trade now and continue to improve the offense.

In this division, with the Astros regressing and the Cards not improving? No, the Cubs have as good a shot as anyone. In any other division you're right. I would agree. The Cubs may have plenty of question marks, but I can't see anyone in the division that I can point to as better than this team right now either.

Does a guy have to be consistently under 4.20 ERA to be better than a 5th starter here? I mean, the league average is higher than that-so certainly a 5th starter would probably be projected to put up an ERA closer to 5. Z will of course be an ace, Hill will definitely be better than that, Lilly will almost certainly be a good deal better than that, one of Prior/Miller will probably be, and Marquis is about 50/50 (depending if it's one of his on years or off years). I just don't see a great deal of 5th starters, but rather Z, the potential of Hill, and a bunch of average starters (decent #3, good to great #4's)-that would seem as a much better comparison.

His ERA, minus 2 awful performances, would be 5.12 unless I did the math wrong EDIT I did the math wrong the first time, answer is right now Not directed towards you Rocket, but I've never understood this concept. If you take away his real bad performances and chalk them up to he had a bad day, what happens with a real good performance? Honestly, could someone take away his 3 outing where he allowed 2 ER thru 24IP and then try and formulate something from it? 6.76 for those scoring at home. I do agree that to be fair for just plain ERA if you are going to take his worst outings away that you should take a couple of his best outings away also. What they are trying to prove is that he is not that bad in the majority of games, and giving up 6 runs in a couple innings vs 12 in one game doesn't make a whole lot of difference. If I could have a pitcher who gave up 2, 2, and 12 in 3 games, or 4, 4, and 8-I would take the 1st pitcher every time. Therefore, his ERA might be inflated a little bit by 2 horrifically poor outings in which it reached a point where it didn't matter if he gave up more runs or not. However, that still doesn't mean he didn't have a really bad year last year-he most certainly did, it just might mean it wasn't quite as bad as his ERA would say it was overall.

Marquis's main value is durability. He's a 28 year old who has made 30+ starts and 190+ innings in each of the past three seasons, with a career ERA+ of 94. To compare: - 28 year old Gil Meche has a career ERA+ of 96, has never reached 190 innings (he did hit 186 innings twice), and receives 5/55 - 29 year old Adam Eaton has a career ERA+ of 92, has reached 190 innings once, and receives 3/25. - 30 year old Ted Lilly has a career ERA+ of 99, has reached 190 innings once in the past three years, and receives 4/40. Seems in line with the overall market for starters, inflated as it may be. It seems that Hendry had a focus of going after durable starting pitchers this offseason. This has to be a reflection that, aside from Hill, he no longer trusts the farm system to produce quality starting pitching like it did during the late-90s/early-00s. It's hard to disagree with this general track: it's worth ~$20M/year to get two average starting pitchers to contribute ~200 innings each, when the alternative could be repeat performances from Mateo, Marmol, or Ryu. Who cares if they're consistent if they're consistently bad? At least with Lilly there was hope of a good season or two. I don't see that from Marquis. Pitcher's 3 best years: Pitcher A: 129.3 IP, 3.48 ERA, 1.33 WHIP, 127 ERA+ 201.3 IP, 3.71 ERA, 1.41 WHIP, 113 ERA+ 207.0 IP, 4.13 ERA, 1.329 WHIP, 103 ERA+ Pitcher B: 100.0 IP, 3.69 ERA, 1.11 WHIP, 120 ERA+ 197.3 IP, 4.06 ERA, 1.31 WHIP, 120 ERA+ 181.7 IP, 4.31 ERA, 1.431 WHIP, 109 ERA+ I can't see why Marquis doesn't have just as much potential to put up a good season as Lilly-it's just that Lilly has been more consistent and his bad season came in 2005, while the bad season for Marquis was in 2006. If Marquis returns to 2004/2005 numbers, this is a very good signing in this market. If he has 2 years of that and one terrible year, it will be an average signing. If he has over a 4.50 ERA 2 out of the 3 years or more, it will be a bad signing-it depends a great deal on if Marquis really has found a flaw in his delivery that he has corrected or not.

Everybody loves the Jets, and it only grew after the Bears beat them 10-0 in their own building. The media wrote that game up like a Jets win and a Grossman disaster. That's true-the Jets love has been slowly growing throughout the season-if they win a couple more games, it could be in full swing by playoff time.

