Stupid Signing

The Cubs have been really active this offseason, and, while you can squabble about the dollar figures, they've generally made good signings. Not today. True, Jason Marquis was a starting pitcher for the world champion, but that's more than a little misleading. He was 14-16 in 33 starts this year, which isn't too bad -- not great, but not too bad. The problem is, despite having a respectable enough record, his ERA was an absurd 6.02. He was left off the postseason roster for being so bad. For all this, he made $5.15 million. The Cubs decided that he deserved a raise, and offered him a three-year contract worth about $7 million per year. If they'd offered a three-year contract worth $7 million total, I'd think it was't a good move, but I wouldn't complain. But, $7 million a year? For Jason Marquis? The guy had a good 2004, was good enough in 2005, but an atrocious 2006. It's not like he has a track record before 2004, either. Most of the most bone-headed signings in baseball are made to pitchers who either had one good year, or who had several that were a few years in the past with all evidence showing that's exactly where his good years will remain. Russ Ortiz, for example (who was always overhyped to begin with). People weren't inclined to believe me when I said, in the deal's immediate aftermath, that the Russ Ortiz signing was a bad move. They accepted that it was too much money, but said that was only so that the Diamondbacks could rise back to the level of competitiveness (players usually need more money to come to lousier teams -- witness recent, better, signigns by the Tigers and Blue Jays (the latter weren't really lousy, exactly, but playing in the same division as the Yankees and Red Sox hurts)). I feel rather vindicated by the results. This time, at least, 99% of the baseball world should recognize what a horrible signing it was. I'd be ticked about this deal even if it was wiht a team I hated (though I might laugh a bit at it), but that it was with the Cubs ticks me off even more.