06-16-2010, 01:51 PM
<!--quoteo(post=101704:date=Jun 16 2010, 12:27 PM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Jun 16 2010, 12:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=101693:date=Jun 16 2010, 11:49 AM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Jun 16 2010, 11:49 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->*sigh*
If you guys want to continue to give Hendry a gold star for his acquisition of Marquis, then I really don't know what else to tell you. It still goes down as a mark against Hendry in my book.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is what drives me nuts Butch. First you argue that he overpaid for Marquis in that market. I give you multiple examples showing that he didn't. You then argue he wasn't worth the money we paid him. I give you statistics which strongly suggest he was. So examples show he didn't overpay (anymore than anyone else overpaid for starters that year), and statistics show, AT THE VERY LEAST, he earned the 21 million dollars he was given (unless Fangraphs is off by a factor of 50 percent). And your answer is basically, "I don't care about any of your fancy statistics, examples, or precedents. I still think Hendry overpaid, and he sucked".
How am I supposed to argue that?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First of all, I conceded that the market when Marquis was signed was ridiculous -- across the board.
Ace and jstraw both used stats and salary to show that Marquis was overpaid. I think your response was "WAR is a billion times better than ERA." Which apparently made Ace and straw's argument completely meaningless. I think I also made a fairly compelling case that WAR isn't the be-all/end-all stat that you've made it out to be (at the very least not <b>a billion</b> times better than ERA+ (which Ace used)).
I think I also said that giving Marquis $7M for one season, hoping to reclaim his success in 2004 wouldn't have been awful. I thought giving him a three year deal for $7M per year was unwise, given that he just came off a season where he led the league in losses, earned runs, and home runs.
Yes -- Marquis bested his 2006 season while a Cub. However, many teams (including the Cubs) can find a pitcher from their farm system who could put up a 5.00 ERA (or something close) and pay that person $6,600,000 less per year than what Marquis made. That's what I take issue with.
If you guys want to continue to give Hendry a gold star for his acquisition of Marquis, then I really don't know what else to tell you. It still goes down as a mark against Hendry in my book.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is what drives me nuts Butch. First you argue that he overpaid for Marquis in that market. I give you multiple examples showing that he didn't. You then argue he wasn't worth the money we paid him. I give you statistics which strongly suggest he was. So examples show he didn't overpay (anymore than anyone else overpaid for starters that year), and statistics show, AT THE VERY LEAST, he earned the 21 million dollars he was given (unless Fangraphs is off by a factor of 50 percent). And your answer is basically, "I don't care about any of your fancy statistics, examples, or precedents. I still think Hendry overpaid, and he sucked".
How am I supposed to argue that?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First of all, I conceded that the market when Marquis was signed was ridiculous -- across the board.
Ace and jstraw both used stats and salary to show that Marquis was overpaid. I think your response was "WAR is a billion times better than ERA." Which apparently made Ace and straw's argument completely meaningless. I think I also made a fairly compelling case that WAR isn't the be-all/end-all stat that you've made it out to be (at the very least not <b>a billion</b> times better than ERA+ (which Ace used)).
I think I also said that giving Marquis $7M for one season, hoping to reclaim his success in 2004 wouldn't have been awful. I thought giving him a three year deal for $7M per year was unwise, given that he just came off a season where he led the league in losses, earned runs, and home runs.
Yes -- Marquis bested his 2006 season while a Cub. However, many teams (including the Cubs) can find a pitcher from their farm system who could put up a 5.00 ERA (or something close) and pay that person $6,600,000 less per year than what Marquis made. That's what I take issue with.