In other words, he needs a team desperate and dumb enough to pay him for his best season in five years.

In other words, he needs a team desperate and dumb enough to pay him for his best season in five years.

The Mets haz many cheezburgers!

Who will have the higher OPS, Marquis or Francoeur?

In other words, he needs a team desperate and dumb enough to pay him for his best season in five years.

Well, if you were looking for a team that's desperate, dumb, and has money, wouldn't you start with the Mets?

I would be surprised if Francoeur can reach a .800 OPS. I will be surprised if Marquis is below a .800 OPS.

I will be surprised if Marquis is below a .800 OPS.

In terms of his batting stats, his pitching stats, or both?

Pitching.

edit: Mets infield defense can be brutal next year. Wright, a recovering Reyes, the king of butchers Luis Castillo, and potentially guys like Nady, Evans, Murphy, etc. Groundball pitchers will probably look to kill somebody after the first month.

Unless you are talking about his OPS allowed, Marquis probably has no shot at a .800 OPS. He is a career .520 OPS hitter.

Marquis wouldn't be a bad addition. He eats innings and is not horrible.

I will be surprised if Marquis is below a .800 OPS.

Why? Marquis can slug for a pitcher but he's only come within spitting distance of .800 just once.

EDIT: coke to Russlan.

I don't know...

Marquis gets, I think, a bad rap around these parts. He seems like he's a real dog -- unimpressive, if not borderline poor walk rates, gopher prone, and doesn't strike out anyone.

Yet - he's still got a career ERA+ of 99, and in 3 three years of his just completed contract -- posted ERA+ of 100, 102, and 113 over nearly 600 IP.

I was irate when Hendry signed him. Hated it... but I have to say... 600 IP of ERA+ 102/3/4/5 ball for 21 million? I have to think any GM would be pretty pleased with that return.

I don't know if its a matter of Marquis hitting prowess making him a better "pitcher" or what it is... all I know is that while I have ZERO desire to see him in Cubbie blue ever again -- I have to admit, he's not the disastrous vortex of suck I thought we were wasting 20 million on.

I would say he's the very definition of cromulent when it comes to pitchers.

Marquis is defintely for sadists.

I agree with every word of #10 from zonk. Marquis did MUCH better as a Cub than I expected, although I never really felt comfortable with him pitching, even after two years of solid average performance. Sign him to be your #4 starter (and pay him accordingly), and you'll probably be just fine.

I would not sign this guy. I'm a mets fan and if they made this move it would be a disaster.

Marquis has qualified for the ERA title six years in a row, and had an ERA+ of 100 or better for five of those years. I'm baffled why people hate him.

Marquis for whatever reason has always pitched really well in Coors Field. His career ERA there is 3.62, as opposed to 4.48 overall. What that presages for his future, I could not tell you.

I disagree with Zonk. Marquis is nothing more then a 5 inning pitcher who is always on the verge of disaster, and fades badly in the 2nd half. You better have a manager with a strong stomach to handle him.

Marquis has qualified for the ERA title six years in a row, and had an ERA+ of 100 or better for five of those years. I'm baffled why people hate him.

Because he signed with the Cubs and then they didn't go to the World Series.

Will Marquis be invited to Hojo's sleepover party with Francoeur and D-Wright?

Marquis has qualified for the ERA title six years in a row, and had an ERA+ of 100 or better for five of those years. I'm baffled why people hate him.

Generally bad K-BB ratio and less than stunning WHIP. That abomination that was 2006. His difficulty even maintaining a 6 IP/start level. The general perception that he's a bit of a #########.

EDIT: There no reason to think he's the worst pitcher in the world, but there's a lot about him that makes people think he could quickly become the worst pitcher in the world.

Marquis has qualified for the ERA title six years in a row, and had an ERA+ of 100 or better for five of those years. I'm baffled why people hate him.


If a pitcher is healthy enough to throw a lot of innings, people expect him to also be good. If he's hurt, people keep thinking, "what if he were healthy?" Usually the answer to that question is that they'd be about average and not very exciting.


Marquis would be a good pickup on a short, not terribly expensive contract. If either a lot of money* or a lot of years, I'd stay away.

* He's going to make a lot - it just can't be superstar money.

Generally bad K-BB ratio and less than stunning WHIP. That abomination that was 2006. His difficulty even maintaining a 6 IP/start level. The general perception that he's a bit of a #########.

Yet somehow, Jim Hendry thought it was worth it to give 3 years/$21 million after that 2006 season. Is Jim Hendry just Dayton Moore with a much larger budget?

I'd sign him on the offchance that his presence really does guarantee his team a postseason berth.

Marquis has been very durable. 32+ starts for 5 of the last 6 years, and 29 starts in the remaining year. Only one year has been bad, the others fair or good. He has a good record against the Phils and Nats, and bad records against the Marlins and Braves. He would be better than any 5th starter the Mets have lined up, but it would be kind of scary if they expect him to be the 2nd starter.

John Lackey has 24 and 27 starts the last two years. This has got to diminish his value some.

