Marquez 2009 Stats = Javy 2008?

[beck72]

Considering Garland at Marquez's age had pitched more innings in the major leagues than Marquez had pitched as a professional, I don't think comparing their minor league ERA's would be an accurate measure of what Marquez will do. I hope he's as good as you think. I believe, at least for 2009, its a pipedream.

I agree about the ERA. It's only one measure. But their other stats are pretty similar.

 

I don't know how good Marquez can be. But based on what the sox are doing [or not doing in regards to trading / signing for another starting pitcher and letting Javy go without a replacement], it would seem the sox are higher on Marquez than most.

[sircaffey]

*Your rationale of Marquez' "Absence from top prospects lists" as a reason he shouldn't make it in the majors doesn't cut it. In any given year, for every top 100 minor league prospect that has a good career, there are many more outside of that 100 that can be productive major leaguers.

 

*Masset was only 8th in the Texas system afeter being converted into a reliever. He toiled for years outside the Texas top 30. Marquez was always a top prospect with the Yanks since being drafted. Marquez fits in better with the Garland, Danks and Floyd group, based on potential, stuff and performance in the minors than with Grilli, Glover and Masset.

 

I don't think it was his "rationale" for why Marquez won't be a good major leaguer. I think it was more to show how comparing Marquez to Danks, Floyd, and Garland is silly. All were far better prospects.

[Steve9347]

I do think Marquez doing what Javy did in 2008 is a huge stretch. Sure, Javy wasn't great, but he still k'd a ton and pitched a lot of innings, both things I don't think Marquez would do this year.

[scenario]

I don't think it was his "rationale" for why Marquez won't be a good major leaguer. I think it was more to show how comparing Marquez to Danks, Floyd, and Garland is silly. All were far better prospects.

 

And my comments were simply intended to point out that comparing Marquez to Grilli, Masset, and Glover was silly.

 

Because Marquez is a much better prospect.

 

And much to the despair of a few posters on the board... he is going to get a shot at the rotation in spring training.

Edited December 22, 2008 by scenario

[Chet Lemon]

And much to the despair of a few posters on the board... he is going to get a shot at the rotation in spring training.

 

This is true. I guess as it stands right now the Sox have Richard, Marquez, Broadway, and Poreda in contention for two rotation spots.

 

[Hatchetman]

And my comments were simply intended to point out that comparing Marquez to Grilli, Masset, and Glover was silly.

 

grilli was BA's #54 prospect in 1998

 

 

[Dick Allen]

Here's BA's top 10 White Sox prospects in 2006:

1. Ryan Sweeney, of

 

2. Josh Fields, 3b

 

3. Lance Broadway, rhp

 

4. Kyle McCulloch, rhp

 

5. Charlie Haeger, rhp

 

6. Aaron Cunningham, of

 

7. Adam Russell, rhp

 

8. Lucas Harrell, rhp

 

9. Matt Long, rhp

10. Chris Carter, 1b

 

Granted, the White Sox weren't loaded with prospects, but prospect rankings mean didley.

 

I don't see any excitement over Broadway or McCullough both first round picks rated #3 and #4 in the Sox system in 2006.

Edited December 22, 2008 by Dick Allen

[scenario]

Here's BA's top 10 White Sox prospects in 2006:

1. Ryan Sweeney, of

 

2. Josh Fields, 3b

 

3. Lance Broadway, rhp

 

4. Kyle McCulloch, rhp

 

5. Charlie Haeger, rhp

 

6. Aaron Cunningham, of

 

7. Adam Russell, rhp

 

8. Lucas Harrell, rhp

 

9. Matt Long, rhp

10. Chris Carter, 1b

 

Prospect rankings mean didley.

 

 

That's a pretty sad looking list, isn't it? LOL.

 

Broadway 3rd, McCulloch 4th, Haeger 5th, Russell 7th, Harrell 8th...

 

Wow.

 

 

[beck72]

I don't think it was his "rationale" for why Marquez won't be a good major leaguer. I think it was more to show how comparing Marquez to Danks, Floyd, and Garland is silly. All were far better prospects.

Marquez was a supplemental 1st round pick who threw like a 1st round pick all through the minors until last year. Not all high draft picks turn out well. Not all low draft picks are scrubs. The other group that Marquez was compared to [Masset, Grilli and Glover] did not perform. IMO, based on potential and performance so far, Marquez is much closer to Danks, et al than Masset, et al.

[Jordan4life_2007]

That's a pretty sad looking list, isn't it? LOL.

 

Broadway 3rd, McCulloch 4th, Haeger 5th, Russell 7th, Harrell 8th...

 

Wow.

 

Broadway/McCulloch taken back-to-back in the first round (even when you consider where we were drafting) was unacceptable and pathetic. It's really amazing what we've been able to do this decade considering what our farm has produced (So long Duane Shaffer. You are not missed).

