Wednesday, December 20, 2006

Why does he lie?

So I saw this this morning and I immediately puked. Not just a little, oops I puked in my mouth but swallowed it back down. I mean I used like two or three garbage bags to contain the massive amounts and almost projectile vomit.

Perhaps it was metaphoric vomit, but nonetheless, Jim Hendry is disgusting me with his comments on the Marquis deal.

So Paul Sullivan, the Cubs beat writer for the Tribune, apparently was struggling to come up with something to write about. Jason Marquis finalized his contract yesterday, and he thought surely this warrants an article.

But, Jim Hendry is just blatantly lying about the Marquis deal. Well, not lying per se, but he's putting his own spin on the contract, and on Marquis's statistics.

So I'm just going to point out some of Hendry's lies here, since really no one should believe what he's saying on this matter.

"He was going to get $20 to $21 million from three or four different [teams]; that was a definite."

Wrong. There were no rumors that Marquis was getting any deals. The only team rumored to have any interest in Marquis was the Cubs. Also, Marquis had some of the worst numbers of absolutely all of the starters in the MLB, let alone free agent starters. Hendry's next lie was that this was deal at market value. Which is a lie! You can set the value of a shitty starter. Because no one wants him! Also, why would you give a shitty starter 3 years? It's entirely unnecessary. What a liar.

"Certainly over a three-year look back, Jason's statistics, and wins, certainly validate that kind of a salary."

You're fucking wrong again. Wins are the most misleading statistic when it comes to deciding the value of a pitcher. Sure, they're important, but if you judge just by wins alone, they're not important. Basically you could have shitty numbers, say, almost the worst in all of baseball in terms of ERA and still rack up, about, oh, 14 wins if you get enough run support. All you have to do is last 5 innings for a win as a starter. When evaluating a player's value, salary or otherwise, you have to look at all of his statistics: ERA, innings pitched, home runs given up, opponent batting average, run support. Also, when evaluating starters' records, it's important to look at how many leads were lost by their bullpen. Or runners stranded by the bullpen. Wins alone are almost meaningless, unless you are single-handedly going out, giving up 2 runs and pitching 8 innings everytime (props to Johan Santana, who I think is the most dominant starter in the game currently. I know, I'm going out on a limb).

"Over the last three years [Marquis] won more games than Zito and Schmidt."

Of course he did, he didn't play on underachieving teams. Maybe it should come as no surprise that he was able to win games for a team that has had one of the most potent offenses in the past three seasons, especially in a division that normally has at least 3 teams well below average every season. This technically isn't a lie, but it's misleading nevertheless.

I mean, I suppose if hell freezes over and Rothschild is actually able to help a pitcher improve, then there may be a chance that Marquis will perform well and be worth this kind of money. Will he be considered a bargain? Hell no. If he is ever considered a bargain at this price, I will shave all of the hair on my head.

STILL. There is no reason to give this kind of pitcher this kind of money when he's basically had one good season in the past 3. ESPECIALLY WHEN HE WAS ARGUABLY THE WORST STARTER ON THE MARKET. We fucked up the market value when we offered him that kind of money. So I refuse to buy any of Hendry's bullshit about this being the market rate. Give him a one year contract, perhaps laden with incentives should his ERA crack 5 (doubtful) or if he gets to 13 wins (questionable), and then we can re-evaluated him next season or extend him before the season's over.

Really this should not have been a complicated deal. It never should have happened at all, that money would be better spent on, say, Jeff Suppan. But, it's done (poorly). But luckily if we only look at, say, half the stats, it looks kind of ok, right?

Labels: , ,

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home