If you were to follow the Sports Guys betting ideas long enough, you'd lose a ton of money. It's fine to question Grossman, but you can't then place Dallas over them and use Romo as good support, since he has not played any better, or against any better competition, than the Grossman started out the season. Rex looked so much better in the Meadowlands than Romo looked. Yeah, I enjoy his pop culture references, and those type of things than any kind of sports analysis from him. At this point it's just piling on though. People need to back off. If the Bears are going to lose in the playoffs, then fine. Not many people even thought Lovie would be able to beat the Packers, much less win 2 divisions in a row. I know the bar has to be winning the Super Bowl, but my point is none of these media types gave us any credit before for what was happening in Chicago. They called us junk even when it was clear we were building empire on defense. Now they just ignore the accomplishments made, and rag on Rex for a living. Looking at it realistically, teams like the Colts are in the same boat, having lost in the playoffs while putting together great regular seasons. Yet I don't hear the criticism coming their way. It's all pretty darn biased. That's why I think deep down inside most media types hate Chicago and are hoping we fail. How could I think any differently? 10-2, first to clinch, best record in the NFL and nothing but negative press about the QB? Come on, something's wrong with that. The funny thing is that you are using a Bill Simmons quote to talk about how the media is slamming the Bears and not the Colts when Simmons has made his career in the last 3 years making jokes about the Colts and their ineptitude in big games. BTW, the Colts have received plenty of bad press this year-all year it was "Well, they have Peyton-but it doesn't matter because they can't run the ball, and they can't stop the run, and that's what counts"-they are still saying the same things about how the Colts inability to run the ball will be their undoing in the playoffs (a few don't, but many do). I'm not sure the Colts are the correct example here-the teams who have received the media love this year are SD, Dallas, the Giants at times (before they melted down a little bit), and the Patriots at times-that's pretty much it.

I don't know about the numbers, but I've been writing since last month that they're interested (I know there's a thread about this, so let's keep it over there. But I'll answer the question here.) I wouldn't be at all surprised to see him signed. That's the big difference for me. If we sign him for 3/27, I think Marquis "could" live up to the contract. He has the potential to do so if he has 2 to 2 1/2 good years out of those 3. However, I don't think there is much room for him to exceed the expectations of that contract-which makes that a move with little upside and tremendous possible downside, where we are simply hoping that he is worth what he is being paid. Now-if he is being paid 3/15 or 3/18, the risks and upside start to get better, and this becomes a much better chance of a good signing-and if you can convince him to go less than 3 years for that sort of money, it might even be a pretty decent signing from the beginning-but it won't be that if it's 3 for 27 or something similar.

I just love this statement-he is only ok off the bench if he doesn't cost much and puts up a .926 OPS-if he is only .900, we don't want him :D Seriously though, Ward is a pretty good guy to have off the bench. He plays both corner outfield spots and first base, and he hits for pretty good home run power off of the bench. It's unclear to me if last year was a complete career year, or if he made some kind of change that could sustain at least part of that improvement (I wouldn't expect him to maintain all of it, as I still think it's a career year even if he did change something). He's a nice bench player to get 100-200 AB's.

Yeah, our hope to find a #2 will be: -Prior is healthy and effective, or -Hill pitches like he did the last 2 months of 2006. I think that's what it will have to be also. We will probably go out and sign another #3 or #4, and then hope that one of those things can happen. If it does, we have a great rotation. If we don't, we have an average one, where our #2 is weak and the back end is stronger than average.

Hmm-4 years 40 million, it's at least a step down from when we were hearing 4/44 or 5/55, especially since contracts typically go up from what they are rumored, not down. It's not something I'm excited about, but it's not something that I'm upset about either. We knew that we were going to sign at least one of these average type pitchers, and this is the money it takes to sign them right now.

Suppan at anything close to that deal is easily the best FA pitcher not named Zito left. I thought during the WS that he would price himself out of the second tier starter market, but since every starter has done the same thing, he becomes the best option once again. He's a proven middle #3 or a very good #4, and it would be nice to have a second person in the rotation who you know you're going to get average or better production out of (Hill you expect it as well, but you don't know-and who knows with the way pitchers like Lilly and Meche have bounced around, although Lilly would be more likely to then Meche would). Suppan+Jennings or Suppan+Lilly would make the rotation at least average, and could be better if Hill, Prior, or Miller really step up (When I say that, I'm saying Hill having a full season of #2 starter work instead of #4, or either Prior or Miller pitching more like a #2 or #3 rather than a #5, which both are capable of).