Edited December 22, 2008 by Jordan4life

[Dick Allen]

Broadway/McCulloch taken back-to-back in the first round (even when you consider where we were drafting) was unacceptable and pathetic. It's really amazing what we've been able to do this decade considering what our farm has produced (So long Duane Shaffer. You are not missed).

Ellsbury was available when the Sox drafted the "safe" pick in Broadway. 2004 might have been a bigger disaster. They picked Fields, Gio, Lumsden, Whisler and Lucy in the first 2 rounds passing on Pence and Pedroia. They also selected Fields, Gio and Lumdsen before Huston Street. They have had their shot at good players, but for the longest time had a problem identifying them.

[DBAHO]

Ellsbury was available when the Sox drafted the "safe" pick in Broadway. 2004 might have been a bigger disaster. They picked Fields, Gio, Lumsden, Whisler and Lucy in the first 2 rounds passing on Pence and Pedroia. They also selected Fields, Gio and Lumdsen before Huston Street. They have had their shot at good players, but for the longest time had a problem identifying them.

Thankfully that problem that has been fixed now, and the Sox have a system which has gone from the bottom of the scrapheap with Houston, to argubly the middle class as a whole.

 

I remember when we were actually linked with Pence in an off-season a couple of seasons back for Garland. Man I wish that deal happened (although if it did, we may not have Quentin).

[hitlesswonder]

Marquez was a supplemental 1st round pick who threw like a 1st round pick all through the minors until last year. Not all high draft picks turn out well. Not all low draft picks are scrubs. The other group that Marquez was compared to [Masset, Grilli and Glover] did not perform. IMO, based on potential and performance so far, Marquez is much closer to Danks, et al than Masset, et al.

 

You need to consider the leagues and parks Danks and Marquez were pitching in. Danks came up in some very offensive friendly leagues/parks. I don't know about Marquez before AAA but the IL is not a strong offensive league. It's just my opinion, but Marquez is not even close to the prospect Danks was.

 

Marquez has given up over a hit an inning his entire minor league career with very limited Ks. If you compare their numbers, Egbert looks like a better prospect than Marquez and no one thinks he's going to post a 4.67 ERA over 208 innings like Vazquez (which ranked Vazquez 32 in the AL among qualified pitchers).

 

Right now, I don't see how the Sox will replace Vazquez effectively internally. He did not pitch like a #5 starter last year -- he was significantly better than that.

 

[sircaffey]

Marquez was a supplemental 1st round pick who threw like a 1st round pick all through the minors until last year. Not all high draft picks turn out well. Not all low draft picks are scrubs. The other group that Marquez was compared to [Masset, Grilli and Glover] did not perform. IMO, based on potential and performance so far, Marquez is much closer to Danks, et al than Masset, et al.

 

The point being, he doesn't sniff Danks, period. Danks' name shouldn't even be in this thread. When with Texas, Danks was part of the famed DVD (Danks, Volquez, Diamond) trio that was hyped forever. Marquez is not Danks, and no where near Danks as a prospect. They are so unrelatable is ridiculous.

[Jeremy]

A few things:

 

*Marquez' peripheral stats from the minors are similar to Garland and Wang, two guys he's compared to. I posted those in this thread. Looking at what they did in the minors, and what Marquez has done, it's not that far from reality that Marquez could put up major league numbers probably not as good as Wang, but maybe better than what Garland has done.

 

When you pair ERA with peripherals you're getting more but still leaving out a lot. The fact that Garland reached the majors at 20 and was adored by scouts (BA's #36 prospect once season) does a ton to distinguish him from Marquez. If Garland pitched in the minors at 23, when he put up a better than league average ERA in the big leagues, he would have obliterated the minor league stats that he and Marquez put up.

 

Wang's peripherals were a good bit better than Marquez's. Both allowed just .5 HR/9 but Wang's K/BB ratio of 3.55 is far better than Marquez's 2.06 K/BB ratio. Again, my point with Wang stands that he wasn't a very good prospect. If we project every prospect of Wang's caliber to have Jon Garland's career, we'll probably have a success rate of something like 5%, because there are plenty of pitching prospects of that caliber in the minors right now. In other words, the fact that Wang exceeded expectations is absolutely no reason to believe Marquez will as well.

 

*The age a person breaks through to the majors is often irrelevant. Players are often rushed when they aren't ready, and it may be for a cup of coffee. I'd take more stock in when a pitcher "gets over the hump" [finds success and stays in the majors].

