Soul

Jacque turned out to be a bargain.

His season last year was atypically bad actually. Not sure where he will end up this year. But I'm pretty sure of two things: 1) He'll be better than a 6.02 ERA and a dismal 73 ERA+, and 2) $20m/yr is insanely high for him. Agreed! :lol: LOL, whoops my bad. 3/20 is high :lol:

He'd be good. But two things: 1) you don't give a guy who pitched poorly last year a ton of dollars because your own people think they can "repair" him, and 2) He's not likely to get down to his 2004 numbers any more than he's likely to repeat 2006. He'll be somewhere in between in all likelihood.

His season last year was atypically bad actually. Not sure where he will end up this year. But I'm pretty sure of two things: 1) He'll be better than a 6.02 ERA and a dismal 73 ERA+, and 2) $20m/yr is insanely high for him.

So which is right?

My guess is we aren't done trading, and if no pitchers are dealt Miller gets cut loose in your scenario.

3/28 for Marquis - the rest is mostly teeth gnashing. Not 3/20 as reported this morning? According to ChicagoSports.com, it's now 3/28. Which I think we all agree is a bad thing.

Then we'd really be screwed. We're screwed even when we spend the money - what's the difference. At least with a cap we (probably) wouldn't see escalating ticket prices. LOL. Well I suppose that's right.

Then we'd really be screwed.

In 2 years, the Cubs could still make a trade. I very much doubt that contracts are going to go down, so even if they stay the same and Lilly is seen as a value at $10/per he could be moved. It's not the end of the world, that's for sure. I don't agree with the Marquis signing, but it's not going to handcuff the Cubs in 2 years. I think a lot of people believe the current pitching market will deflate, leaving the Cubs with overpriced pitchers who can't be moved (without eating some of the contract) And it just might.

even the site admin It may not be as bad as a #1 and 4 #5's but it is pretty close We have a: #1 - Z - Can we even re-sign him now? no #2 a # 3 Ted Lilly a #4 Rich Hill 2 ?'s - Miller and Prior and a guy pretty close to useless Marquis Prior's coming back to be the #2. Believe it, and it will be so :) Z Prior (a notch below 2003 levels) Hill Lilly Marquis That's not a bad rotation. Not too bad at all.

I don't disagree with most of what you said. The only thing though-----this year $9m/yr is pretty much the market for a middle-of-the-road pitcher.

LOL. Are you taking a list of posters who don't like the Marquis signing, then(should Marquis actually pitch decent in 2007) call them out in every thread like this: "OMG Dude, you send Marquis would suck in Dec, but now he is good man! Dude you have to eat some major crow man! just eat the crow " Yep! And me too! I'm doing the same for Soriano, Hill, Derosa, Izturis, Lilly, and many other players posters are tossing aside as garbage. LOL, it's silly to do this but for some reason I laughed at this post.

Not that I'm taking credit or anything, but this is the exact contract I speculated at a few days back :) OK, yeah I'm taking credit for it even though it was just a blind guess. This pitching market is insane. Wait until you see what Suppan gets.

Probably because Wells hasn't had a season in which he was both good and healthy since 2003. Marquis sucked last year, but he has made his starts. That's most likely why Hendry was willing to overpay so much to get him. I'm a little late to this thread, but is there any reason to think that he will or won't bounce back from 2006? I think he will, but that's not to say I don't think he is criminally overpaid. That's a bad contract. At any rate, to say Marquis and Lilly can't post numbers as good as Marmol's 6.08 ERA or Guzman's 7.63 from last year is a stretch. So Marmol and Guzman aren't going to improve at all? Those two were going to be on the roster this year for very little money. It's not an argument about whether Lilly and Marquis will put up significantly better numbers than what Marmol and Guzman did last year, but whether they'll put up significantly better numbers than what Marmol and Guzman could do this year. Marmol is awhile away from being major league ready. He was pressed into duty way early last year and boy did it ever show. NO, I don't think you would see improvement from Marmol that would bring him into, say, the 4.5 ERA range. Guzman is another story. I do think he has a chance. But he's been hanging around for years in this organization and last year was his big shot-----it was a disaster. At any rate, to say that taking Guzman/Marmol/Mateo, and replacing 2 of those with Lilly and Marquis provides no improvement at all is silly, IMO.

We don't even know if Zito would agree to come to Chicago. For all we know, he ruled us out a long time ago and it wouldn't suprise me if he had.

Probably because Wells hasn't had a season in which he was both good and healthy since 2003. Marquis sucked last year, but he has made his starts. That's most likely why Hendry was willing to overpay so much to get him. I'm a little late to this thread, but is there any reason to think that he will or won't bounce back from 2006? I think he will, but that's not to say I don't think he is criminally overpaid. That's a bad contract. At any rate, to say Marquis and Lilly can't post numbers as good as Marmol's 6.08 ERA or Guzman's 7.63 from last year is a stretch.

How can you say signing Lilly and Marquis doesn't improve the rotation? We were starting Z,Hill,Guz,Marmol,Mateo at one point. OBP: DeRosa's is much better than Neifi. Soriano's will likely turn in somewhere around the same as Pierre's .330 -- hopefully a little higher, but with much more power. Izzy's will roll in around the same as Cedeno's. The first two things on your list have been improved by Hendry, probably just not as much as you would like. As far as moving Izzy, Hendry has never agreed that he needs to be moved so that's just you and the other board experts around here. Finding a platoon partner for Jones? Jones asked for a trade so I don't know who else has that on their list other than you.

Yeah, it's starting to look very much like Jim is going to dangle guys like Guzman & Marmol for that fabled "good lefty bat" he keeps talking about. I don't think any of those guys are off the table (as some have said). Jim's going to be looking to trade.

A lot of the posters here have a certain mindset on how they want a team built because they think its the best way to build a successful winning team. Needless to say, our GM has pretty much gameplanned completely opposite from this mindset, and as such as pretty critical. I think that the key here is that many posters have a strong opinion on what is best. Therefore when someone else doesn't do it the same way, emotion takes over. We saw it last offseason with Jones. At the beginning there was outrage but slowly the better and more moderate commetns take over. Best thing is to not judge based on initial impressions Yeah, but what is "best" in most people's minds is to pick up each and every top free agent for less than market value. It's not reasonable to start with.

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.

Sounds like a bad first half on Monday night and Rex could be out. Well we're sure going to need some offense. Because with those starters out Monday? You can bet the Rams are going to put up some serious points. I'm worried we aren't even going to have the ball enough to score. SOUL JESUS CHRIST ENOUGH WITH THIS KINDA CRAP Its getting to the point where you start "OH my god, I'm afraid of Alex Smith and his tiny hands, OUR DEFENSE CAN'T STOP HIM" I'm not worried about our offense getting the ball at all. We just have to score with it. I'm not saying anything anymore. Just going to wait for Monday night. I'm..........concerned. I'll leave it at that.

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. No way in hell the Jets get coverage like this if they play in the midwest. Not one chance.

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 hear what you're saying, but the level of criticism is just way louder surrounding the Bears right now. It's in every 2 minute football segment, just ragging and ragging to no end. Maybe it's just that the Colts criticism has been going on so long that they finally gave it a rest.

What do you think moneyball is? It's about getting value out of a player, it's not about getting a specific type of player. Everyone's trying to get value out of a player. Moneyball is about using statistics to find undervalued players. And that's fine, but winning a World Series is more than just that.