Well, if they get 700 PA out of LF, I'm not sure they think Floyd would give them anymore than 300, in which case Murton would have 400 there, and probably another 50-75 in pinch hitting opportunities and starts elsewhere. That's approximately my thinking about what the breakdown on at-bats would be between them, with Murton maybe getting even a few more than that (and Floyd being the first pinch-hitter off the bench and so getting plenty of pinch-hit at-bats)

He pounded the ball in the second half, and his .060 IsoD is far from a disaster. Did Pie participate in any of the winter leagues? If so, how did he do? He did, and he has under a .600 OPS in it.

I completely disagree. If we're not willing to put Marshall in the rotation next year (which I don't think we can do with wanting to contend next year), then Marmol's long-term value to me is much, much higher.

I'll agree that "not being a finalist" does not equate to Hendry not trying. However, it should also be noted that Schmidt signing with the Dodgers does not equate Schmidt having no interest in Chicago. We don't know either way, and probably never will. That's a fair analysis of the situation. I said beforehand that I'd give Hendry credit if he signed him, blame if he signed a reasonable deal with another non-West Coast team, and neither if he signed a reasonable deal with a West Coast team. He did, and so it's impossible to tell exactly what the Cubs might have offered him.

I would compare it more to Hendry labeling Rich Hill as untouchable before last year than anything. Their stats are much more comparable when you look at that, and maybe they expect a similar breakout from Marmol soon.

I agree with this statement from top to bottom. Both ND and the minor conference will be likely out next year (down year for ND, and I don't see any minor conference teams ready to go undefeated next year), so if they do not change the rule then they could be finding themselves in a situation where there are no eligible teams to fill the remaining slots if they are not careful-the 2 per conference rule has to be abolished now that they have expanded the BCS games, or at least raised to 3.

I have one for a league that gives a point per 6 yards rushing or receiving, and 6 points for a TD. I am starting Tiki Barber, and can start 1 more of the following group: Joseph Addai vs Jac Corey Dillon vs Mia Deuce McAllister vs Dal Reuben Droughns vs Pit Who should I start?

I can actually already see it now. Schmidt will sign for a reasonable deal for the market (14-15 million per) with a West Coast team, and then people will be upset that we didn't match. I just have no idea if Schmidt would take that from us specifically, and it's hard to tell how high we'd actually have to go to make the extra money worth it to him. That's not to say that Hendry shouldn't go hard after him-he should, but I'm not sure that anything can really be gleaned from the contract if it is to a West Coast team, because there is a decent possibility he turned down a larger contract from somewhere else. If he was so content, why isn't he signed already? Seattle is interested, yet they don't have him locked down. Rumor has it they are currently seeking out cheaper options. You do bring up a good point that he's not willing to sign any type of hometown discount-my guess is that he's got a number that is reasonable, and none of those teams have matched it yet. Some teams not on the West Coast have probably matched it already, and now he's waiting to see if the bidding goes up or a team on the West Coast matches that figure. If not, he may come to a team like the Cubs. That's speculation, I know, but it seems reasonable considering most of his quotes and his behvior. I would be willing to make a deal like 3/48 for him in this market, that's for sure-I hope Hendry is also. I just wonder if our location is going to hurt us enough to lose the deal if a 3/42 deal comes from a team in one of his preferred locations.

I can actually already see it now. Schmidt will sign for a reasonable deal for the market (14-15 million per) with a West Coast team, and then people will be upset that we didn't match. I just have no idea if Schmidt would take that from us specifically, and it's hard to tell how high we'd actually have to go to make the extra money worth it to him. That's not to say that Hendry shouldn't go hard after him-he should, but I'm not sure that anything can really be gleaned from the contract if it is to a West Coast team, because there is a decent possibility he turned down a larger contract from somewhere else.

So 11-2 Wake Forest shouldn't get in, but 10-2 ND can? Good example. That's not what I said. If you want to change the rules so that ND should not be picked over Wisconsin and Auburn because they are ranked higher, then have both ND and Wake out. Wake gets in because of an advantage of being in a coference, and ND gets in because of an advantage of not being in a conference. Like I said in the last post-I don't care if you put them both in, or if you leave them both out-I'm just glad that they are consistent.