PDA

View Full Version : Jeff Marquez


delben91
03-06-2009, 10:00 AM
I haven't seen or heard any of the ST games so far, but Marquez's line in the box scores has looked pretty solid.

Any idea if he's been as solid as the numbers say or if he's been dodging bullets?

Would really help the Sox if he panned out either in the rotation (unlikely if Contreras and Colon are ready) or in the bullpen.

Just looking for some "first hand" observations.

KenBerryGrab
03-06-2009, 10:18 AM
On TV yesterday, his ball had some good sink to it. He doesn't light up the gun, but he looked pretty efficient.

voodoochile
03-06-2009, 10:19 AM
On TV yesterday, his ball had some good sink to it. He doesn't light up the gun, but he looked pretty efficient.

Very solid outing all around I thought. Looks like a nice pickup.

doublem23
03-06-2009, 10:26 AM
Has any of our starters been lit up so far this spring? Considering the odds of both Colon and Contreras making it to September without a health hiccup, Marquez could be a huge pickup for the '09 Sox.

oeo
03-06-2009, 10:33 AM
Has any of our starters been lit up so far this spring? Considering the odds of both Colon and Contreras making it to September without a health hiccup, Marquez could be a huge pickup for the '09 Sox.

Well, it is extremely early. Most guys are not close with the bat yet.

johnnyg83
03-06-2009, 10:35 AM
Well, it is extremely early. Most guys are not close with the bat yet.

yeah, but it's also Arizona/Nevada ... which may balance it out a bit.

jabrch
03-06-2009, 01:15 PM
Very solid outing all around I thought. Looks like a nice pickup.


Getting NY to pick up all of Swish, in this baseball economy, was shocking. If we get ANYTHING in return for him, that's even better.

oeo
03-06-2009, 01:16 PM
Getting NY to pick up all of Swish, in this baseball economy, was shocking. If we get ANYTHING in return for him, that's even better.

1. It's the Yankees. The same team that bid against themselves on Sabathia and Teixeira this offseason.
2. Swisher isn't making that much.

WhiteSox5187
03-06-2009, 01:20 PM
While his line has looked good of late, it's very early in spring training still and in watching the game yesterday (all be it, very briefly) I thought he was getting a lot of flyball outs. I think it's way too early to judge.

jabrch
03-06-2009, 01:22 PM
2. Swisher isn't making that much.


21mm for the next three years is a lot of money given what non-premium FA were getting this year. It's even more money in the context of what he did last year. It's even more money in the context of him being a reserve corner OF. And it is even more money if they gave away a guy who ends up in a rotation.

oeo
03-06-2009, 01:33 PM
21mm for the next three years is a lot of money given what non-premium FA were getting this year. It's even more money in the context of what he did last year. It's even more money in the context of him being a reserve corner OF. And it is even more money if they gave away a guy who ends up in a rotation.

It still isn't an absurd amount of money. When the trade happened, there was no idea on the market yet, and again, the Yankees obviously don't care either way. They spent their offseason bidding against no one in order to bring Sabathia and Teixeira in.

jabrch
03-06-2009, 01:38 PM
It still isn't an absurd amount of money.

Really? 7mm per for Swisher? I'm thrilled it isn't on our books. That's absurd to me - when you look at his performance.

When the trade happened, there was no idea on the market yet,

I disagree. I think there were those who saw the troubles in the economy and predicted that it would impact the game, and others who either don't need to care (NYY) or were ignorant to it. But to say that there was no idea...that's just not true. Things have been crooked for a while now.


and again, the Yankees obviously don't care either way. They spent their offseason bidding against no one in order to bring Sabathia and Teixeira in.

While that's true, I don't care. It was nice that Williams found someone who placed enough value on him to not only take him, but to give us someeone who may end up having value. Last thing I'd have wanted was to see Swisher playing CF every day making 7mm a year for the next three years. I'll take Owens, BA or Wise for whatever they cost any day over Nick for real money.

oeo
03-06-2009, 01:48 PM
Really? 7mm per for Swisher? I'm thrilled it isn't on our books. That's absurd to me - when you look at his performance.

It depends on how you feel about Swisher. I think 2008 was a fluke. If he returns to his pre-2008 numbers, then yeah, it's not an absurd amount of money.

DirtySox
03-06-2009, 02:07 PM
Both Marquez and Egbert look good thus far. Very similar pitchers. I will be keeping an eye on the rest of their performances.

Jurr
03-06-2009, 02:50 PM
While his line has looked good of late, it's very early in spring training still and in watching the game yesterday (all be it, very briefly) I thought he was getting a lot of flyball outs. I think it's way too early to judge.