 

Admittedly, it's a short cut I used because I didn't want to spend hours posting in this thread. I wasn't trying to look at when pitchers became established major league players though - Marquez may never even do that. I was trying to look at how quickly they advanced through the minors and how old they were for each minor league they played in. We know Garland, Danks, and Floyd were young for their leagues in the minors and that's a big reason they were such big time prospects. Marquez, in contrast, has not advanced through the minors quickly and has not been young for any of the leagues he's pitched in. We know Garland, Floyd, and Danks weren't being pushed particularly aggressively through the minors because they held their own and we know Marquez wasn't being handled too conservatively because he didn't dominate at any level.

 

Grilli reached AAA at 21, Masset at 24, and Glover at 22. Marquez at best was able to advance through the minors as quickly as these players.

 

*Your rationale of Marquez' "Absence from top prospects lists" as a reason he shouldn't make it in the majors doesn't cut it. In any given year, for every top 100 minor league prospect that has a good career, there are many more outside of that 100 that can be productive major leaguers.

 

I never said he won't make it in the majors. The jury is still out on Masset but Grilli has pitched 311 major league innings over 7 seasons while Glover has thrown 516 innings over 8 seasons, so in some sense, they've "made it." All I said is that I doubt Marquez makes substantial contributions next season or has a good major league career.

 

People seem to be arguing against the straw man argument that Marquez can't be good major league player. I thought I was pretty clear at the beginning of my post that I believe that's absolutely possible - just very unlikely. As with Wang, yes, Marquez could beat the odds just like those other prospects who never make top 100 lists, but why should we expect him to? Or even give him, say, a 30% chance?

 

*Masset was only 8th in the Texas system afeter being converted into a reliever. He toiled for years outside the Texas top 30. Marquez was always a top prospect with the Yanks since being drafted. Marquez fits in better with the Garland, Danks and Floyd group, based on potential, stuff and performance in the minors than with Grilli, Glover and Masset.

 

Well, Marquez wasn't a top prospect of the Yankees when we acquired him - I've seen recent top 30 lists he was left off of completely. I don't see why we should emphasize less recent evaluations over more recent evaluations; that's pretty counter intuitive.

 

How much he has in common with Grilli, Glover, and Masset is only so relevant though. What's indisputably clear is that he has next to nothing in common with Floyd, Garland, and Danks, who were consensus top prospects while Marquez is a very average one. He and Garland both rely on inducing ground balls and good control as opposed to missing bats but that's pretty much where the comparisons start and end. No one claims Marquez's stuff is great, his peripherals are mediocre, he can't crack a top 100 list, he can't crack his former team's top 5 - or even their top 30 in some instances - and at 24, he's no spring chicken. He's way too ordinary to merit this much discussion.

Edited December 22, 2008 by Jeremy

[phiteinphils]

The more I look at Jeff Marquez's writeups and numbers, the more I like him.

 

I didn't skip over you're entire post, but you have to watch with looking at too many numbers. If numbers is the only thing that matters, then Bobby Abreu should be getting 25 mil for 7 years. Just sayin...

[Balta1701]

I didn't skip over you're entire post, but you have to watch with looking at too many numbers. If numbers is the only thing that matters, then Bobby Abreu should be getting 25 mil for 7 years. Just sayin...

Age 34

 

That's a number too.

[phiteinphils]

Good point, but I'm sure you see mine too

[DBAHO]

I didn't skip over you're entire post, but you have to watch with looking at too many numbers. If numbers is the only thing that matters, then Bobby Abreu should be getting 25 mil for 7 years. Just sayin...

Well I don't know if it's just me, but I wouldn't want to be spending 25M on a guy who's put up a .814 OPS and a .843 OPS over the past 2 seasons.

 

I'd like a little more bang for my buck.

[harfman77]

I think Marquez has the ability to be an effective innings eater and ground ball pitcher and his success will depend heavily on the defense behind him not totally unlike Buerhle. He will not strike many people out but will be able to get people out with less pitches than others. I think he could be better than Garland, but I have liked the kid for a while and was pretty excited when the Sox got him. To me, he still hasnt scratched his ceiling but his floor is good enough to be succesful now. I think he would be an ideal fifth starter this season as he acclimates to the majors. His success will depend on how his offspeed pitches have progressed because otherwise hitters will constantly sit on the sinker until the get it.

[qwerty]

When you pair ERA with peripherals you're getting more but still leaving out a lot. The fact that Garland reached the majors at 20 and was adored by scouts (BA's #36 prospect once season) does a ton to distinguish him from Marquez. If Garland pitched in the minors at 23, when he put up a better than league average ERA in the big leagues, he would have obliterated the minor league stats that he and Marquez put up.

