CaliforniaRaisin

I agree that Marquis will outperform Marshall and it's pointless to compare players based on one season (though I think Guzman has a good chance of outproducing Marquis). I have to see Guzman go thru that inital phase in the majors, it's hard to say he did last year b/c was that him getting healthy again as to why he performed poorly (espec. control) or was it the inital adjustment to the majors? I think it was him getting back into the flow. Personally, I don't think he's made that adjustment yet to the majors. When he does and he can stay healthy (if), his ceiling is higher than Marshall and what should be expected from Marquis. I think last year was a good step because it should limit the number of adjustments he's going to have to make to the major leagues once he's healthy again. He certainly hasn't made the complete adjustment, but even a half season in the big leagues where he's also getting acclimated to pitching healthy again has to help him down the road.

The discussion went like this: Why give this much money to marquis when we have cheap guys who could pitch as well as him? I need proof that they will pitch as well as him! Marshall has already done it. YOU CANT USE LAST YEARS STATS TO PROVE MARSHALL WILL PITCH BETTER THAN MARQUIS NEXT YEAR! the problem is that nobody said marshall will pitch better than marquis last year. Somebody said that he could and somebody else responded by saying that they needed to show evidence that suggests that he will. The only problem is why does the original poster need to show evidence to proove something that he never said? The proof that the original poster needed to show was that marshall could indeed pitch better than marquis and that proof is in the 2006 statistics. that's my point about using selective stats. I could say that Soriano is going to put up .350/.560 next year. will you buy that Jon? you Raisen? he did it just last year. But nobody was making any predictions in this discussion. let's go back. the poster said now to me that says make a case, not throw out a selective stat to show it is possible. so you are right, noone did make a prediction, but one poster requested a critic of the signing and advocate of a youngster over the signed player give a prediction. that is not what he got. he got a stat line from a single season as a proxy for the argument. that's as lame as it gets. Seems like you've altered what really happened. The stat line was used to point out that Marshall outperformed Marquis last season so it's possible he CAN do it again.

I agree that Marquis will outperform Marshall and it's pointless to compare players based on one season (though I think Guzman has a good chance of outproducing Marquis).

The discussion went like this: Why give this much money to marquis when we have cheap guys who could pitch as well as him? I need proof that they will pitch as well as him! Marshall has already done it. YOU CANT USE LAST YEARS STATS TO PROVE MARSHALL WILL PITCH BETTER THAN MARQUIS NEXT YEAR! the problem is that nobody said marshall will pitch better than marquis last year. Somebody said that he could and somebody else responded by saying that they needed to show evidence that suggests that he will. The only problem is why does the original poster need to show evidence to proove something that he never said? The proof that the original poster needed to show was that marshall could indeed pitch better than marquis and that proof is in the 2006 statistics. that's my point about using selective stats. I could say that Soriano is going to put up .350/.560 next year. will you buy that Jon? you Raisen? he did it just last year. Here's the difference. One person said Marshall COULD outperform Marquis. COULD. You are saying Soriano WILL do something.

Unfortunately, something this place has had very little of this offseason! It's been hard at points to read this board when you have to wade through pages and pages of arguements that lack reason, an objective view, and have some really skewed logic. The negativity (and I can understand it a bit) on this board has been SO bad this offseason it's crazy! Despite that, this is still head and shoulders above any other forum, I just wish more people would heed jjgman21's advise above. And posts like this one ^^^^ What do they accomplish? This isn't a thread on debate tactics, its a thread on the signing of Jason Marquis. I don't like it. There is a good chance that he will not get better and you will be on the hook for 21+ over 7 years. The following young pitchers can outperform Marquis. Sean Marhsall Carlos Marmol Juan Mateo There was really no point to this signing. Just trying to remind people about what made this board great and how it seems as though it has gotten completely out of hand this year (96 loss season do tend to do stuff like this though). There are a lot of stubborn people on here and I doubt that much will change, hopefully people realize how they have been acting and try to tone it down. Now what does your post accomplish? You tell me that 3 of our young guys can outperform Marquis, fair enough, but where is your logic behind it? Tell me why they will outpitch him, otherwise your post is just as pointless as you think mine was. I can say player A will outpeform player B all I want, give me something of substance to prove that point. BTW, personally I dont really like the signing much either. Sean Marshall outperformed Jason Marquis last year. Is that not the kind of evidence you are looking for. Exactly. Marshall: 5.59 ERA, 1.52 WHIP, .270 BAA, 77 K/59 BB, 20 HR Marquis: 6.02 ERA, 1.52 WHIP, .289 BAA, 96 K/75 BB, 35 HR Marshall will be good in a couple of years. But he does not have a 4.45 carreer ERA like Marquis does. I don't like this signing particularly. But counting on Marshall is not a good idea. Seasoning him in AAA and viewing him as a possible future Cub, is a good idea. Yep. Why rush these kids? Didn't we learn our lesson with Wood and Prior? Let them build up the proper arm strength. bump. see the bold Jon. The bolded: The response to that: Exactly. Marshall: 5.59 ERA, 1.52 WHIP, .270 BAA, 77 K/59 BB, 20 HR Marquis: 6.02 ERA, 1.52 WHIP, .289 BAA, 96 K/75 BB, 35 HR What exactly is wrong here? ah, decontextualize the flow of the discussion. getting more honsest in debate by the minute there aren't you Raisen. it's all there to be seen what the discussion was about and what tactics were used to "win." What the hell? What am I doing that is dishonest?

