TruffleShuffle

Just out of curiosity, are there any (more obscure) Japanese relievers planning on coming over the the U.S. this offseason?

I don't k now that it's filthy, but it's pretty solid. The Cubs were 12th in MLB in bullpen ERA, and if you take out some of the dregs of that bullpen like Rusch & Williamson, I'm sure they rate a little higher. Wood would probably be better than Novoa. Having Novoa and Aardsma and insurance to those guys would give you two pretty decent backups as well. If (when) the Cubs lose next year, I don't think the pen will be the culprit.

haha... yeah I was so surprised to see him playing a dumb redneck who lived in a trailer during that movie. such a departure from his normal movie roles.

The way he was talking, he was describing the Giants as an unstoppable force and the Cowboys as a great team that simply ran into that unstoppable force. Yeah, well the Cowboys are a team with no offensive line and a starting QB who is as mobile as a file cabinet. Not a good combination.

It wouldn't be stretch to say Padilla is as good as Suppan, and could easily be better next year, if not the next 3-4 years. And he could sign for less. The "average" salary is skewed by first year players, but the cost of free agents is skewed by the lack of supply. If every player was a free agent that only signed one year contracts, there'd be a much bigger supply. In theory, the average salary would go up a bit, based on teams no longer having to worry about future risk. But, there's still a finite amount of money that teams are willing to spend on players. If teams spend X on player salaries today, they wouldn't all of a sudden spend 2X. The average salary is the average salary. It's the money the league spends on players divided by the amount of players. How it is distributed is skewed by tenure. But that just means veterans are overpaid and pre-arby guys are underpaid. Of course they are. That's the way the system works. Unfortunately, the Cubs can't just go out and get pre-arby guys. The only way to improve, unless they trade, is to sign free agents. I am fine with the Padilla idea, but I really don't think there will be a big difference between what he gets and what Suppan gets. Other ideas: Wading through the list of free agent pitchers, here are some guys I think may be good value signings: -Tim Wakefield if the Sox don't pick up his option (can't imagine they wouldn't though) -Miguel Batista -John Thomson -Byung-Hyun Kim (if he's real cheap) -Steve Trachsel (hey, why not a second go around? still wouldn't pay him that much given his decline this season) -Randy Wolf (maybe my favorite one - was pretty bad last year but it was his first year back from TJ surgery - think he can be had fairly cheap) -Woody Williams (not to be relied on for a lot of innings, but could be cheap due to his age, and he's still pretty effective)

Yes, but average is average. I'm still talking about twice the average pay, assuming a premium for pitchers. There are lots of average to above average pitchers who make less than what Suppan is likely to make in free agency. $2 million is not a fair figure to use. It's skewed by all the players who are in their first few years of play and haven't reached the point of unrestricted free agency. When you talk about signing a free agent, you have to look at the market value for average starting pitchers who have reached unrestricted free agency. I think that market is probably in the range of $6 million per year. There are plenty of average to above average pitchers who make less than Suppan will make, this is true, but most of them haven't reached UFA status and can't be had by the Cubs unless they can work out a trade. That being said, I'd like to hear some suggestions of guys of guys the Cubs could sign this offseason who are better than Suppan and can be signed for cheaper, though.

Ok I can at least see the argument with the Giants, though I still wouldn't say they're the best in the NFC, I'll agree that they're right up there. But you're losing me here on Dallas. They've been overhyped all season long. Philly and the Giants are the class of that division. Overhyped yes. Woeful? Let's reserve that tag for the Tennessees, Detroits, Arizonas and Oaklands of the NFL. I think Dallas is a couple steps from falling down to that level. This is Parcells 4th season, and they aren't going anywhere. You probably won't see them picking in the top 5 year after year, but Parcells has already piloted one 10 loss team there, and he just switched to Tony Romo as his QB. Anyway, I was specifically referring to the Monday Night game, which is what Theisman was using as a reason to say the Giants are the best in the NFC. He wouldn't have said that the week before. Dallas looked pathetic. TO was dropping balls, Bledsoe was standing around looking clueless, and then Tony Romo came in and played like Tony Romo. They are a mediocre team that looked woeful last night. And it wasn't just because the Giants are an unstoppable force, because they clearly are not. No team is an unstoppable force. The Bears should've lost to Arizona, and Indy nearly lost to Tennessee. I guess we can agree on one thing - Tony Romo is not the answer in Dallas. Personally I think the guy is going to be awful, and it makes me laugh that people have been all over his bandwagon since he had a few good series in garbage time of the preseason.

Ok I can at least see the argument with the Giants, though I still wouldn't say they're the best in the NFC, I'll agree that they're right up there. But you're losing me here on Dallas. They've been overhyped all season long. Philly and the Giants are the class of that division. Overhyped yes. Woeful? Let's reserve that tag for the Tennessees, Detroits, Arizonas and Oaklands of the NFL.

