Kiko has a very good point. Marquis is a replacement pitchre essentially and adds nothing to the Cubs regardless of the price, unless the Cubs were going to use a sub-replacement pitcher rather than Marquis, which is unlikely.

They pretty much did it with half of their rotation last year. I don't entirely disagree with Kiko, and you have convinced me that this is not just a harmlessly banal signing but a very stupid one, but I disagree with the idea that for the Cubs Marquis is replacement level. In their reality, replacement level is what they can freely replace with, not MLB. And what we saw last year is that they came nowhere near what we might project from Marquis (quality start about half the time? ERA in the high 4's? 200 innings?).

Trust me, the Cardinals have known for a while now that he is a bad pitcher. They were simply waiting for his contract to end.

I don't know what a "while" is, but a year ago they had the option to non-tender him and didn't.

And what we saw last year is that they came nowhere near what we might project from Marquis

Marquis won't project any better than Mateo, Ryu or Rusch projects next year.

unless the Cubs were going to use a sub-replacement pitcher rather than Marquis, which is unlikely.

I must disagree with you here. The Cubs used lots of sub-replacement pitchers last year. I'm not sure how "replacement level" is defined in terms of ERA+, but here are some of last year's Cubs starters:



Half of the Cubs' games were started by pitchers with ERA+s below 90.

If he replaces the 60s pitchers, 180 innings of 7.30 ERA, with 180 innings of 5.00 ERA, an ERA+ of about 5.00,

he saves 46 runs and improves the team by 4 1/2 wins. Even if he pitches no better than last year, an ERA+ of 73, ERA of 6.25, he still saves 21 runs and adds 2 wins.

Is Jason Marquis a good pitcher? No. Are there better and cheaper ways to achieve these same results? Certainly, but hoping Mark Prior pitches like it's 2003 hasn't worked.

"an ERA+ of about 5.00"

an ERA+ of about 90

This doesn't mean squat, but Marcel sees Marquis' ERA as being slightly better than Lilly's next year.

Half of the Cubs' games were started by pitchers with ERA+s below 90.

Yes, but Sean Marshall no Jason Marquis. He 24. Still have reasonable chance to become legitimate major league starter. Jason Marquis, not so much.

unless the Cubs were going to use a sub-replacement pitcher rather than Marquis, which is unlikely.

I must disagree with you here. The Cubs used lots of sub-replacement pitchers last year. I'm not sure how "replacement level" is defined in terms of ERA+, but here are some of last year's Cubs starters:

By my reckonin', the average fifth starter posts an ERA+ of about 78. Sounds like replacement level to me. Last year, the Cubs fifth slot in the rotation posted an ERA+ of 60. Yoikes.

This contract signing is terrible, absolutely terrible. So Rothschild thinks he can fix a kink in Marquis's mechanics? OK, let's assume that's true, and he can return to being an adequate pitcher. Guess what? THIS IS EXACTLY THE SORT OF PLAYER YOU CAN SIGN AT A DISCOUNT!!!!!!!!

This is as good a sign of Jim Hendry's inability to get good value for his dollar. If he pitched like a D last year, and you think he can be a B, don't EVER sign him at a B price. That's just dumb. He should be available cheaper, and you could be wrong. If you can't get him, find another player you think can be a B. If none are available, move on to a B- because you have to keep one foot in your own expectations of player performance and one foot in what they actually did. No one's smarter than reality. Hendry doesn't think he's smarter than everyone else -- it's worse. He just hyperfixates on a player and goes out to get him at all costs, always willing to overpay to ensure he gets his Neifi, or his Glendon or whatever.

Hendry's the worst negotiator I've ever seen. Even if Marquis turns out to be good, he still did a bad job landing him because this is way too much money for a guy left off his team's postseason roster after he pitched horribly.

Could Hendry at least pause to think that Marquis has played under two of the best pitching coaches in all baseball and wilted badly under both of them. What does that tell us about Marquis? Maybe Rothschild isn't the first guy to notice the flaw in Marquis's mechanics, but others can't get Marquis to change.

And to think, just yesterday I was thinking that I'd be fine with the Cubs signing Marquis. I imagined it would come in the form of a low-price flyer. You'd think I'd know better than that by now. . . .

GOD DAMMIT.