 

Wang's peripherals were a good bit better than Marquez's. Both allowed just .5 HR/9 but Wang's K/BB ratio of 3.55 is far better than Marquez's 2.06 K/BB ratio. Again, my point with Wang stands that he wasn't a very good prospect. If we project every prospect of Wang's caliber to have Jon Garland's career, we'll probably have a success rate of something like 5%, because there are plenty of pitching prospects of that caliber in the minors right now. In other words, the fact that Wang exceeded expectations is absolutely no reason to believe Marquez will as well.

 

 

 

Admittedly, it's a short cut I used because I didn't want to spend hours posting in this thread. I wasn't trying to look at when pitchers became established major league players though - Marquez may never even do that. I was trying to look at how quickly they advanced through the minors and how old they were for each minor league they played in. We know Garland, Danks, and Floyd were young for their leagues in the minors and that's a big reason they were such big time prospects. Marquez, in contrast, has not advanced through the minors quickly and has not been young for any of the leagues he's pitched in. We know Garland, Floyd, and Danks weren't being pushed particularly aggressively through the minors because they held their own and we know Marquez wasn't being handled too conservatively because he didn't dominate at any level.

 

Grilli reached AAA at 21, Masset at 24, and Glover at 22. Marquez at best was able to advance through the minors as quickly as these players.

 

 

 

I never said he won't make it in the majors. The jury is still out on Masset but Grilli has pitched 311 major league innings over 7 seasons while Glover has thrown 516 innings over 8 seasons, so in some sense, they've "made it." All I said is that I doubt Marquez makes substantial contributions next season or has a good major league career.

 

People seem to be arguing against the straw man argument that Marquez can't be good major league player. I thought I was pretty clear at the beginning of my post that I believe that's absolutely possible - just very unlikely. As with Wang, yes, Marquez could beat the odds just like those other prospects who never make top 100 lists, but why should we expect him to? Or even give him, say, a 30% chance?

 

 

 

Well, Marquez wasn't a top prospect of the Yankees when we acquired him - I've seen recent top 30 lists he was left off of completely. I don't see why we should emphasize less recent evaluations over more recent evaluations; that's pretty counter intuitive.

 

How much he has in common with Grilli, Glover, and Masset is only so relevant though. What's indisputably clear is that he has next to nothing in common with Floyd, Garland, and Danks, who were consensus top prospects while Marquez is a very average one. He and Garland both rely on inducing ground balls and good control as opposed to missing bats but that's pretty much where the comparisons start and end. No one claims Marquez's stuff is great, his peripherals are mediocre, he can't crack a top 100 list, he can't crack his former team's top 5 - or even their top 30 in some instances - and at 24, he's no spring chicken. He's way too ordinary to merit this much discussion.

 

 

Now this is what i like to see. Thank you for the logic!

[caulfield12]

The only thing we can say is that unless we knew if Marquez was 100% healthy or not last year, it's hard to use that one particular season against him, just like Lillibridge.

 

If they were healthy and continued to progress, neither would have been available in trade, in all likelihood.

 

So they just fall into the category of typical KW "reaches" that more often than not work out. Yes, he could be the next Sisco/Aardsma/Masset, but he could also turn into a "serviceable" (4.50-4.75 ERA, .500 record) fifth starter.

 

Nobody particularly likes the fact that right now he's seeded as the 4th, but the expectation is certainly for Poreda one day to be at least a #4, passing pushing Marquez back in the imaginary pecking order.

Edited December 23, 2008 by caulfield12

[YASNY]

I don't know if Marquez can be a decent starter or not. I'm also not going to get on here and act like I really know one way or the other. Kenny Williams is paid to make those judgement calls. Sometimes he gets them right and other times he screws the pooch. But, in general, I trust KW's judgement.

[DBAHO]

I don't know if Marquez can be a decent starter or not. I'm also not going to get on here and act like I really know one way or the other. Kenny Williams is paid to make those judgement calls. Sometimes he gets them right and other times he screws the pooch. But, in general, I trust KW's judgement.

He's done a good job on that regard over the past few seasons (with Danks and Floyd).

 

Marquez reminds me of the Floyd acquisition in that no-one really liked it at the time, but down the line it certainly worked out.

 

KW's been targeting sinkerball pitchers, or pitchers with excellent breaking stuff to help keep the ball down at the Cell over the past few seasons, hence why Marquez was acquired.

[Soxbadger]

Marquez reminds me of the Floyd acquisition in that no-one really liked it at the time, but down the line it certainly worked out.

 

I liked the Floyd trade (you can go back and look at my posts).

 

Scouts raved about Floyd's stuff, he just seemingly had mental issues. I thought that going to the Sox where less would be expected (he was a top 5 Philly choice so they expected the world from him right away) he could perhaps find a grove and get his confidence back.

 

 

Ive just seen nothing at this point to remind me of the Floyd acquisition other than hes a minor league pitcher.

 

I hope Marquez turns into the an ace, I just dont really know anything about him.