98navigator

where's the quips like this when people say "I want to visit sand castles in the sky?" is hyperbole not allowed and being a sarcastic jerk perfectly ok?

Yup, this is buried in a few other threads but still good news for those who had not heard.

There's a lot of hyperbole in this thread...

It will definitely auto renew.

It should be fun but don't forget (I don't want you to be disappointed), the updated MLB.tv Premium features won't be available until 4/2.

Tribune I would SO much rather have Coats than Pagan. He's a better hitter, and he could play MI positions in a pinch. I'm not sure if Coats is being seriously considered or if Lou was simpling paying him a compliment about his ST performances. Pagan appears to have the advantage because he can play all of the OF positions and he is a switch hitter. Recent reports indicate that Lou is again leaning towards carrying 12 pitchers. If that's the case, the chances are greater that only one utility INF and one utility OF will be selected. Buck is limited by being left handed and by playing, probably, LF in the MLs (I don't think they would seriously consider him for CF or the infield--because of Theriot ).

I'd hardly call a career 4.55 ERA and a career 1.43 WHIP "keeping people in games." I'd call it an overrated starter and someone I don't want on my team. I remember in 2003 as we transitioned to NSBB from ESPN and Cubs.com how people said that Estes would keep the Cubs in games and would be a serviceable 5th starter. And, that we should give Estes a chance. Well, there's a reason that we keep statistics -- it demonstrates the record of a player over time. And there's no greater predictor of success or failure than a player's statistics. Given Marquis' record, I'd be on the lookout for failure. FYI, Shawn Estes, by comparison, boasts a grand 4.71 ERA and an incredible 1.53 WHIP over the course of his career. So, in short, Marquis is better than Estes. Color me impressed. Hendry is gambling, and, in my opinion, Marquis was an awful signing (one among many by Hendry) because his past record is terrible. End of story. Some of that is raised because of his 2006 stats. Nonetheless, he isn't going to be asked to be the ace of the staff, he's a rotation filler. He may be a gamble but he shouldn't prevent the Cubs from being successful in 2007. There is something positive to having serviceable starters/guys who can eat innings. In recent years, the Cubs have been hamstrung by pitchers who either can't make 32-35 starts or who can't throw 180-200+ innings. As a result, many games were lost in middle relief. Look at the NL teams that reached the postseason last year. Most of them had patchwork rotations. The Cubs don't need 5 studs to win. Given our offensive woes in the Hendry era, the only times we've won with regularity is when we've had at least 4 studs. I understand that, realistically, there's something to a serviceable starter who goes out and doesn't take away your chance to win. Unfortunately, Marquis is not one of those guys. Unless, that is, our offense scores 5+ runs per game. With the exception of 2004, the Cubs offense (under Hendry) has usually been short a bat. That doesn't appear to be the case this year. Marquis is serviceable and he will make all, if not most, of his starts. The team is going to be better off in the long run if it doesn't over tax its strength (the bullpen) and expose itself to middle relief. Response part 1: DeRosa and Izturis. Repsonse part2: I agree that the team will be better served by not overusing the bullpen. But in so arguing, you've undermined your guy, Marquis. Because if and when he struggles, he'll be pulled and that will ensure that the bullpen is overused. 1. Lou is willing to do what Dusty wouldn't; he's paying attention to OBP and committed to put the best team on the field. The Cubs lineup is still improved by the presence of a healthy Lee, Rameriz, and Soriano, in addition to whatever Murton/Floyd, and Jones can supply. 2. I'm sure there will be games when he exits early, it happens to all pitchers, but more often than not he will pitch enough innings to bypass middle relief. The strength of this team's pitching staff still looks to be the back end of its bullpen.