It's a lot nicer saying that it's too early to judge after seeing our pitchers put up zeros instead of 8's, which has been typical of Sox spring training pitching for a while now!!!!:bandance:

jabrch
03-06-2009, 03:37 PM
It depends on how you feel about Swisher. I think 2008 was a fluke. If he returns to his pre-2008 numbers, then yeah, it's not an absurd amount of money.

He's a career .254/.354/.451 hitter. I can't envision not being able to get that kind of performance from someone for less than 7mm. Abreu signed for 5mm.

doublem23
03-06-2009, 03:40 PM
He's a career .254/.354/.451 hitter. I can't envision not being able to get that kind of performance from someone for less than 7mm. Abreu signed for 5mm.

IMO, comparing contracts signed before and after the market completely caved in is like comparing apples to oranges. Swisher's "affordable" contract was a major reason the Sox had to spend so much to get him from Oakland.

jabrch
03-08-2009, 11:12 PM
IMO, comparing contracts signed before and after the market completely caved in is like comparing apples to oranges. Swisher's "affordable" contract was a major reason the Sox had to spend so much to get him from Oakland.

At the time - he was signed cheap - but that's the nature of MLB contracts. Yesterday's treasure is today's trash.

I don't think it is apples to oranges. I think you evaluate each current contract in the context of the future asset/liability it is to the club. I'm not saying Anaheim was smart for getting Abreu cheap and Oakland was dumb for signing swish. THAT would be apples to oranges. I am saying that if I were a fan of NYY, I'd much rather have Abreu for 4 than Swish for...a lot and a long time.

oeo
03-08-2009, 11:49 PM
At the time - he was signed cheap - but that's the nature of MLB contracts. Yesterday's treasure is today's trash.

I don't think it is apples to oranges. I think you evaluate each current contract in the context of the future asset/liability it is to the club. I'm not saying Anaheim was smart for getting Abreu cheap and Oakland was dumb for signing swish. THAT would be apples to oranges. I am saying that if I were a fan of NYY, I'd much rather have Abreu for 4 than Swish for...a lot and a long time.

This is a dumb argument, and especially coming from you who would be the first one here to defend Swisher's contract if he were still on the Sox.

jabrch
03-08-2009, 11:56 PM
This is a dumb argument, and especially coming from you who would be the first one here to defend Swisher's contract if he were still on the Sox.

I'm a dumb guy. What can I say?

The contract was good when it was signed.

It was good when we acquired it.

But after Swisher hit what he hit, and after the market did what it did, how could you defend it as being good current value?

I won't defend PKs contract today as being good current value. I wouldn't defend there being current value even in JDs contract. I'm glad we don't have too much money tied into contracts right now. If we had Swisher still, I'd be hoping he plays well enough to earn what he's making, but I'd know that he'd need to improve GREATLY to get there.

Craig Grebeck
03-08-2009, 11:58 PM
If we had Swisher still, I'd be hoping he plays well enough to earn what he's making, but I'd know that he'd need to improve GREATLY to get there.
Or just, y'know, go back to the player he was before 2008. Not too difficult.

oeo
03-09-2009, 12:01 AM
But after Swisher hit what he hit, and after the market did what it did, how could you defend it as being good current value?

I merely said that it's not an absurd amount of money. You're comparing the market now to then which is what makes your argument dumb.

jabrch
03-09-2009, 12:04 AM
I merely said that it's not an absurd amount of money. You're comparing the market now to then which is what makes your argument dumb.

I'm comparing TODAY to TODAY oeo. I'm comparing what he will cost someone in 2009 vs what he will deliver in 2009. I'm not comparing the deals when they were signed. I'm comparing their 09 value. If you think that is dumb, then so be it.

I think it is a terrible value in 09, and I am thrilled it is not our liability.

oeo
03-09-2009, 12:05 AM
I'm comparing TODAY to TODAY oeo. I'm comparing what he will cost someone in 2009 vs what he will deliver in 2009. I'm not comparing the deals when they were signed. I'm comparing their 09 value. If you think that is dumb, then so be it.

Thanks for the explanation, I know what you're doing. It's dumb. You're comparing contracts, and you have to take into account when they were signed.

If you can predict the future that well, Miss Cleo is in trouble.

And again, you have me all wrong. I only said it's not a terrible amount of money. Swisher's contract still isn't going to handcuff most teams.

jabrch
03-09-2009, 12:08 AM
Thanks for the explanation, I know what you're doing. It's dumb. You're comparing contracts, and you have to take into account when they were signed.

If you can predict the future that well, Miss Cleo is in trouble.

I respect your right to having an opinion. And I won't call your opinion, or your logic to conclude it dumb.

I'm not predicting any future. I'd be terrible at that.

oeo
03-09-2009, 12:11 AM
I respect your right to having an opinion. And I won't call your opinion, or your logic to conclude it dumb.

