Nationals - Signed Marquis
Washington Nationals - Signed P Jason Marquis to a 2-year, $15 million contract.
I’m pretty gobsmacked. If you told me a month ago, after Marquis won 16 games, was named an All-Star, and had numerous puff pieces about his legendary streak of playoff appearances, that Marquis would only sign for 2/15, I would have thought you were nuts. But that’s what happened.
Marquis is the best kind of the inning-eater species. With the exception of one season, Marquis is always pretty healthy and always a bit above-average and this is something the Nationals are desperate for. Suddenly, the 2010 rotation has one less gaping hole and assuming some luck with Strasburg and a successful recovery from Zimmermann, the Nats suddenly have a pretty decent 2011 rotation.
The Nats still have a lot of work to do, but they might stop being in contention for one of the top draft picks in the near future.
ZiPS Projection - Jason Marquis
————————————————————————————————-
W L G GS IP H ER HR BB SO ERA ERA+
————————————————————————————————-
2010 11 12 30 30 184.2 195 89 16 65 87 4.34 101
2011 11 12 29 29 178.1 190 88 15 66 89 4.44 97
————————————————————————————————-
Dan Szymborski
Posted: December 24, 2009 at 12:16 AM |
9 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Related News:
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. Walt Davis Posted: December 24, 2009 at 01:21 AM (#3421299)a number like their is useful in a vacuum, but then you need to work around (and of course their war stat for pitchers is competly ####### useless)
I don't read the editorial pieces on fangraphs, but I do read Cameron and Carruth's stuff on Mariners blogs, and I was under the impression that they hold the exact opposite position.
Let's say late career Roger Clemens was doing his typical midseason free agent routine. They'd claim (I believe) that it wouldn't make sense for a team like the Nats or Orioles to sign him. Even if he'd be worth the contract by performance, it wouldn't help the team out in terms of attendance / profit. But if there was a team that was around 85 wins talent-wise, they should overspend to sign him, because the value of each win over the 85th win (or thereabouts) is incredibly high. That's because making the playoffs generates a lot of revenue, both for that season and the next season. Similarly, a team that was a 95-100 win team shouldn't overspend to sign him, because they're already likely going to make the playoffs, and once there, it's a crapshoot, so having Clemens might not help them so much.
Again, I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that's the position of at least some of the fangraphs writers.
You can't say 4 year service time player X is worth Y on the current markeet because player X and similar players like him are not on the market. If they were on the market then there worth would be different.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main