CubsWin

Find a post where I called Hendry "Fat" in a direct critismism to his offseason moves. In fact I liked this offseason, up until Marquis. Maybe not fat, but I can scroll up I find you calling him a tool as your criticism. Stupid is probably in there, too. But I'm fine with it. Don't ever change. Just don't think that your criticisms they way they are currently stated hold much, if any, water.

He's desperate, can't wait for top quality pitchers to become available, Schmidt wasn't leaving the West Coast so he was out, Zito didn't impress him enough to spend $16million/yr long term. There wasn't the top guy available for him, and he's out of time. That's the theory I'm going with. I have no proof of this, other than the fact that the free agent market for pitchers this year was rather weak. Its just as plausible as any other theory. I think Hendry really believes in his coaches. And he doesn't think that Marquis will remain the pitcher he was last season. He thinks that if they've done it before, we can get them to do it again. Perhaps, that is foolhearty. Perhaps, it is bold. Usually, the results decide which it is. If Marquis returns to form, Hendry will have been bold. If DeRosa reverts back to before last season's production, Hendry will have been foolish.

Jerry Crasnick of ESPN.com is reporting that the Marquis contract is for 3/21. Of course, he also is reporting that Marquis is 26 years old when he is 28, so... :wink:

Has there been any news reported about the specifics of the contract? Are all three years guaranteed? How are the 20 million dollars broken up over the 3 years?

They are. They're not. Great arguments I put forth, huh? What does that have to do with my post? I never said that's what they were aiming for. Then we are in agreement.

That's what I'm saying. Well put.

This analysis defies any and all logic, abuck. Hendry stakes his reputation on Hill long before he makes good at the major league level refusing to include him in deals that would have brought back much better players than Jay Gibbons, but now that Hill has shown he can be dominate in the bigs, he'll give up on him, drop him out of the rotation for someone with a low base contract like Wade Miller and give him up for a "turd". If you really believe that, be my guest, but don't expect anyone else to take your comments seriously. So if Miller and Prior are both ready to go to start the season, what do you think the rotation looks like? Whoever the best five are, regardless of who has options. The Cubs aren't paying Miller enough to go with him over Hill if Hill is pitching better. I certainly don't think that Hill gets traded for a "turd". This is what it is going to look like if Hendry isn't going to count on Prior or Miller which everyone here was calling for him to do. Chances are one or maybe even both of Prior and Miller won't start the season on the 25-man roster. Also, bullpen arms can still be traded opening a spot for Miller to start the season in the pen instead of sending Hill down to AAA no matter how well he is performing. Thinking that the Cubs would demote Rich Hill even if he is pitching better than the other veteran options doesn't make much sense. The reason why the Cubs are covering their bases with options is so that they can have the best chance of winning. They will go with the 5 guys that give them the best chance to win, period. And thats how it should be, no?

And based on his performance last season, that's exactly where he belongs. He's got stuff. A good fastball and a good slider, but he leaves things over the plate a bit too much. Control within the zone seems to be lacking. In that way, he reminds me of Guzman. Of course, Novoa lacks control out of the zone, too, sometimes.

This analysis defies any and all logic, abuck. Hendry stakes his reputation on Hill long before he makes good at the major league level refusing to include him in deals that would have brought back much better players than Jay Gibbons, but now that Hill has shown he can be dominate in the bigs, he'll give up on him, drop him out of the rotation for someone with a low base contract like Wade Miller and give him up for a "turd". If you really believe that, be my guest, but don't expect anyone else to take your comments seriously.

I must have missed something said on sports talk radio in Chicago. The Cubs are thinking of not starting Hill?

They are. They're not. Great arguments I put forth, huh?

I don't know what this means. Rusch was always being moved back and forth from the bullpen to the rotation. Seems to me that the only reason he kept getting starts is that no one else was healthy. It doesn't mean anything. It just steam being blown off which he has every right to do. But, clearly, its a non-sensical post.

True enough however, you forgot the fact that the Cardinals have had perhaps, more good fortune than any other team in Baseball History. And we all know, good fortune and the Cubs are not bed mates. The Cubs had a lot of good fortune in '03. In '98 they got pretty lucky, too. It doesn't happen with any consistency, but it does happen.

I think his formula is very simple: wins / salary. A basic return on investment calculation. Is that very simple or too simple? I'm not saying the Cubs have done a great job of spending their money lately, but without taking into account the number of huge injuries to key players over the last couple of seasons, having this very simple formula leads to a very unbalanced point of view.

If the Cubs sign Marquis, will he have a chance to breakout next season?

The quote didn't say that he wouldn't make that move, only that the Cubs are believed to be hesitant to trade Marmol if they can move Marshall instead. Hendry might be willing to trade Marmol for Church, he might not. But I think its a good sign that he is at least trying to make the Nationals think that its Marshall and others or nothing and see if they go for it.