Let's do an average ERA of 4 over 7. Our bullpen ERA will probably be around 3.80-4.00. So let's assume a 3.90 bullpen ERA. Let's also assume .40 unearned runs per 9 innings (which is league average from last season). That means our team is going to give up an average of 5.27 runs a game when he's our starter. Last season ONE team in the National League averaged more than that many runs per nine innings, the Phillies at 5.30. The Cubs don't have the good an offense, so we would expect the Cubs to lose more than half of the games started by him - also known as a majority of his games. Just because we have a half-way decent offense it doesn't mean we should be content with a piece of crap like Marquis. As horrible as he was last year the Cardinals were 15-18 in his starts. I'd take that but I expect him to be a bit better this year. As "bad" as he's been, last year he averaged more ER than at any other time in his career. I think he will turn in more respectable performances this year because of a mechanical change, change of scenery, and wanting to prove his worth. I think those things can, even marginally, help him perform to a higher standard. With regard to your first point, St. Louis scored 4.82 runs per game last season (781 runs) while giving up 4.70 runs per game (762 runs total). Marquis, by himself, gave up 136 total runs. Marquis gave up 17.85% of the runs scored on the Cardinals over the entire season in 13.50% of the total innings pitched. (194.1 innings by Marquis vs. 1439.2 innings pitched by the Cardinals) That's bad. And, for the second point, we have quantifiable facts about his previous performances in Atlanta and St. Louis. They indicate that he will be a poor pitcher. Meanwhile, you offer sandcastles in the sky. Last year he also gave up more earned runs than at any other time in his career. You can call it sand castles if you like but I'm not going to bemoan the signing on March 12th because, like I said, the Cubs can use the few things he does do well to their advantage; namely, eating innings and not missing starts. As bad as he was last year, the Cardinals still found a way to get to the postseason. It's a team effort. The Cubs can still find a way to win around half of his starts if he is used correctly and the games are managed correctly... The Cards aren't successful year-after-year, under TLR, because they have the best offense and best pitching staff in the league... They mitigate their damages and find a way to motivate subpar players. That's not talent it's management. Like LaRussa, Piniella has shown the ability to be a good-in game manager so I expect to see an improvement in how players are used. You make it sound like I don't know what he is; like I'm expecting 15-5 with a 3.50 ERA. That would be "sand castles." He's basically a .500 pitcher. The only thing I hope for is that he returns to getting ground balls so that the Cubs' improved infield defense has a chance to limit the damage.

I'd hardly call a career 4.55 ERA and a career 1.43 WHIP "keeping people in games." I'd call it an overrated starter and someone I don't want on my team. I remember in 2003 as we transitioned to NSBB from ESPN and Cubs.com how people said that Estes would keep the Cubs in games and would be a serviceable 5th starter. And, that we should give Estes a chance. Well, there's a reason that we keep statistics -- it demonstrates the record of a player over time. And there's no greater predictor of success or failure than a player's statistics. Given Marquis' record, I'd be on the lookout for failure. FYI, Shawn Estes, by comparison, boasts a grand 4.71 ERA and an incredible 1.53 WHIP over the course of his career. So, in short, Marquis is better than Estes. Color me impressed. Hendry is gambling, and, in my opinion, Marquis was an awful signing (one among many by Hendry) because his past record is terrible. End of story. Some of that is raised because of his 2006 stats. Nonetheless, he isn't going to be asked to be the ace of the staff, he's a rotation filler. He may be a gamble but he shouldn't prevent the Cubs from being successful in 2007. There is something positive to having serviceable starters/guys who can eat innings. In recent years, the Cubs have been hamstrung by pitchers who either can't make 32-35 starts or who can't throw 180-200+ innings. As a result, many games were lost in middle relief. Look at the NL teams that reached the postseason last year. Most of them had patchwork rotations. The Cubs don't need 5 studs to win. Given our offensive woes in the Hendry era, the only times we've won with regularity is when we've had at least 4 studs. I understand that, realistically, there's something to a serviceable starter who goes out and doesn't take away your chance to win. Unfortunately, Marquis is not one of those guys. Unless, that is, our offense scores 5+ runs per game. With the exception of 2004, the Cubs offense (under Hendry) has usually been short a bat. That doesn't appear to be the case this year. Marquis is serviceable and he will make most, if not all, of his starts. The team is going to be better off in the long run if it doesn't over tax its strength (the bullpen) and expose itself to middle relief.

