UK1679666180

Hopefully, he threw away all of his Sox hats. :) I'll tell you about that one.

I think it's around 3/21 with incentives that can bump it into the 3/27 range. Of course, pitching incentives are based mostly on IP for starters and appear. for relievers. Also, Cy Young and all-star appearences, etc.

again, which is it? was he listening to Duncan in 04-05, or was that strictly his stubborn side putting up solid #3 numbers? and back in 01, was he listening to Cox, or was that his stubborn side? where does this 'stubborn' / 'the best pitching coaches couldn't straighten him out' stuff come from other than looking at a situation and jumping to conclusions about cause and effect? I think it goes in phases. Regardless of production, he has had a different view for how he can be most effective compared to Mazzone and Duncan. Moreso Duncan than Mazzone b/c Mazzone prefers the 4 seamer more than Duncan, which goes along with Marquis. Imo, he's definitely a better pitcher using the sinker/slider combo. But his stubborn nature didn't lead to his struggling (that was more command/control and his slider went in the toilet). But, his stubbornness probably made it difficult to truly listen to advice rather than going out the other ear if he didn't agree with it.

Short-term: Marshall Guzman Marmol Long-term: Guzman Marmol Marshall

But what is going to make him change if he wasn't receptive towards some of the best pitching coaches in the bigs? Greg Maddux and Mark DeRosa's word are nice and all, but I'm not sure I have faith in Marquis listening and improving much. Three years? That sucks. Hopefully getting his rear end handed to him last year made him realize he doesn't know more about pitching than Mazzone and Duncan.

No, I definitely agree that that's the best way to look at it. I just didn't feel like looking to see when exactly he should have been pulled. What I was basically trying to say was that Marquis had (at least) two outtings last year where he would've been pulled in normal circumstances, but wasn't. Therefore he wasn't as bad as he ERA makes him out to be. By how much? Telling me it dropped to 5.12 doesn't say anything. You can do that with anything any pitcher, every pitcher has a game where he was left in too long and his numbers were hurt. His ERA is just one of the indicators about his performance, I wouldn't judge solely based on '06 or his ERA alone. Still come to the same conclusion that at this stage, I don't think he'll provide what the Cubs are paying him to produce. Hope I'm wrong, but it doesn't look good.

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. Well, my point was that he wouldn't have given up that many runs in normal circumstances, so the ERA isn't really reflective of his season. The Cardinals had no choice but to leave Marquis in there against the White Sox that day (and against Atlanta, I'm assuming). He took one for the team big time. He was the scheduled starter each day & in the game vs. the Sox, he gave 9ER thru the 1st 2. He still would've likely given up 5-6 runs and not have been pulled with a rested pen. So, instead of assuming maybe 5-6 runs thru 1 2/3 rather than 13 thru 5, it's better to assume that it never happened? Same thing with the Braves game, that was spread out I don't think he allowed more than 3 runs in any inning and the Braves scored in almost every inning he pitched. He still would've pitched and likely given up the 4-6 runs thru 2-3IP and been pulled rather than going 5 and giving up 12. It makes no sense.

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.

EDIT: With the Tribune reporting that it's 3/20 and not 3/28, UK proves to be smarter than me, yet again. :D For me, it's the years moreso than dollars per year, it's a big risk to assume that Marquis takes that step forward to where he was. A similar pitcher to me to Marquis is Ramon Ortiz. Decent a couple of years ago has declined, he's 5 years older than Marquis but does not the baggage of being unable to work with coaches. Like Marquis, he's a flat 4 seam FB pitcher with an inconsistent slider who's often up in the zone way too much. I'd be willing to gamble that the salary difference will be greater than the difference in production between the two.

Marquis has to be receptive towards Rothschild, it could potentially be the perfect fit for Marquis if he doesn't get his own way. Can't believe I have to mention that after he's worked with Mazzone and Duncan. But... the strength of Marquis is his slider and 2 seam FB. Those two pitches are Rothschild's signature pitches as a PC as far as getting the most out of a guy with those strengths. Right now, Marquis wants to throw his curve too much as well as his 4 seamer. I've questioned Marquis' approach to the game, whether it has been his relationships with his PCs as well as his complaining about not being in the rotation on '04 during the playoffs. He has more talent than what he has produced. He has to become a Matt Clement type (movement FB and slider 95% of all pitches) to be somewhat effective again. Hitters have hit .300 off of his curve, if you can't prevent hitters from hitting .300 on a breaking pitch, time to scrap it. That 3/28 seems way too high, even in the current market.

I just threw up a little in my mouth. Why is that? Gary Hughes has value in being a scout. I'm surely not about to debate that. But after the comments of his that I have read, I don't want him in charge of making the decisions. Perhaps my comment was a bit over the top, as I did not mean to disparage him personally, but the things he's said would make me very scared to see what kind of a team he'd put on the field. I would think that most current GMs don't know much if anything about the more complex SABR stats, but they have someone close to them who does. I think most current GMs would not have answered in a similar manner, but would not know much about the subject of the question.