I disagree with Zonk. Marquis is nothing more then a 5 inning pitcher who is always on the verge of disaster, and fades badly in the 2nd half. You better have a manager with a strong stomach to handle him.

This, for the most part. The numbers may look decent at the end of the season, but you don't really understand the torture of watching Jason Marquis pitch every 5 days (ESPECIALLY from late June-September) until you experience it firsthand.

So Marquis is Steve Trachsel?

I'm baffled why people hate him.

Because us thinking fans kept pointing to his 2004 and especially his 2005 as incredibly lucky. When 2006 came along, we had our "I told you so" moment which we love more than anything. If memory serves, MGL called him the worst starter in baseball and that any team that signed him were idiots. I recall mildly defending Marquis (given I value durability) but basically agreed. And there's nobody we hate more than people who are mostly perfectly decent human beings with more baseball talent than we could ever hope for but are fringe major-leaguers who have a few lucky seasons and get nice things said about them by "baseball people" and sportswriters.

That the Cubs then turned around and gave the worst pitcher in baseball 3/$21 -- and it's not clear who they were competing against for his services -- gave us all a mighty good laugh (and cry for us Cub fans). That was the same offseason Hendry wasted over $13 M on a 3-year contract for the 32-year-old backup IF Mark DeRosa. Boy was it obvious to us that Hendry was just about the biggest idiot on the planet.

And then, as if that wasn't enough to make us hate him, Marquis (and DeRosa) had the gall to make us look like fools. Marquis in particular because he pretty much just kept pitching the same way he always had, putting up the same crappy peripherals only to keep posting the same average or better ERA -- that no-good, stinking bastard!

I disagree with Zonk. Marquis is nothing more then a 5 inning pitcher who is always on the verge of disaster, and fades badly in the 2nd half. You better have a manager with a strong stomach to handle him.

This, for the most part. The numbers may look decent at the end of the season, but you don't really understand the torture of watching Jason Marquis pitch every 5 days (ESPECIALLY from late June-September) until you experience it firsthand.

Look - like I said - no desire to ever see him don a Cubs uni again, but there are always outliers.

The best metric in the world is still going to have extremes - players that might be a little overrated, players a little underrated.

For the most part, though DIPS has fallen by the wayside, I think people just default to looking at BB, K, and HRs - not that a "DIPS like" analysis is the whole story, but it's just the best 'back of the napkin' that we have if you want to dig deeper than ERA+. Marquis is, at best, average - but generally below average or worse in those regards... but when you put it all together, he's essentially average.

I'm not a Marquis fan... I'm just saying that most years - he's probably in the upper half, maybe even the upper quartile of #4/5 type starters. That may not be worth 7 mil per or whatever - but if you can count on 30 starts and 180 innings of 100 ERA+ ball - it's just not NRI flotsam.

And then, as if that wasn't enough to make us hate him, Marquis (and DeRosa) had the gall to make us look like fools. Marquis in particular because he pretty much just kept pitching the same way he always had, putting up the same crappy peripherals only to keep posting the same average or better ERA -- that no-good, stinking bastard!

Heh...

I'd shudder to go revisit those offseason threads.

I think I might have been the hardest on DeRosa.

Marquis would be perfectly fine for the Mets as a #3 starter on a 1 year $5-6M deal.

I'm baffled why people hate him.

Because us thinking fans kept pointing to his 2004 and especially his 2005 as incredibly lucky. When 2006 came along, we had our "I told you so" moment which we love more than anything.

Not necessarily. Marquis was among the league leaders in wins for much of the 2006 season, and for some odd reason I found myself discussing Marquis' performance with people who thought that important.

After leaving St. Louis, Marquis did drop his curveball in favor of a slider, which apparently is more natural for a sinkerball pitcher. The slider has been an effective pitch for him.

Marquis would be perfectly fine for the Mets as a #3 starter on a 1 year $5-6M deal.

No way he signs for that. His last contract seems like a good guideline for his next contract.

For the most part, though DIPS has fallen by the wayside, I think people just default to looking at BB, K, and HRs

That's contradictory, isn't it? It seems to me that when you start talking explicitly about DIPS, people downplay it or downright pooh-pooh it. But they're perfectly happy to make predictions about pitchers based on BABIP or the other peripherals you're talking about, which is the same thing.

In the specific case of Marquis, one thing he usually does pretty well is get double-play balls. The advanced pitching metrics, for some reason, ignore that.

I'll echo the other Cubs fans: Marquis had 3 good seasons but never looked like he was a strong pitcher. You always got the feeling that he was about to let loose a 5 run inning.

His contract and DeRosa's contracts turned out to be very good deals for Hendry. I'm fairly certain that Hendry got lucky on them since his method seems to be fairly bad.

That's contradictory, isn't it? It seems to me that when you start talking explicitly about DIPS, people downplay it or downright pooh-pooh it. But they're perfectly happy to make predictions about pitchers based on BABIP or the other peripherals you're talking about, which is the same thing.

Hey - I am vast, I contain multitudes.