the cubs scored more than four runs a game last season, but for 4 ER over 7 innings to be useful, it would mean that the bullpen would have to have an ERA of zero. Under no circumstances is an ERA of 5.14 good enough for the Cubs, Yankees or '27 Yankees. I said an average of 4 ER. Like anyone else, he will pitch better in some starts than others (likewise, the offense will have days when it is producing more or less than 4 runs). Marquis can be a very serviceable pitcher. The way you are describing the situation, we should expect to lose the majority of his starts. I don't believe that to be the case. We should expect to lose the majority of his starts. Marquis, over his career, hasn't been a very good pitcher. He's extremely unlikely to magically improve. Marquis hasn't been stellar but he has shown an ability to keep his team in most games he pitches (which is a huge improvement over a last year). The only thing he'll be asked to do is limit the damage; the best way he can do that is by keeping the ball on the ground. He had a nightmare year with the Cardinals in 2006 because, among other things, he gave up over 30 homeruns. here is his "ability" to keep teams in games: http://mlb.mlb.com/images/2007/03/02/gflCRSLs.jpghttp://mlb.mlb.com/images/players/mugshot/ph_113744.jpghttp://mlb.mlb.com/images/2007/03/02/FfAGoGVk.jpg There's no doubt he had a nice offense and defense behind him in STL. We also shouldn't overlook the fact that he had one of the best managers of all time. However, I think the Cubs will be able to replicate much of that here. They say managers can't win games but they can lose them... Having a smart in-game manager should help the Cubs overall. Again, having Marquis on the staff isn't going to keep the Cubs from being successful if everyone else is doing their job. It certainly didn't prevent the previous teams he played for from going to the postseason. If the Cubs are bad it isn't going to be because of one person.

I'd hardly call a career 4.55 ERA and a career 1.43 WHIP "keeping people in games." I'd call it an overrated starter and someone I don't want on my team. I remember in 2003 as we transitioned to NSBB from ESPN and Cubs.com how people said that Estes would keep the Cubs in games and would be a serviceable 5th starter. And, that we should give Estes a chance. Well, there's a reason that we keep statistics -- it demonstrates the record of a player over time. And there's no greater predictor of success or failure than a player's statistics. Given Marquis' record, I'd be on the lookout for failure. FYI, Shawn Estes, by comparison, boasts a grand 4.71 ERA and an incredible 1.53 WHIP over the course of his career. So, in short, Marquis is better than Estes. Color me impressed. Hendry is gambling, and, in my opinion, Marquis was an awful signing (one among many by Hendry) because his past record is terrible. End of story. Some of that is raised because of his 2006 stats. Nonetheless, he isn't going to be asked to be the ace of the staff, he's a rotation filler. He may be a gamble but he shouldn't prevent the Cubs from being successful in 2007. There is something positive to having serviceable starters/guys who can eat innings. In recent years, the Cubs have been hamstrung by pitchers who either can't make 32-35 starts or who can't throw 180-200+ innings. As a result, many games were lost in middle relief. Look at the NL teams that reached the postseason last year. Most of them had patchwork rotations. The Cubs don't need 5 studs to win.

Let's do an average ERA of 4 over 7. Our bullpen ERA will probably be around 3.80-4.00. So let's assume a 3.90 bullpen ERA. Let's also assume .40 unearned runs per 9 innings (which is league average from last season). That means our team is going to give up an average of 5.27 runs a game when he's our starter. Last season ONE team in the National League averaged more than that many runs per nine innings, the Phillies at 5.30. The Cubs don't have the good an offense, so we would expect the Cubs to lose more than half of the games started by him - also known as a majority of his games. Just because we have a half-way decent offense it doesn't mean we should be content with a piece of crap like Marquis. As horrible as he was last year the Cardinals were 15-18 in his starts. I'd take that but I expect him to be a bit better this year. As "bad" as he's been, last year he averaged more ER than at any other time in his career. I think he will turn in more respectable performances this year because of a mechanical change, change of scenery, and wanting to prove his worth. I think those things can, even marginally, help him perform to a higher standard.