Oh yeah, I forgot about that. He also said they don't "giveaway" games. They beat the Cowboys, big freaking deal. That team is in dissaray. The Giants have some impressive wins, but they've also lost at home to the Colts and got destroyed by Seattle. They've beaten their division and Atlanta, which is admirable, but doesn't erase the losses. They're 4-2 and have beaten the two best teams in their division on the road. Yes, they got destroyed by Seattle and lost to the Colts, but road victories at Philly, Dallas and Atlanta are nothing to laugh at. Their schedule has been an absolute bear so far, and they've weathered the storm. They easily could have been 2-4 with the schedule they've played; instead, they're positioned as huge favorites in the division. After cupcakes against Tampa and Houston the next two weeks, they'll be 6-2 and still have home contests against the Cowboys and Eagles. I didn't say they weren't good. But he completely ignored their losses, and overhyped a victory over a woeful Dallas team. I don't think it's fair to call Dallas woeful. They've played close road games against Philly and Jacksonville and are 3-3 so far, and they were 9-7 last season. Yes, they're overhyped and they do have some serious flaws (especially at QB and OL), but they're still better than a lot of teams in the NFL. If road wins are going to be hyped up, it should be the ones over Philly and Atlanta, not the one over Dallas.

Oh yeah, I forgot about that. He also said they don't "giveaway" games. They beat the Cowboys, big freaking deal. That team is in dissaray. The Giants have some impressive wins, but they've also lost at home to the Colts and got destroyed by Seattle. They've beaten their division and Atlanta, which is admirable, but doesn't erase the losses. Eric Allen did the same thing on NFL Live last night. Schlereth (Yes, Mark Schlereth) and Trey Wingo both gave him a lot of crap about saying a 4-2 team was better than a 6-0 one. While I think the Bears are the better team, it's not an indefensible position to say the Giants are as good as the Bears, if not better. If the Bears had played the schedule the Giants have, I highly doubt that they're undefeated. They may even have two losses. Outside of games played against the Giants, their opponents the past 7 weeks have a record of 21-11. The record of Bears' opponents in non-Bears games is 14-19. The Giants have played four road games against average or better teams (Eagles, Seahawks, Falcons, Cowboys) whereas the Bears have only played one (Vikings), and the Giants have played a tougher home game than any the Bears have had. The Giants came into this year with the 3rd hardest schedule strength in the NFL; the Bears came in with the easiest. Again, I'm not saying the Bears are not as good as the Giants. It's just along the lines of why a team like Rutgers is not as good as, say, Clemson or LSU, even though Rutgers is undefeated.

Oh yeah, I forgot about that. He also said they don't "giveaway" games. They beat the Cowboys, big freaking deal. That team is in dissaray. The Giants have some impressive wins, but they've also lost at home to the Colts and got destroyed by Seattle. They've beaten their division and Atlanta, which is admirable, but doesn't erase the losses. They're 4-2 and have beaten the two best teams in their division on the road. Yes, they got destroyed by Seattle and lost to the Colts, but road victories at Philly, Dallas and Atlanta are nothing to laugh at. Their schedule has been an absolute bear so far, and they've weathered the storm. They easily could have been 2-4 with the schedule they've played; instead, they're positioned as huge favorites in the division. After cupcakes against Tampa and Houston the next two weeks, they'll be 6-2 and still have home contests against the Cowboys and Eagles.

See Derek Lowe's 2004 season and the contract that he got. He was downright bad that year, but redeemed himself in the playoffs and parlayed that into $9M/year. How was he the year before? Slightly above average. Yup - 105 ERA+. His strikeout rate was down to around 5 per 9 innings both of those years, and he was way too hittable - something he wasn't for most of his Red Sox career. Teams don't give $9 million per year contracts to guys coming off consecutive seasons with a 4.47 and 5.42 ERA, the latter one in his "walk" year. But he won each of the Red Sox three series-clinching games that year, and pitched great in his two winning starts. That's where the money came from. Similarly, Suppan has more than just the pressure of a WS start riding on tonight's game (or tomorrow's game if tonight's gets rained out). If he has a great outing, he'll be regarded as a "big game pitcher" and some team will probably throw an $8M per year contract at him. If he gets shelled, he'll probably lose about $3M per year. It's ridiculous, but there are enough GMs out there that someone will overpay for his services with another great start tonight. As for the rest of this debate, I think people underestimate how hard it is to be a consistent league-average pitcher who doesn't miss starts. Sure, Marshall might be able to do what Suppan did this year. But he sure didn't this year, and the likelihood of him staying healthy for an entire season is slim. People look at league-average (i.e., Suppan) as if he's just a complete bum, but to be average, you have to be better than everyone who is below-average. That might sounds McCarverish, but it's true. Average pitchers are better than a lot of other pitchers. I'd be happy to take on someone like Lilly or Suppan for the right price, because as we saw this year, an unproven guy like Marshall might just not be that good, and when people get hurt, then you're turning to guys like Walrond, Mateo, Marmol and Guzman who were clearly not ready for the majors, and therefore were easily below-average. It just seems to me that after watching a team that was fielding so many fragile and inept pitchers, Cub fans would recognize the value of a guy who can take the ball every time his turn comes up, and eat up some innings and keep his team in the game most times he takes the hill.

