TruffleShuffle

Honestly, I think at the deadline. I think the needs of teams are larger the closer it gets to the end of the season. You don't see a lot of big name prospects changing teams in the offseason. It's at the deadline when teams are desperate to make a push and know their team isn't good enough as it is. I think most teams without payroll issues and absolute black holes on their starting roster and rotation are ok with competing with what they have now. Once the games are played, teams will know what their needs are and if they are contenders or not. You're probably right, but a player like Wells sure could help a team for the first half of the season too. With him from day one, you might not be as desperate for help at the deadline. Yeah, but a lot of GMs don't think that way. They get to the trade deadline with their team a game or two lead in their division, and they say to themselves "Vernon Wells is an impact player, this is what we need to get us over the top." People get a lot more desperate at the deadline and are a lot more likely to see a guy as the missing piece to the championship puzzle.

Missouri is 9-0 as well. They should be, with the piss-poor schedule they've played so far.

well, he ain't great, but i'd sure as hell take him over gil meche

Considering how crazy the market is right now, you're not going to get a guy like Jacque Jones for $5M per year unless it's via a trade.

Where was Jim Hendry quoted? If that rumor is true, and Hendry is shopping him to everyone, and it's leaking, then how much leverage can he possibly have? What approach would you suggest Hendry take for moving Jones, if it's not to sit down with other GMs at the Winter Meetings and see what they'd give for him? Is he supposed to keep Jones' availability a secret or something? no but you could make it actually seem like the Cubs are willing to keep him in 2006, since his contract is pretty team-friendly. Instead, it looks like Hendry is desperate to get rid of him.

If by "most people" you mean "Notre Dame fans," then yes, they're seen as about the same.

in b4 lock

The Cubs seem really determined to reduce a middle infielder's value by moving him to the outfield.

jeez this guy is 28 already??? maybe someone should give him a real shot before he rots.

Only sense I can make of this is the Cubs are trying to increase EP's trade value by adding versatility to him. This would fit with Hendry's must-win-now-to-save-my job line of thinking. I have no doubt Hendry would sell the entire farm and probably his soul to win in 2007. if so, die cubs die

http://media.scout.com/Media/Image/20/207274.jpg

QFT. I'll join this one as well.

i figured rams fans would've given up after getting embarrassed at home by the Cardinals. I think the Rams have quit.

where's the thread about Aurilia? I want to make fun of the Giants.

Only because human language cannot adequately describe the greatness of Kent. I guess Jeff Suppan must be great too; his career stats are basically just as average as Mercker's.

worst thread ever

Way too many teams. Why? How do you pick the teams involved? What happens if a team with 4 losses wins the National Title? I'm not concerned about this. I just don't see the point of putting teams in like Rutgers, Arkansas, West Virginia, Va Tech and Notre Dame in there. They aren't going to win and it just prolongs the season unnecessarily.

That's cool if you want a 16 team playoff, but realistically, you're going to have to shorten the season. Right now, schools play a max of 13 games. What games would you cut out? Conference? Non-conference?

It might have been unclear, and seemed that my way would mean: Ohio State vs Michigan, and Florida vs Boise St Clearly, Ohio State gets screwed here. Boise State should be the weakest seed. So, after you choose the four teams that get in - which this year would go Ohio State, Florida, Boise St, Michigan - then you seed them by BCS ranking.

To be fair, some AP voters probably don't watch many of the games either. I doubt most have seen a team like BYU even once this year. I think if they look at box scores of games and read recaps, they can at least inform themselves enough to put a decent top 25 together. I'd also be willing to bet that a large part of putting most coaches' top 25 polls is done by someone other than the head coach. Someone probably puts a top 25 together and then the coach maybe makes a couple of tweaks before submitting it. Another problem I have is the fact that 63 coaches vote, but there is no known system to determine which 63 vote. What makes Charlie Weis, Chris Petersen (Boise State), Steve Kragthorpe (Tulsa), or other guys who've been coaching for only a couple of years more qualified than, oh, I don't know, Joe Paterno, Urban Meyer, Bobby or Tommy Bowden, or any of the other coaches that have been around a little longer? Maybe you have to e-mail your poll in, and JoePa and Bobby Bowden don't know how to turn on a computer

someone seriously might give Suppan $10M per year? That's a riot.