I guess I was sort of talking about the fact that 'formal' DIPs has fallen by the wayside, but people still like to use the raw DIPs input to measure pitchers... which, generally, isn't such a bad idea -- my understanding is that isn't so much that BB/K/HR isn't perhaps the BEST rough indicator of pitching success, just that DIPs was too extreme in claiming it as an absolute - and all else was noise.

So Marquis is Steve Trachsel?

Once upon a time I wanted to develop a number to rate players on the Trachsel scale. The other guy that inspired me was Jeff Suppan, before he signed with the Cardinals.

Both of those guys, before they signed with the Mets/Cardinals, were exceptionally similar: very durable, very consistent, never good, never horrible, lots of uniforms, racked up a lot of losses on some shitty teams, low strikeout totals, around the age of 30.

Marquis would probably score pretty well.

Marquis would be perfectly fine for the Mets as a #3 starter on a 1 year $5-6M deal.

No way he signs for that. His last contract seems like a good guideline for his next contract.

Didn't Garland sign last year for about that? Isn't Garland basically the same thing as Marquis?

Mets sign Garland, Marquis, Washburn trade for Suppan. Mets fans commit mass suicide.

I think I might have been the hardest on DeRosa.

I was right there with ya.

I'm fairly certain that Hendry got lucky on them since his method seems to be fairly bad.

Oh I still think he got lucky on Marquis. DeRosa I'm willing to believe that he/scouts may have seen a new approach we didn't give credit to and Hendry may have more properly valued his versatility.

But, really, other than those two contracts which actually worked out and the Soriano disaster, I don't have major problems with Hendry's FA signings to date. At least not if evaluated one at a time. Lilly was an excellent signing (which I thought at the time). The Z contract could blow up on him but he had been durable and effective to that point and, since signing the extension, he's been as effective as Lackey who's gonna get a nice payday this offseason (even if not quite Z level). Z would have gotten something similar on the open market. The Lee extension has worked out rather well, Ramirez has been fine so far. Dempster could blow up but so far so good (I didn't like that one). Kosuke turns out to have been a pretty bad overpay. Bradley -- he was fairly healthy and his defense was tolerable, he just didn't hit for the first time since 2002.

Hendry overpays but Soriano will probably (hopefully) be the only disaster. Avoiding disasters is probably the #1 key to successful FA contracts.

Where Hendry has screwed up royally is in "timing". You've got to time your long-term commitments so you have a couple big contracts coming off the books each year. The Cubs are already committed to $120 M (plus some arb raises) for 2010 and nearly $100 M (plus more arb raises) for 2011. That's horrible payroll management and it's what makes his FA signings such a huge risk. There's a very high risk that at least one of Z, Kosuke, ARam and Dempster will join Soriano in the disaster bucket and probably a good chance that at least two of them will, possibly starting this year. That screws the Cubs over through 2012 -- there's a perfectly reasonable scenario that has the Cubs wasting $150 M on 3 cliff-divers over 3 years.

On the bright side, we only owe Samardzija another $2.5 M. :-)

Didn't Garland sign last year for about that? Isn't Garland basically the same thing as Marquis?

Pretty much.

FIP, 2007 to 2009, career

Marquis 4.99 4.61 4.10 4.62 867/578 K/BB in 1485 innings
Garland 4.36 4.76 4.48 4.72 960/593 K/BB in 1829 innings

Garland improved a little in 2009. I'll be surprised if he can't get something like 2/14 with a vesting option this offseason.

I dare anyone to actually watch Marquis start an entire season and want him back on their team. He is living proof in the hoary old saying "there are lies, there are damn lies, and then there are statistics."

I dare anyone to actually watch Marquis start an entire season and want him back on their team.

I watched him all year with the Rockies. He was starting to fall apart by the end, but I'd be happy to have him back next year.

The Rockies signing Marquis would be great.

Didn't Garland sign last year for about that? Isn't Garland basically the same thing as Marquis?

I was actually coming back to post that maybe I was wrong about that considering what Garland signed for.

Maybe the Mets will pay Jason something like 4 years for $40M' we've all seen Omar do worse.

Why did the Cubs go gaga over Soriano?
Was it the 40 HR and 40 SB or the 22 assists?
He had holes in his hitting zone a mile wide and 3 feet deep.
Sure glad he left DC before we did something stupid like resigning him for $100M.

Why did the Cubs go gaga over Soriano?
Was it the 40 HR and 40 SB or the 22 assists?

It was the 96 losses by the Cubs in 2006. Soriano just happened to be the best free agent the next offseason, when the Cubs felt like they absolutely, positively had to do something.

It was the 96 losses by the Cubs in 2006. Soriano just happened to be the best free agent the next offseason, when the Cubs felt like they absolutely, positively had to do something.

I would add that Hendry is (rightfully) looking at a closing window, and figured he'd give himself a shot at a World Series and everyone would forget the bad half of the contract.

I am one of Marquis' 'fans' here. (I don't think he's the bee's knees, but I think he's a perfectly adequate pitcher). I don't get the hate either. He lived up to his contract with the Cubs, did well with the Rockies. He's unexceptional, but also unobjectionable.