the cubs scored more than four runs a game last season, but for 4 ER over 7 innings to be useful, it would mean that the bullpen would have to have an ERA of zero. Under no circumstances is an ERA of 5.14 good enough for the Cubs, Yankees or '27 Yankees. I said an average of 4 ER. Like anyone else, he will pitch better in some starts than others (likewise, the offense will have days when it is producing more or less than 4 runs). Marquis can be a very serviceable pitcher. The way you are describing the situation, we should expect to lose the majority of his starts. I don't believe that to be the case. We should expect to lose the majority of his starts. Marquis, over his career, hasn't been a very good pitcher. He's extremely unlikely to magically improve. Marquis hasn't been stellar but he has shown an ability to keep his team in most games he pitches (which is a huge improvement over a last year). The only thing he'll be asked to do is limit the damage; the best way he can do that is by keeping the ball on the ground. He had a nightmare year with the Cardinals in 2006 because, among other things, he gave up over 30 homeruns.

the cubs scored more than four runs a game last season, but for 4 ER over 7 innings to be useful, it would mean that the bullpen would have to have an ERA of zero. Under no circumstances is an ERA of 5.14 good enough for the Cubs, Yankees or '27 Yankees. I said an average of 4 ER. Like anyone else, he will pitch better in some starts than others (likewise, the offense will have days when it is producing more or less than 4 runs). Marquis can be a very serviceable pitcher. The way you are describing the situation, we should expect to lose the majority of his starts. I don't believe that to be the case.

If he can do that, consistently, he will be a bargain. Most importantly, if he can limit his average ER to four, the Cubs should win the majority of his starts (because the team's offense appears to be poised to score more than 4 runs per game).

Let's not get carried away...

Hill's next scheduled day to pitch is Wednesday which happens to be an off day. So it comes as no surprise that the Cubs are trying to keep him on schedule. The Cub Reporter confirms that Cotts is also due to pitch on Wednesday however, there's no word (yet) that he will be afforded the same opportunity to pitch (and stay on schedule) It's speculation, but this could be a signal that Cotts has, silently, been eliminated from the fifth starter race. I think they view him as more of a spot starter/ long man so he really doesn't have to stay on an exact throwing schedule.

Three starts: March 1st, 6th & 11th

Tribune

Tribune

That's the best guess today. We do know that Lou doesn't plan to skip the fifth starter, so the odds are great that Guzman pitches his second game of the year on April 13th.

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20070312/capt.aztg11403120134.royals_shealy_spring_baseball_aztg114.jpg DeRosa & Ryan Shealy http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20070311/capt.azpc10903112339.brewers_cubs_spring_baseball_azpc109.jpg The Riot & 22 month old son Houston http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20070311/capt.azpc10203112301.brewers_cubs_spring_baseball_azpc102.jpg Izturis tags out Corey Hart http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20070311/capt.azpc10103112256.brewers_cubs_spring_baseball_azpc101.jpg Bill Hall tagged out by Barrett http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20070311/capt.azpc10403112314.brewers_cubs_spring_baseball_azpc104.jpg Ryan Theriot http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20070311/capt.azpc10503112318.brewers_cubs_spring_baseball_azpc105.jpg Woody

In addition to Mark Prior, Sean Marshall, Michael Wuertz, and Rich Hill will be in MiL camp. Link The way it stands, Hill will pitch fourth in the rotation with Guzman fifth (Marquis third). I read last week something that alluded to Prior pitching third (if he won the rotation spot) and Marquis fifth...

Zambrano is probably scheduled for 4 innings.

As long as he continues throwing, predominantly, ground balls I'll be happy. :D