I don't know if its already been posted but ESPN.com's rumor page has the following on Marquis... Wow. How does Marquis get the idea that its okay for him to dare to seek at least $10 million annually? What is going on? FWIW, the rumor page also had this listed about Suppan and the Cubs.

It is important to take into account Guzman's injury history vs. the lack of major injuries/wear on Marmol's arm. Also, since his injuries, Guzman has yet to regain his once excellent control especially within the strike zone, and we must consider the possibility that he may never return to that previous level. Clearly Marmol is not close having the kind of control he will need to succeed at the major league level, but his stuff is Juan Cruz like while his confidence level/mound presence is much better. It seems all Marmol needs is time. Guzman may need less time but he also needs to avoid injury and get back the control within the strike zone he has lost. If he can do that, he'll likely be ready a lot sooner than Marmol will, but at this point, that's still a pretty big if, isn't it?

The Cubs have a major hole at SS when compared to the team that won a league leading 97 games last season, the New York Mets. Carlos Delgado, Carlos Beltran and David Wright can roughly, roughly be equated to Derrek Lee, Alphonso Soriano and Aramis Ramirez. But the Cubs have nothing like Jose Reyes roaming their infield. The case can be made that Barrett beats LoDuca soundly if only with the bat which makes up some of the difference between Reyes and Izturis, but only some of it. Some more of that difference can be made by comparing Murton to Chavez/Floyd and Jones to Nady/Green or some combination thereof. But there is still a decent sized gap left. The starting pitching is rather similar, with the Cubs probably coming out on top even if another starter isn't added. The Mets only had two pitchers with 30+ starts last season, Glavine and Traschel. Each won 15 games, but Traschel did so with an ugly 4.97 ERA. If only two of Zambrano, Hill and Lilly start 30 or more games, I think the Cubs get better performances than what Glavine and Traschel gave the Mets last season. After that Pedro was very average (9-8, 4.48 in 23 starts) and Orlando Hernandez was only slightly better (9-7, 4.09 in 20 starts). If the odd man out of the Z, Hill, Lilly trio and whomever the 4th starter is (Miller or Prior) can match that production, the Cubs are still ahead when comparing the rotations. The 5th starter spot is a combination of John Maine and about 8 other starters that either got injured (Victor Zambrano) or filled in for the injured guys. Their combined ERA was 5.40. If the Cubs 5th starter can approximate that kind of performance, then it would be fair to say that the '07 Cubs rotation is better than the 97-win Mets of '06. The big difference is the '06 Mets bullpen performed better than the Cubs pen likely will in '07. How much better is difficult to say due to the uncertain performance levels of Kerry Wood, Ryan Dempster and Michael Wuertz. If each perform close to their ceilings, then the pens are more comparable, if not... Judging by this highly unscientific comparison, the Cubs should fall well short of 97 wins. Mid to high 80s is a strong possibility. If Prior can give the Cubs some sort of consistent performance, and Wood can provide a somewhat dominant presence out of the pen, then maybe they can break the 90-win barrier. If Izturis returns to his all-star form and DeRosa and Soriano prove that last season were not flukes, then maybe the 95-win barrier can be cracked, but we are getting into some pretty unlikely territory here. However, if injuries decimate key players yet again this season, breaking .500 will be difficult. Of course, thats true for just about any team save maybe the Yanks and Red Sox.

This is tough. As you can see, people think very differently about these guys. They are close in the rankings to each other but all for different reasons. Guzman at one time had top of the rotation potential and was close to reaching it, but injuries have changed all that. Last season was the first in a long time in which he was basically healthy all year long. As was feared, he struggled to regain his pinpoint control due to his time on the DL. The thinking is that the longer Guzman remains healthy, the better his control will get meaning it is just a matter of time before he'll be performing like a top of the rotation starter. There are two problems with this theory. His injuries may have forever altered his delivery and he may never regain his previous form and his next injury could happen tomorrow. So whereas Guzman has come the closest to reaching his ceiling, he also has the most reasons why he may never get there again. Marshall also has struggled with injuries on a consistent basis throughout his career, but that is where the similarities end with Guzman. Marshall's ceiling is likely that of a good 4th starter, maybe 3rd starter. His curve ball is above average, but nothing knee-buckling like Hill's and his fastball is a 2-3 mph slower than Hill's as well. When he can hit his target, Marshall will win you ballgames, but he lacks the high end stuff to be dominating. Maturity-wise he seems major league ready, performance-wise he seems to need more time to consistently hit his marks. I see him as a Jamie Moyer type, possibly a late bloomer in fulfilling his potential but could be serviceable soon. Marmol has the best movement on his pitches than any of the other three, and thats saying something when Guzman's slider is working, but his control has never been as good as either Guzman's or Marshall's. He was converted from a catcher just a few seasons ago, so he has a lot of time still to perfect his delivery. He reminds me more of Juan Cruz than Zambrano. (I've never heard him compared to Z) But just because Cruz struggled as a starter right out of the blocks doesn't mean that Marmol should go to the pen now. He's still got time. But of the 3, he needs the most work at AAA to fine tune his control. The right time to assess these guys is in Mesa 9 weeks from now, but since you are asking now I would say that Guzman has a chance to be really good very soon. How good that chance is is difficult to say, maybe slightly less than a 50% chance. Marshall has a good chance to be solid fairly soon. Marmol might be the best of the bunch (similar ceiling to Guzman without the health issues) but is also the furthest away. They each have trade value, but which one I would be willing to give away really depends on the Cubs roster and how it is filled out the rest of the way. But since I have to answer now, Marshall's the first one to go. The Cubs already have two lefties in the rotation, 3 in the bullpen and high end prospects Veal and Pawelek are both southpaws, so Marshall is expendable. He performed well enough as a rookie last season for GMs to have reason to believe he will one day perform well enough at the major league level to help their team. He is young and mentally mature and lefties are always in demand. If I'm Jim Hendry, he's the one I'm most willing to deal. If I've got to rank them.. 1. Marmol 1a. Guzman 3. Marshall Oddly, the pitcher that might be most ready to step in as a starter next season wasn't asked about. Juan Mateo performed better than all of these guys last season. We'll see where he fits in come spring training.