Alright, I'm sorry I called your argument dumb, but come on. You're trying to say that teams should be able to predict which way the market will turn.

I'm not predicting any future. I'd be terrible at that.

You said...
I think you evaluate each current contract in the context of the future asset/liability it is to the club.

...which would take some serious predictions.

jabrch
03-09-2009, 12:14 AM
You said...


...which would take some serious predictions on the future of the market two years ago.


Then you don't understand my arguement at all.

Good night

oeo
03-09-2009, 12:23 AM
Then you don't understand my arguement at all.

No, I understand that you're trying to say you don't like his contract in today's market, but it wasn't signed in today's market.

This argument were having right now did not even stem from my original comment. I still don't think it's an absurd amount in even today's market, but we're not even arguing about that anymore. What this argument is stemming from is your comment about evaluating a contract from 2007 the same as one in 2009. It's ridiculous, you can't do that.

soltrain21
03-09-2009, 12:31 AM
No, I understand that you're trying to say you don't like his contract in today's market, but it wasn't signed in today's market.

This argument were having right now did not even stem from my original comment. I still don't think it's an absurd amount in even today's market, but we're not even arguing about that anymore. What this argument is stemming from is your comment about evaluating a contract from 2007 the same as one in 2009. It's ridiculous, you can't do that.


The market in 2007 has everything to do with the market in 2009. It's not like these teams can back out of the bigger contracts they gave players, and because of older "bad" contracts; it makes those players impossible to move in the current market. I'd say they are pretty much hand in hand.

I understand you are saying that the contract may have looked "good" before 2009, but it doesn't right now - and that is all that really matters.

Domeshot17
03-09-2009, 12:37 AM
The market in 2007 has everything to do with the market in 2009. It's not like these teams can back out of the bigger contracts they gave players, and because of older "bad" contracts; it makes those players impossible to move in the current market. I'd say they are pretty much hand in hand.

I understand you are saying that the contract may have looked "good" before 2009, but it doesn't right now - and that is all that really matters.

What players got signed too in 2007 has less impact on the current market then the US economy. Teams are backing away because they are losing all kinds of revenue, Sponsors and Advertisers, Fans, Merchandise, its all way down and will be way down.

Hopefully Marquez works out, because this could still blow up in our faces. If Swish is more comfortable in new york and goes out and hits .260 with 35 homers and 100 RBI, and we gave up a kings ransom to get him, then dealt him for much less, it could be bad. If either Gio or DLS max out in Oakland, Swish turns it around in NY, Marquez has to develop into a rotation mainstay just to not lose 2 trades involving the same guy.

102605
03-09-2009, 12:50 AM
:scratch::scratch::scratch::scratch::scratch:


I thought this thread was about Jeff Marquez. I swear the last 12 posts I just wasted my time with were about Nick Swishers contract?

:scratch::scratch::scratch::scratch::scratch:

everafan
03-09-2009, 08:33 AM
What players got signed too in 2007 has less impact on the current market then the US economy. Teams are backing away because they are losing all kinds of revenue, Sponsors and Advertisers, Fans, Merchandise, its all way down and will be way down.

Hopefully Marquez works out, because this could still blow up in our faces. If Swish is more comfortable in new york and goes out and hits .260 with 35 homers and 100 RBI, and we gave up a kings ransom to get him, then dealt him for much less, it could be bad. If either Gio or DLS max out in Oakland, Swish turns it around in NY, Marquez has to develop into a rotation mainstay just to not lose 2 trades involving the same guy.

Do you really think Swisher will be more comfortable in NY? He couldn't handle Chicago.

oeo
03-09-2009, 08:48 AM
Do you really think Swisher will be more comfortable in NY? He couldn't handle Chicago.

I don't think Chicago had anything to do with his struggles. When does the media put pressure on guys that are struggling? The Chicago media usually doesn't even care about the Sox, anyway.

As long as Swisher doesn't bomb like he did here, he will be fine. He probably won't even be noticed on that team.

jabrch
03-09-2009, 08:55 AM
:scratch::scratch::scratch::scratch::scratch:


I thought this thread was about Jeff Marquez. I swear the last 12 posts I just wasted my time with were about Nick Swishers contract?

:scratch::scratch::scratch::scratch::scratch:


This is a first...a thread at WSI that took a turn away from what the subject said it was about....

jabrch
03-09-2009, 09:18 AM
I don't think Chicago had anything to do with his struggles. When does the media put pressure on guys that are struggling? The Chicago media usually doesn't even care about the Sox, anyway.

As long as Swisher doesn't bomb like he did here, he will be fine. He probably won't even be noticed on that team.

Where is he on the depthcharts there anyhow? #2 at 1B. #2 or #3 corner OF. #3 at CF.

How many ABs will Swish really get?