Replacement level is not the worst performances you see from pitchers, it is the worst true talent level you see from major league pitchers. The former is a lot worse than the latter because it includes bad luck. There are very few pitchers who project worse than Marquis (which is what makes him replacement level), including the Cubs starters last year. All of the worst pitchers this year (the ones with ERA's in the 5's and 6's) will have ERA's next year around .75 runs above average or better. If you don't believe that, take the 20 worst starters in baseball in 05 who pitched again in 06 and look at their ERA's in 06. They will probably be collectively only half a run (or maybe less) worse than average. These pitchers are actually better than replacement since some of those pitchers who had such bad ERA's in 05 are actually decent pitchers (and some of the pitchers who had decent ERA's in 05 are actually replacement pitchers). The average baseball fan does not understand how a pitcher can easily have an ERA much higher or lower than his "true" ERA (the average ERA he would have if he pitched the season over and over again an infinite number of times, so that all the bad and good luck would "even out") in one or more seasons.

I am not sure about the "non-tendering" of Marquis. One, after 2003, he looked like a much better pitcher than he does now or even at the beginning of 06, and two, he was not making anything until 05 and the only salary that was out of line with his projection is in 06. If they had a chance to non-tender him after 05 and they did not, then it was a big mistake.

People also do not realize how much projections (a sabermetrician's assessment of a player's true talent) can change from year to year based on anomalous performances. Sabermetricians (good ones at least) do not think like the average fan and even some decent analysts when a player has an anomoous year or years. They do not wonder whether that year or years is the "real" one. They do not wonder whether a player is going to continue to improve or decline. They do not consider whether an anomolusly good season is a player's "breakout year" (and therefore his projection is going to go up a lot). At least I don't. To me, and I think it is in general and in most cases the correct way to compute a projection and assess a player's true talent, a season of performance, regardless of how much in or out of line it is with any other season or a player's career, is just another data point, just another sample of performance to plug into a projection algorithm (albeit the most recent ones get weighted more heavily). IOW, a sabermetrician's assessment (which is always an estimate - an educated guess) of a player's true talent is a moving average. For example, prior to 2003, I might have thought that Marquis was terrible. After a decent sample of performance in 03 (an NERC of 4.11), I might have thought that he was not that bad after all. Then after a terrible performance in 04, I would flip flop again and think that he is indeed a bad pitcher. Then after 05, I am even more certain that he is a bad pitcher. Finally, after another terrible sample of performance in 06, I am even more convinced that he is a terrible pitcher. If he performs well in 07, which is entirely possible regardless of his true talent, I would have to re-assess my assessment of him and increase his projection. So on and so forth.

I'm pretty shocked that people are defending this deal. As many have noted this is the worst deal of the offseason because Marquis is a horrible pitcher. The only way you can delude yourself into believing he's not is if you believe that ERA+ is a legitimate stat. Unfortunately it's not. Even if you do that you need to do a little fancy accounting by eliminating two horrible starts as if they didn't happen.

Jason Marquis is right now the worst starting pitcher in the major leagues guaranteed a spot in a starting rotation. This immediately costs the Cubs numerous games in the standings. They are literally paying money to guarantee that they will lose games. Most bad signings are spending too much money for some value. This is paying money to subract value. They are literally throwing games. An absolutely catastrophic move with no possible defense other than blind wishful thinking.

If he pitched like a D last year, and you think he can be a B, don't EVER sign him at a B price.

I won't defend this signing, but the Cubs have him at a C/D price....at least if the 3/$20 figure is correct.

2 years ago averageish starters (Benson et al) were getting 3/$21-24. Loaiza got that last offseason. This year, Lilly/Meche/Padilla are in the $10-11 M per range for 3-5 years.

I don't know if you consider those B or C guys, but Marquis is getting paid about 2/3 of what Lilly is gonna get paid and for one fewer year. The Cubs are overvaluing Marquis but this is about what you can expect to pay for a #3-4 starter these days, at least one who's a good bet to throw 200 IP.

I'm pretty shocked that people are defending this deal.

I defended it because it looked like Marquis had some potential. I had no idea that his DERA from 2004 was about a run higher than his actual ERA.

If I had known that, my first post would have just been a string of # marks.

I won't defend this signing, but the Cubs have him at a C/D price....at least if the 3/$20 figure is correct.