Against RH pitching, Ward has been steadily trending upward over the past three seasons. I'm not saying that this trend is likely to continue because if it did, he would be one of the best hitters in baseball next season. He'll likely regress a bit from his numbers last year, but 3 years of stats trending upward is a good thing. Many people trust career stats over recent ones because the sample size is larger. I understand that a larger sample size is better than a small one, but there comes a point in time when the sample size gets so large, or more importantly old, that it contains stats that no longer accurately reflect who the player is today. Over the last 3 seasons, off the bench Ward has hit .292/.375/.494. It should be said that Ward has been starting until recently which can be looked at two ways. One, I don't want him because his career stats are disappointing and his bench stats are mostly recent and therefore skewed by one good season, or two, I'd rather have a guy who was recently a starter on my bench and who recently did very well as a pinch-hitter than a guy who has been a career bench player because he was never really good enough to win a starting job. Either way, Ward's signing is nothing to get excited about, but he sure seems to be an improvement over John Mabry who he is replacing, and isn't that the idea? Unless there is some obviously better choice still out there for the LH pinch-hitter spot, is this move really worth criticizing Hendry over?

What other left-handed pinch hitter would you have signed?

Pretty much everything Jim has done this winter has given me, and a lot of others, that he is determined to trade Jones. At this point, I'd be surprised if he doesn't. And while I'm not big Jones fan, I feel that what we end up with is likely to be worth less than what we had. So nothing in the article then. That's my point. I'm not saying that there is no reason to think that Hendry might trade Jones. I'm just saying that reacting to this article as if it somehow says that Hendry is shoving him out the door and not trying to get anything of value for him is baseless.

Assuming the Cubs are as committed to moving Jones as they seem, I would have much preferred to invest this $10M per year into Drew and let the kids pitch. I think the marginal difference between Drew in CF and whatever else we come up is far greater than the difference between Lilly and the kids that would have replaced him. An interesting idea. If Guzman hits and Prior can return in some capacity, then you've really got something. Its difficult to know how realistic it is to think the Cubs could have beaten the BoSox's 5/70 offer. Plus, Pie is blocked. I wanted the Cubs to sign Drew over Soriano going off of stats alone. I might have changed my mind if I knew all the scouting reports. But since it was Soriano, signing Drew as well is problematic, but certainly interesting.

Clearly, I would have rather signed Padilla or Schmidt. But it was well known that Padilla wanted to stay in Texas and Schmidt wanted to stay on the west coast. We can blame Hendry for not wildly overpaying for them, but we don't know that if he did that they would have accepted the offers. But given that Padilla and Schmidt decided to go elsewhere, was signing Lilly really a bad move as some feel? It seems like the options people are seeing if the Cubs didn't sign Lilly are Suppan, Meche, some assortment of Cubs youngsters or possibly trading for a Dodger arm, probably Brad Penny. The Penny thing is highly unlikely, at this point, meaning no one has really mentioned any rumors of him being available. So for the sake of reality, let's set him aside until such time that he becomes a viable, realistic option. That leaves the rookies and the other FAs. I would rather have Suppan, but from what I've read, he seems set on either the Yanks or St. Louis. FA signings are a two way street afterall. If that is true, and I don't know if it is, Lilly is likely the next best FA option. Meche has some upside, but Lilly's ceiling, twice hit, of a 120 ERA+ is far more proven than anything Meche has accomplished to date. So do people really think that counting on Angel Guzman or Juan Mateo or Carlos Marmol to be your 3rd starter all year long is a better idea than signing Ted Lilly? I mean, in reality, that is what it has come down to. Hendry either signs this guy or allows him to go someplace else and is left with... Clearly, Lilly isn't our 1st choice. He's not ideal. He's not a top of the rotation guy. But given the reality of situation, should Hendry have done nothing?