I too picked Texas. USC probably did have a better all around team, but I just love Vince Young. He doesn't necessarily put up great passing stats (though last year he was #3 in passer rating in the NCAA), but he wins. His Rose Bowl game was one of the best performances I've ever seen from an athlete in that big of a situation. That's why I really liked him this year in the NFL draft. Look at this year even - that team was awful last year, and even though his passer rating is pretty lousy, they've won 5 of the 9 games he started. I think he'll make several Pro Bowls before his career is through. I really dont care of follow pro football enough to make any judgements on his pro career. He does seem to have that I am going to win this game at all costs level that he can achieve. Similar to guys like Micheal Jordan or John Elway. John Elway? He was in the playoffs like 8 times and lost 3 super bowls before winning two of them. Jordan, can't disagree there.

To be fair, some AP voters probably don't watch many of the games either. I doubt most have seen a team like BYU even once this year. I think if they look at box scores of games and read recaps, they can at least inform themselves enough to put a decent top 25 together. I'd also be willing to bet that a large part of putting most coaches' top 25 polls is done by someone other than the head coach. Someone probably puts a top 25 together and then the coach maybe makes a couple of tweaks before submitting it.

Single-A manager... obviously if that's the big news, then the choice is not going to be someone like Hector Villanueva.

I'll put my proposal into this thread too, for those who dare not stray into Rants. Plus it includes a couple of changes that I decided would be best. My BCS proposal - 4 teams. This will include: 1. #1 ranked BCS team 2. #2 ranked BCS team 3. -Any other undefeated team - major conferences first, then minor conferences. If more than one minor conference team is undefeated, then the teams get chosen in order of BCS finish. Also, any team chosen here must be ranked in the top 10 of the final BCS standings. -If no other undefeateds, then #3 BCS team. 4. A fourth undefeated team, or the #3 or #4 BCS team (depending on whether there's a 3rd undefeated. The seedings will go in order of BCS ranking, so this year, it would be #1 Ohio State, #2 Florida, #3 Michigan, #4 Boise St. There would remain five BCS games - the national semifinals would rotate among the four BCS bowls, as would the national championship game. Other years, this is how the playoff would go: 2005: #1 USC vs #4 Ohio St, #2 Texas vs #3 Penn State 2004: #1 USC vs #4 Utah, #2 Oklahoma vs #3 Auburn 2003: #1 Oklahoma vs #4 Michigan, #2 LSU vs #3 UCLA 2002: #1 Miami vs #4 USC, #2 Ohio State vs #3 Georgia 2001: #1 Miami vs #4 Oregon, #2 Nebraska vs #3 Colorado 2000: #1 Oklahoma vs #4 Washington, #2 Florida State vs #3 Miami 1999: #1 Florida State vs #4 Marshall, #2 Virginia Tech vs #3 Nebraska 1998: #1 Tennessee vs #4 Tulane, #2 Florida State vs #3 Kansas State Now, there will be argument about who makes the #4 seed often times, but think about the debates about who deserved to play for the championship in recent years. 2000: Miami beat Florida State head to head, but FSU played for the title. Washington also beat Miami head to head, so they had an argument as well. 2001: Nebraska plays for the title despite getting blown out by #3 seed and Big XII champion Colorado. Also, one-loss Oregon is ranked behind Nebraska and the two-loss Buffaloes. 2002: No debate 2003: USC finishes behind LSU by a tiny margin. Oklahoma also plays for the title despite getting blown out in the Big XII Championship. 2004: Auburn goes undefeated, but doesn't get to play for the title. Utah was also undefeated. 2005: No debate 2006: Florida leaps over Michigan; both have one loss. So there you go - all the teams that people say deserved a shot at the national title would get their chance. This is a simple playoff, adds one extra game for just two teams, and doesn't prolong the college football season.