You're taking that section a little overly literal, Walt. I don't think he pitched like a D. I think he was an F. His ERA+ says he was worse than your normal fifth starter, and his peripherals say he was worse than his ERA+. His peripherals have never been very good. Meanwhile, he's had the benefit of serving under 2 of the best pitching coaches in baseball. The only way he's worth 20 million for 3 years is if he's paid in pesos.

You Cubs fans are a bunch of whiny #######. Relax. This team is GREATLY improved from last year. Just enjoy the spending spree for a while - it's not your money - really - it's not. So stop crying.

You Cubs fans are a bunch of whiny #######. Relax. This team is GREATLY improved from last year. Just enjoy the spending spree for a while - it's not your money - really - it's not. So stop crying.

But you're admittedly Crazy.

And the team may be GREATLY improved, but it's not IMPROVED to the POINT of being a PLAYOFF CONTENDER. NOT ONLY THAT, but the TEAM has SPENT an UNGODLY amount of MONEY, money that will be NEEDED to EXTEND CARLOS Zambrano to what's likely to be a $20M/YR CONTRACT given the CURRENT MARKET.

If they LOWBALL HIM because they've OVERSPENT on a bunch of CRAPPY PLAYERS and BLOWN their BUDGET like a FILIPINO HOUSE BOY, I'll have NO CHOICE but to COME TO CHICAGO and WREAK VENGANCE ON THE FRONT OFFICE.

I'm not really PISSED OFF, but the NEEDLESS CAPITALIZATION just MAKES ME SOUND LIKE AN INTERNET KOOK.

(Not to mention that, of ALL of the CUB MOVES this OFFSEASON, you picked the ABSOLUTE WORST ONE to come in and OPEN YOUR CAKEHOLE about people complaining about silly spending. Because this is pretty clearly a bad deal, no matter how you look at it.

And BEYOND THAT, FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY is an indicator of a front office that KNOWS WHAT IT'S DOING. BAD TEAMS have to THROW MONEY AT EVERYONE because they LACK A COHERENT PLAN to make the team better.)

I swear that if this thread devolves into leet speak, I will go ballistic.

I swear that if this thread devolves into leet speak, I will go ballistic.

5w33+

I asked before and I'll ask again: Who were the Cubs bidding against and what were they offering?

I asked before and I'll ask again: Who were the Cubs bidding against and what were they offering?

I don't know, but I think someone eventually would have coughed up the same amount of money, if not more.

The thing is, that doesn't matter. The point is, and the discussion I've read here makes the case very well, no one should have even participated in the bidding. The Cubs have plenty of people likely to do as well or better in that rotation spot, I think. I think the guys who were so horrible last year project much better this year.

Of course it matters. It's one thing to say that they picked out a guy who is mediocre at best. That indicts Hendry's talent evaluation. It's another thing to say that, having identified Marquis as a worthy acquisition and reclamation project, they were willing to pay 3 yrs/$21mm for the privilege.

As I said earlier (Post #22) and as Dag Nabbit expanded upon (Post #107), if Hendry and Rothschild is correct that Marquis has fixable flaws, that means they should have given him an 1 year, incentive-laden deal. To do anything else (namely, paying Marquis as if he's already been fixed) is beyond foolish.

On a certain level, I don't particularly care about the money -- there's no real doubt that the Cubs have the money to spare (or at least available to them). OTOH, at a certain point there has to be a limit. If deals like this one, the Lilly deal (or both) make it tougher for the Cubs to lock up Zambrano, it will be criminal.

Of course it matters. It's one thing to say that they picked out a guy who is mediocre at best. That indicts Hendry's talent evaluation. It's another thing to say that, having identified Marquis as a worthy acquisition and reclamation project, they were willing to pay 3 yrs/$21mm for the privilege.

Furthermore -- and this was my original point that I forgot to make -- how much money are they leaving on the table? If the only other bidders for Marquis were offering one year deals and/or less money, how dumb are the Cubs for giving 3 yrs/$21mm?

Of course, if Marquis had other bidders offering similar deals, then the Cubs deal doesn't seem quite as bad. It does make one think, however, that Hendry should have walked away, hoped for similar performance from Marshall/Marmol/Mateo/Guzman, and used that Marquis money elsewhere -- such as in his negotiations with Cliff Floyd, for instance.