I have them at 82-86 wins right now with the addition of Lilly.

What? Scouts like to find needles in haystacks. GM's have to field a roster of 25 competent major league baseball players, which involves intense negotiations, cost/benefit analysis and other skills a scout does not necessarily have. A scouting background could be nice, but it's no requirement, and a lifetime scout would probably not be a great GM. Scouts like to find needles in haysticks like GMs want to find bargain players that become productive per dollar spent. It becomes a nec. part of the overall picture but... A scout's career isn't defined by that premise throughout his career. His 1-8 rd picks will determine how well he has been as a scout compared to sleeper picks. Scouts (espec. area scouts) do get involved w/intense negotiations (as a GM, there's no direct loss of being out-bid for a FA beyond what that player would bring, with draft picks if they don't sign him and he goes to a 4yr school, he loses the kid and the team loses the pick on probably someone similar in ceiling that would've signed) cost/benefit analysis, etc.

That was Ronnie woo woo day and it was longer than 1:48 b/c of rain delays, where Ronnie Woo Woo feel asleep in the rain and people were taking pictures next to him while he was sleeping. Digger Phelps was also sitting close to me and I was able to express my dislike towards him by asking him how well he did vs. UK.

I think they've given up on Upton at SS. They traded for Ben Zobrist who they really like at SS. With that said, I'd love to have BJ Upton at short. Zobrist will likely end up being a utility player or traded. Reid Brignac is in the top 3 among minor league SS (Wood and Tulowitzki). I'll take a utility guy that gets on base as much as Zobrist. I'm pretty sure he got on base 6 times one game, which is amazing considering he only had 4 plate appearances. For those too lazy to look it up, his career minor league line is 324/434/453/887 If he was on the Cubs, he would likely be considered the long-term answer for SS. Of course, there's a big difference between TB and the Cubs as far as their farm systems.

I think they've given up on Upton at SS. They traded for Ben Zobrist who they really like at SS. With that said, I'd love to have BJ Upton at short. Zobrist will likely end up being a utility player or traded. Reid Brignac is in the top 3 among minor league SS (Wood and Tulowitzki).

It was a nice little year around here for OF'ers. Maybin, Bruce, Upton, Rasmus. After that, ok pitching (dropoff after Adenhart and real bad position players).

I've stated in the past that Maybin has the highest ceiling of any kid I watched in the MWL, which includes, Patterson, Pujols, Fielder, Mauer, Bruce, etc. This is definitely a good sign, watching how he carries himself one could get the impression that he's lazy in a similar manner as Drew and Patterson have had as well as A-Rod. I'm pleased to read this... I'm going to miss watching him next year and looking forward to watching him w/Detroit.

I'll end this now: Cubs get Burrell, Lieber, cash White Sox get Rowand and Ohman Phils get: Jones and Garcia Call it a day and wait till manana. :D

thought you didn't like hill? :D why would a team have to give up two young, frontline major-league-ready players who are three or more years from free agency to get one such player? Hill would be a good starting point, I didn't say straight-up. If LAA didn't get Sarge Jr. and they were interested in Rocco, I think a Santana straight-up for Baldelli would benefit TB.

Baldelli has better bat speed, much better runner, better range in the OF, Murton has a much better approach at the plate and a better arm. They each have similar raw power, but Baldelli showcases it more. Murton has a lower ceiling than Baldelli but is more likely to reach his ceiling than Baldelli.

But what avail. hitters are better or equal to Jones in terms of health, salary, and production?

Yeah, but how many times are the Cubs going to face those kinds of pitchers? For all of those countless other times that they face a normal pitcher, isn't the added benefit of having a better hitter (over having a lesser hitter who hits left handed) going to pay off more over the course of the season? Isn't having a lefty hitter in the lineup for the sake of having a lefty in the lineup sort of like making policy decisions based on the exception rather than the rule? Enough to where a team needs a quality LH'ed bat in the line-up. Having a lefty killer in the line-up is different than having a LH'ed hitter in the line-up.

There will be times when they're going to face pitchers that are definitely tougher on RH'ers than LH'ers. This will happen later in games when situational pitchers come into play. There are enough starting pitchers that are so dominant vs. RH'ers that a LH'er (even a mediocre hitter) likely becomes more effective than the best RH'ed hitter on the team. Matt Clement when he was with the Cubs would be an example of the type of RH'er that would dominate RH'ed hitter, he was extremely difficult to pick up the ball from as well as his slider being a 65. As far as relievers, it could be similar to Clement or as extreme as a side armer. The toughest I seen on righties over the 10 years was Kim when he was out of the pne for AZ.

If I was TB (boy that sounds odd), Hill would have to be included in the trade and going from there.