No, no it isn't.

Unfortunately, something this place has had very little of this offseason! It's been hard at points to read this board when you have to wade through pages and pages of arguements that lack reason, an objective view, and have some really skewed logic. The negativity (and I can understand it a bit) on this board has been SO bad this offseason it's crazy! Despite that, this is still head and shoulders above any other forum, I just wish more people would heed jjgman21's advise above. And posts like this one ^^^^ What do they accomplish? This isn't a thread on debate tactics, its a thread on the signing of Jason Marquis. I don't like it. There is a good chance that he will not get better and you will be on the hook for 21+ over 7 years. The following young pitchers can outperform Marquis. Sean Marhsall Carlos Marmol Juan Mateo There was really no point to this signing. Just trying to remind people about what made this board great and how it seems as though it has gotten completely out of hand this year (96 loss season do tend to do stuff like this though). There are a lot of stubborn people on here and I doubt that much will change, hopefully people realize how they have been acting and try to tone it down. Now what does your post accomplish? You tell me that 3 of our young guys can outperform Marquis, fair enough, but where is your logic behind it? Tell me why they will outpitch him, otherwise your post is just as pointless as you think mine was. I can say player A will outpeform player B all I want, give me something of substance to prove that point. BTW, personally I dont really like the signing much either. Sean Marshall outperformed Jason Marquis last year. Is that not the kind of evidence you are looking for. Exactly. Marshall: 5.59 ERA, 1.52 WHIP, .270 BAA, 77 K/59 BB, 20 HR Marquis: 6.02 ERA, 1.52 WHIP, .289 BAA, 96 K/75 BB, 35 HR Marshall will be good in a couple of years. But he does not have a 4.45 carreer ERA like Marquis does. I don't like this signing particularly. But counting on Marshall is not a good idea. Seasoning him in AAA and viewing him as a possible future Cub, is a good idea. Yep. Why rush these kids? Didn't we learn our lesson with Wood and Prior? Let them build up the proper arm strength. bump. see the bold Jon. The bolded: The response to that: Exactly. Marshall: 5.59 ERA, 1.52 WHIP, .270 BAA, 77 K/59 BB, 20 HR Marquis: 6.02 ERA, 1.52 WHIP, .289 BAA, 96 K/75 BB, 35 HR What exactly is wrong here?

Sullivan reports Marquis signed with the Cubs for 3/$28M. Rothschild worked out with him earlier this offseason and might have found out mechanical errors that plagued Marquis last year/solutions to fix them.

what do you fail to understand about "totality of the body of work and at least an attempt to make a reasoned prediction?" So you want us to back up our claims but we're not allowed to use stats? Makes sense. don't play daft. you know exactly what I am saying. you don't use one year to evaluate and compare two players potential for the future. I can say "Marquis had a 113 ERA+" and it would be true but that really doesn't encapsulate what we can expect next year or give us a basis to evaluate this signing, now does it? And that wasn't what they were talking about. you're wrong. that's exactly what the post was about. one poster said he didn't think there was much basis for saying Marshall would outperform Marquis next year, another poster said he did last year, Raisen "backed it up" with last seasons stats. I find it better to cut off prior posts when the quotes get too long, but if you look back a couple pages, you will in fact see that predicting Marquis and Mashall's future is EXACTLY what this has been about. Wrong. The point of discussion was about whether or not Marshall "can" out-perform Marquis. It wasn't about whether or not he will, but whether he has the ability to. I'd say those stats are plenty to backup that claim. When are you going to start making your own posts instead of criticizing everyone else's without offering any support of your own? how many times do I have to say that I don't have a dog in this fight, I only want to see honesty in the debate? What have I done dishonestly in this debate? Or someone else?