From Cots

Cubs payroll 08/09/10

Soriano -- 13/16/18
Lee -- 13/13/13
Ramirez -- 14/15/16
Lilly -- 10/10/10
Marquis -- 6/7/7
Dempster -- 6
Jones -- 6
DeRosa -- 4/5
Howry -- 4
Eyre -- 4 (player option)
Blanco -- 3

So the Cubs already have $83 M committed in 2008 without including Zambrano. Add in $66 M in 2009 and $64 M in 2010.

Granted, if they keep payroll up around $120, that's not really much of a problem.

Guys, you're not getting it! Rothschild gets it...

Last year wasn’t the best year for [Marquis], but he still won 14 games.

Did you catch that last part? He still won 14 games.

Let me translate that for you computer geeks who are on your computers all g-ddamn day long (and before you open your yapholes, I'm dictating this to my wife who I can't stand):

Marquis is a winner. And you can't put a price on winners because winners win. And you know winners win! And no amount of "replacement level" this or "ERA+" that means anything because he's a winner and you know it so just shut up and be grateful that Jim Hendry and Gary Hughes and Larry Rothschild are in charge of your favorite team, you g-ddamn punks.

Marquis is a winner. And Jim Hendry is a winner for recognizing that Marquis (and Neifi and Izturis and Blanco and DeRosa) is a winner. A big g-ddamn winner!

Bad signing, pure and simple.

Unless Prior throws 150-200 nominal "Prior innings" -- I can see this team setting all-time worst records in the 'Beane Count' (offensive BBs vs. pitching BBs allowed) department.

It's amazing to me that the Cubs seem so adept at doing the two things that I believe are disastrous -- stocking a lineup with low OBP sluggers (and low OBP hackers without the slugging) and then on the flip side, adding homer prone pitchers that walk too many guys.

With such an awful NL -- and unless the Brewers suprise and the young pieces come together -- a really bad NL Central, I suppose anything is possible... but I could honestly foresee this team being the most expensive 90 game loser ever. I don't think that will be their fate, but I certainly don't think it's impossible, either.

As someone said - it's not our money, so I guess they can spend as much on whatever they want.

I was talking with a fellow Cub fan over the weekend, and we're both in agreement that if Hendry is hell-bent on saving his job by trying to 'buy' a title, he might as well go all in. I'm less than thrilled about throwing money at Jason Marquis, however... this smacks of the SOP for Cubs offseasons when they feel they have cash to burn. Say what you will about Soriano - and I don't like that signing either, but at least it was a premium, too-high price paid for a player who was nominally the best bat on the market. This, however, is paying too much for a mediocrity. I would have preferred to skip both Marquis and Lilly, and instead -- spent the money on Jason Schmidt... or hell -- a few mil more and you could have jumped into the Zito sweepstakes.

I'd personally be looking to spend whatever's left on Aubrey Huff - living with the defense in LF and either 1)platooning Jones and Murton in RF, or 2)trading Jones and giving Murton the RF job. For whatever reason, Huff seems to be very undervalued in this market.... even as bad as he is defensively (and really... will Carlos Lee be all that much better at his current rate of fat growth in 2 years?).

If you're going to blow up the budget for the next 3-5 years, might as well blow it up right.

Of course, if Marquis had other bidders offering similar deals, then the Cubs deal doesn't seem quite as bad.

My point-of-view is that it's splitting hairs. If the Cubs would be as well off with Mateo, Guzman or Marmol in that rotation spot, and I think a pretty good argument has been presented here that they would be, then it doesn't matter to me whether they overpaid for him in the market. And I doubt that they did. The Cubs aren't the only dumb organization in baseball.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Marquis show up and post 200 IP with a decent ERA, if Rothschild can get him to throw groundball outs like he used to.

In other businesses, where "luck" does not play such a large role in success, unless you are smart and sometimes even really smart, you eventually go out of business.

There is no such business where luck does not play a large role in success.

As a Cardinal fan, this signing scares me. I'm concerned Marquis made copies of the Cardinal playbook after he was excommunicated from the playoffs. This would explain the hefty contract Hendry gave him. The Cardinals now must retain the services of Les Walrond, former Cardinal farmhand, to return the favor. The Cubs are fighting dirty and I don't like it.

Hey DTS, we're suffering here. We don't need your mockery. Get your Cardinal-loving ### back in the lounge.