OK, here's the setting so people understand why I am probably going to make this trade. It's a 14 team league, and everyone must start 2 RBs, 2 WRs and 1 W/R, so starting RBs are hard to come by. With Marvin Harrison, Roy Williams and Bernard Berrian (as well as Reggie Williams and Eddie Kennison) I'm pretty much always filling up my W/R with a WR. My RBs are Edgerrin James, Ahman Green and Kevan Barlow, which even in a 14 team league is pretty lousy - considering James' suckitude this year. Ahman Green has been good when he plays, but he's pretty much a guarantee to suffer some sort of debilitating injury before the end of the year. Winslow has become my best trading chip. I drafted him in the 2nd to last round, but picked Shockey in the 4th round (it's amazing how quickly the talent level drops in a 14 team league). So, a guy offered me Lamont Jordan for Winslow. Since he's basically an insurance policy, I figure that getting a starting RB for him is a pretty good parlay, even if the Raiders suck. I know he has minor back injury and missed last week, but it doesn't seem like something that would plague him the rest of the season. To me this deal is a no-brainer, but the guy I'm trading with definitely knows what he's doing - am I missing something?

This is the type of game you watch on mute in a loud crowded bar. also because the game will cease to be competitive after the first quarter, so it makes more sense to keep yourself entertained by getting drunk and/or talking to strangers

lol Pat Summerall... he sounds senile or drunk for about 90 percent of the game, usually.

bet he was scuffing the ball

So does this mean Walrond is off the 40 man? Cause that's very necessary. He probably realized he isn't very good, but also is smart enough to know that nobody else in the big leagues will let him pitch in the major leagues.

You don't see the difference between pine tar for a grip on a bat, and banning a pitcher from using foreign substances? If he's using the pine tar to alter the motion of the ball, then yes, that's a problem. But if he's using it to get a better grip on the ball, then he's doing nothing different than the batter is doing.

THE CUBS??!! Ban him! :P Who brought up the 2002 'Luckeyes', damn you. Throughout the whole year i thought they were so overrated. The purdue game was the game that put me over the edge. I forgot about the Illini and Cincy game and right now cant remember the UM/OSU game so dont remind me, im sure to shake my head and say 'yup wtf' if you do. I remember that year. I remember the Tony Johnson catch against UM with two feet in bounds, putting Penn State in field goal range with like 25 seconds left... but it was called out and Penn State had to punt. I'm not still bitter at all. especially when in college you only need one foot in bounds. Someday the NCAA will take the Big 10 officials off of the Michigan payroll Well with replay they have to be a little more creative about it, like they were with Iowa and Penn State games last year.

THE CUBS??!! Ban him! :P Who brought up the 2002 'Luckeyes', damn you. Throughout the whole year i thought they were so overrated. The purdue game was the game that put me over the edge. I forgot about the Illini and Cincy game and right now cant remember the UM/OSU game so dont remind me, im sure to shake my head and say 'yup wtf' if you do. I remember that year. I remember the Tony Johnson catch against UM with two feet in bounds, putting Penn State in field goal range with like 25 seconds left... but it was called out and Penn State had to punt. I'm not still bitter at all.

I don't have a problem with him having a little pine tar on his hand to get a better grip on the ball. After all, most of the batters he's facing are probalby on HGH, so he's just trying to level the playing field.

"Could have" is not good enough. The Cubs need to start operating on a "what are they likely to do" basis, not "what could they do if everything goes well". I'm not a big Lilly guy, but you can't make decisions based on what might happen, you have to base it on what is most likely to happen. Hill might contend for the Cy Young next year. He might have an ERA over 9.00. But neither is all that likely. Murton might outproduce Miguel Cabrera next year, but he's probably not going to. Pierre might have a .375 OBP next year, but he most likely won't. No, there is zero chance that this happens.

I need to start betting on sports.

Sorry to hear the news of Zeus' knee injury. As I've already said, he's one of my favorite players, and he has normally been very durable outside of this freak injury. Hope he comes back at full speed and has a great year for you next year.

No, an opening kickoff return for a TD ought to do it. The Lions couldn't score in a Singapore whore house Purdue's defense is bad, even Penn State will be able to put up some points on them. But, Purdue has a good offense and PSU won't be able to shut them down the way they could shut down Northwestern or teams like that. For the first time this year (finally) the local paper started questioning the team's play calling. As they put it "why buy a Ferrari if you don't take it out of the garage once in awhile." If you are so high on Morelli's ability to throw the ball 60 yards, quit throwing WR screens and HB swing routes. Oh, and don't run the ball up the middle 30 times a game. yeah... what time is the game? I'm probably just going to sleep through it - I am not in the mood to watch Penn State lose this week. I think it's noon on ABC Oh yeah, I'm definitely sleeping through it then - I don't get done work til around 8:00 on Saturday morning. I can wake up at 4:00 and find out how much PSU lost by, and how many INTs Morelli threw... good times!