What's wrong with this? One person says there's not much basis for X to happen. Another person says X already happened last season and then I posted the stats showing that X happened. But that's not what I was responding to! I was responding to a comparison of Marquis and Marshall last season!

I doubt any of the contracts signed this offseason (outside of Soriano) will hurt them if they need to make a trade. I think Rothschild will be able to help Marquis a bit at least to make him somewhere near league average. On the flip side, the Cubs are trying to win now and can use those 3 minor leaguers as trade bait. I doubt too many of the young guys who are at the AAA/MLB cusp right now will be in the system a few years down the road - they'll either have made the Cubs or been traded away. Oh, and Pawelek is more than 2 years away.

The discussion was surrounding last season, I hadn't made a prediction on pither pitcher for next season. This is the quote I was initially responding to: Thanks for being so cordial and polite.

Unfortunately, something this place has had very little of this offseason! It's been hard at points to read this board when you have to wade through pages and pages of arguements that lack reason, an objective view, and have some really skewed logic. The negativity (and I can understand it a bit) on this board has been SO bad this offseason it's crazy! Despite that, this is still head and shoulders above any other forum, I just wish more people would heed jjgman21's advise above. And posts like this one ^^^^ What do they accomplish? This isn't a thread on debate tactics, its a thread on the signing of Jason Marquis. I don't like it. There is a good chance that he will not get better and you will be on the hook for 21+ over 7 years. The following young pitchers can outperform Marquis. Sean Marhsall Carlos Marmol Juan Mateo There was really no point to this signing. Just trying to remind people about what made this board great and how it seems as though it has gotten completely out of hand this year (96 loss season do tend to do stuff like this though). There are a lot of stubborn people on here and I doubt that much will change, hopefully people realize how they have been acting and try to tone it down. Now what does your post accomplish? You tell me that 3 of our young guys can outperform Marquis, fair enough, but where is your logic behind it? Tell me why they will outpitch him, otherwise your post is just as pointless as you think mine was. I can say player A will outpeform player B all I want, give me something of substance to prove that point. BTW, personally I dont really like the signing much either. Sean Marshall outperformed Jason Marquis last year. Is that not the kind of evidence you are looking for. Exactly. Marshall: 5.59 ERA, 1.52 WHIP, .270 BAA, 77 K/59 BB, 20 HR Marquis: 6.02 ERA, 1.52 WHIP, .289 BAA, 96 K/75 BB, 35 HR Marshall will be good in a couple of years. But he does not have a 4.45 carreer ERA like Marquis does. I don't like this signing particularly. But counting on Marshall is not a good idea. Seasoning him in AAA and viewing him as a possible future Cub, is a good idea. Yep. Why rush these kids? Didn't we learn our lesson with Wood and Prior? Let them build up the proper arm strength. Prior nor Wood were rushed.

Unfortunately, something this place has had very little of this offseason! It's been hard at points to read this board when you have to wade through pages and pages of arguements that lack reason, an objective view, and have some really skewed logic. The negativity (and I can understand it a bit) on this board has been SO bad this offseason it's crazy! Despite that, this is still head and shoulders above any other forum, I just wish more people would heed jjgman21's advise above. And posts like this one ^^^^ What do they accomplish? This isn't a thread on debate tactics, its a thread on the signing of Jason Marquis. I don't like it. There is a good chance that he will not get better and you will be on the hook for 21+ over 7 years. The following young pitchers can outperform Marquis. Sean Marhsall Carlos Marmol Juan Mateo There was really no point to this signing. Just trying to remind people about what made this board great and how it seems as though it has gotten completely out of hand this year (96 loss season do tend to do stuff like this though). There are a lot of stubborn people on here and I doubt that much will change, hopefully people realize how they have been acting and try to tone it down. Now what does your post accomplish? You tell me that 3 of our young guys can outperform Marquis, fair enough, but where is your logic behind it? Tell me why they will outpitch him, otherwise your post is just as pointless as you think mine was. I can say player A will outpeform player B all I want, give me something of substance to prove that point. BTW, personally I dont really like the signing much either. Sean Marshall outperformed Jason Marquis last year. Is that not the kind of evidence you are looking for. Exactly. Marshall: 5.59 ERA, 1.52 WHIP, .270 BAA, 77 K/59 BB, 20 HR Marquis: 6.02 ERA, 1.52 WHIP, .289 BAA, 96 K/75 BB, 35 HR I'd much prefer looking at the totality of the body of work and at least an attempt to make a reasoned prediction of the future based thereon rather than unfairly plucking stats selectively to make the worst case scenerio appear to be the likely outcome. is that really too much to ask? What are you talking about? I didn't pluck stats here - these are the stats I think are best to look at with pitchers (would rather use HR/9 and ERA+, but couldn't find the baseball-reference site in time).

