brinoch

I watched that game... bad play by the fullback, and Foster let himself get caught in no-man's land.

At least it's red. It's a fantastic shirt. If the US plays Mexico in the final I'm finding some sort of anti-Tricolores shirt to wear. It needs to have some reference to 'dos a cero' in it, of course.

For all his health problems, Brown really is an outstanding safety and a huge asset to the defense. I'd really like to keep him. I'll never forget 2001 when he had interception returns for touchdowns two weeks in a row. That's when I first became aware of him and I've been a fan ever since. It would be nice if he could stay healthy for once, but like the Cubs with Prior and Wood, now they have other options if he doesn't. Same here. That was too awesome, watching Brown return those interceptions.

Welcome to our community! It's great to have you on board. -- What attracted you to broadcasting? -- How do you keep your game commentary fresh? -- Do you have a signature home run call? Thanks!

For all his health problems, Brown really is an outstanding safety and a huge asset to the defense. I'd really like to keep him.

The hackers took your posts and gave them to people like Raisin, Jon, and Vance. :lol: Yes... I think they are called something like Chit-Chat... :P

:shock: Rapier wit, mayhap?

Really nice article. I wish him the best of luck.

I rather suspect we're all just extremely sensitive to injuries where names like Wood and Prior are concerned. If this was Novoa or Dempster we'd be much less concerned.

Dude, what's wrong with bass fishing metaphors?

Heheheh.

I love this thread. Smoochies, Tim. Alas, for here comes the lock.

That's exactly the point. Despite post after post, analysis after analysis, you've consistently held an optimistic viewpoint of his potential, his likely performance, and his value to the Cubs. You say it yourself, despite the evidence, you are hoping... Saying that you are offering/building sandcastles in the sky is neither insulting nor unfair. It essentially means that you are being unreasonably optimistic. Alternatively, I could say that you are hoping beyond hope, and despite all non-Spring Training evidence to the contrary, that he will perform better than he has in the past. It's certainly possible. But it's also quite highly unlikely. Nothing wrong with optimism. I have plenty of it, as do you. Alas, it's been tempered by experience. For example, I hope the Cubs win the World Series. I just don't expect them to actually do so. There's nothing unreasonable about expecting a guy, who claims to be a sinker ball pitcher, to keep the ball on the ground. 2 out of the last 3 years he's been able to do it. Edit: I use the word "hoping" because nothing is set in stone. But he has shown an ability to pitch, on average, 32 starts/ 200 innings (in the last 3 years). I'm "hoping" that continues... I don't care if he's a sinkerballer or a spitballer. He's just not that good. And you're right, there's nothing unreasonable about expecting him to keep it on the ground since that's apparently his forte. Except when he gives up more ER than any other pitcher in the NL. And except that even when he does get a lot of ground balls, he gives up a lot of baserunners -- check out his WHIP. It's not impressive. We could easily find someone (well, except for a lefty BP pitcher) to pitch 200 innings and start 32 times. Maybe even from our own system. We didn't need to pay $21M over three years for this guy. This is worse than Estes. At least that was a year. Cripes, keeping Pinto, Nolasco and Mitre instead of renting the terrible Pierre for a season would have been preferable to signing Marquis. (Don't let me get started, here, about Hendry's horrid deals.)

Right out the Rosenhaus playbook. I seriously don't like that guy. Were I Angelo, I'd let him hold out -- he doesn't get paid, and I'd fine him as much as I could. Then I'd slap the franchise tag on his again to punish him for being a complete ass and having Rosenhaus as an agent.

That's exactly the point. Despite post after post, analysis after analysis, you've consistently held an optimistic viewpoint of his potential, his likely performance, and his value to the Cubs. You say it yourself, despite the evidence, you are hoping... Saying that you are offering/building sandcastles in the sky is neither insulting nor unfair. It essentially means that you are being unreasonably optimistic. Alternatively, I could say that you are hoping beyond hope, and despite all non-Spring Training evidence to the contrary, that he will perform better than he has in the past. It's certainly possible. But it's also quite highly unlikely. Nothing wrong with optimism. I have plenty of it, as do you. Alas, it's been tempered by experience. For example, I hope the Cubs win the World Series. I just don't expect them to actually do so.

One of your posts claimed Marquis to be "trash" if that isn't hyperbole I don't know what is... His response is as mature as you saying "sand castles in the sky" because you didn't agree with an opposing argument. You can have all the stats in the word and still not prove Marquis is the worst pitcher in MLB. Most importantly, it can not be proven that the Cubs are incapable of winning with Marquis on the staff. It's one thing to provide statistical evidence to support a claim, it's quite another to present it in a condescending "god some of you just don't get it" manner. Statistics can only help to predict actions based on the past, they are not absolute so please stop talking down to people as if you can see the future. Save one point, I'm going to respond to this post. I said that my argument was based on stats and predictions of the past, and that you were offering sand castles in the sky with your well nigh unreasonable optimism. Meph merely commented that he'd like sand castles in the sky.

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? Are you calling me a sarcastic jerk?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Get him some body armor so he can lean in and take some easy bases.

It's not odd to think he will keep the patience. Will he keep the high OBP? No. But he appears pretty patient out there. And I like that. Especially in a hitter who has very little power, like Izturis. The more patience he displays, the more valuable Izturis will be.

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.

I don't know why, since they pitch with different hands, but every time I hear or read Marquis, I think Estes.