I completely agree with this. People don't like the tone of the board of this transaction but they're not helping by just criticizing posters or the board as a whole. Why not defend your side of the argument, I would think it'd be easy since the other side doesn't use fair, reasoned or logical responses? I'm not the other side. I don't like this signing. I just find it absurd when people say things like "best case scenerio is a 4.5 ERA" or "we have a #1 and four #5's" or when people make illogical jumps to come to overly pessimistic conclusions. these things don't need debate. they need to not make it on the board in the first place because they are completely lacking in factual basis. we used to call it flaming. If you noticed, just about everyone got on the case of the poster who said "we have a #1 and four #5s." I don't get the point in just criticizing the whole board - you're basically doing what you're complaining about the rest of the board is in being negative.

I don't disagree that Marmol is a year away and needs time in the minors to iron out a lot of things including his control. But I think it's unfair to expect much from Guzman when he' practically missed 2.5 years AND asked to have success two levels higher than he has ever pitched in his pro career. He showed major rust, a drop-off in his pitches and control, and also signs of what brought him so much hype before the injury.

Unfortunately, something this place has had very little of this offseason! It's been hard at points to read this board when you have to wade through pages and pages of arguements that lack reason, an objective view, and have some really skewed logic. The negativity (and I can understand it a bit) on this board has been SO bad this offseason it's crazy! Despite that, this is still head and shoulders above any other forum, I just wish more people would heed jjgman21's advise above. And posts like this one ^^^^ What do they accomplish? This isn't a thread on debate tactics, its a thread on the signing of Jason Marquis. I don't like it. There is a good chance that he will not get better and you will be on the hook for 21+ over 7 years. The following young pitchers can outperform Marquis. Sean Marhsall Carlos Marmol Juan Mateo There was really no point to this signing. Just trying to remind people about what made this board great and how it seems as though it has gotten completely out of hand this year (96 loss season do tend to do stuff like this though). There are a lot of stubborn people on here and I doubt that much will change, hopefully people realize how they have been acting and try to tone it down. Now what does your post accomplish? You tell me that 3 of our young guys can outperform Marquis, fair enough, but where is your logic behind it? Tell me why they will outpitch him, otherwise your post is just as pointless as you think mine was. I can say player A will outpeform player B all I want, give me something of substance to prove that point. BTW, personally I dont really like the signing much either. Sean Marshall outperformed Jason Marquis last year. Is that not the kind of evidence you are looking for. Exactly. Marshall: 5.59 ERA, 1.52 WHIP, .270 BAA, 77 K/59 BB, 20 HR Marquis: 6.02 ERA, 1.52 WHIP, .289 BAA, 96 K/75 BB, 35 HR

I completely agree with this. People don't like the tone of the board of this transaction but they're not helping by just criticizing posters or the board as a whole. Why not defend your side of the argument, I would think it'd be easy since the other side doesn't use fair, reasoned or logical responses?

Seriously, who uses those sort of arguments to criticize Hendry's offseason? Disgruntled Cubs Fan for one. There are plenty of other village idiots that chime in with that nonsense whenever they see a move they don't like. It's getting old. Attack the post, not the poster. And we do try to limit usage of such terms.

Seriously, who uses those sort of arguments to criticize Hendry's offseason?

There is no trading of draft picks. By the rules? Or are you saying that trading a draft pick would be a Bad Thing? By the rules.

No option for a menorah?

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. You implied that was what they were aiming for No, he implied that that's what their moves have accomplished.

That was a strange ending. UCLA holds on! 65-62 the final. :) Now 8-0!

Does CBS believe in showing replays?