CubinNY

This doesn't make any sense. They lost 3 games (and maybe 4) because they had some tough matchups. Arkansas played a top 10 Wisconsin team. Alabama was mediocre and played a similarly mediocre Okie State team. You also had the SEC showing its depth by teams like Kentucky and Georgia pulling off upsets against favored opponents. Well one game is in the national championship game, so it's completely absurd that you're even including that one. As for the other two, you get the second or third best team in each conference to play each other in the Capitol One Bowl, making it the best non-BCS bowl out there, and sometimes better than the BCS bowls. Then the next team in line from each conference plays in the Outback Bowl, and that's usually a very good game as well. But to further answer your question, it's because you get two very good, high-profile teams from deep conferences to play in a bowl game, and that's good for ratings, and I'd argue that it's good for college football in general. Games like Arkansas-Wisconsin are definitely worth watching. I know you're all proud of your Big East, but let's not forget that two years ago they were getting completely embarassed by a Mountain West school in a BCS game. So let's have the Big East teams earn their stripes before we just automatically start assuming that they can hang depth-wise and talent-wise with the traditional power conferences. If Rutgers, WVU and Louisville all stay good and Pitt/Cincy/USF keep emerging, then I'm sure the Big East will get better, higher-profile bowl games. But to think that an 8-team conference that just lost three of its most prestigious members will receive the same treatment as well-established power conferences is idiotic. Isn't the Big East part of the BCS series? If so, I don't see what there is to gripe about. If a MAC, Sun Belt, Mountain West or WAC (is that still a conference?) school goes undefeated they don't even get a shot.

Exactly what job was this? Please don't tell me he was going to start... http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/columnists/cs-070105rogers,1,1154597.column?page=2&coll=cs-home-utility Buried in the column: If Drew doesn't get signed by the Red Sox I seriously hope the Cubs make a play for him. They can trade JJ to the Red Sox. If they get Drew I will be very optimistic about 2007. I'm curious as to why? Drew completely changes the dynamics of this team. He hits lefthanded, can play CF and will put up at least .850 OPS in the middle of the order. He would easily make the Cubs offense the best in the NL, at least on paper. Next year they could trade Murton to make room for Pie, if he's ready, and slide Soriano to LF.

That's funny Vance because that's how I view the SEC and Big 10. Plus, Thanks to Delaney (Big 10 Commish) we will NEVER have a playoff because he's too happy with the Rose Bowl the way it's set up now. But to a man, most of the big name coaches in the SEC are firmly in favor of a playoff. I know Miles, Myer, and Tubberville are for certain. Unfortunatly neither their Presidents or ADs are in favor.

Exactly what job was this? Please don't tell me he was going to start... http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/columnists/cs-070105rogers,1,1154597.column?page=2&coll=cs-home-utility Buried in the column: If Drew doesn't get signed by the Red Sox I seriously hope the Cubs make a play for him. They can trade JJ to the Red Sox. If they get Drew I will be very optimistic about 2007.

Short-sighted was going for all the old guys in the first place. This might not turn out great, but it's definitely not short-sighted. Myopia isn't confined to the near future; it's possible to be short-sighted about the past as well. The Yankees are looking at one bad year and trading away a guy who could put up a 4ish ERA in the AL East for a couple of prospects, neither of which is rated higher than a B. If the Yanks were rebuilding, I'd be all for it, but they should be in a position to win it all in 2007. We'll see how he does next year. You're right that his age makes him risky to project because there are so few comparables, but he should be at least Arizona's #2 in 2007. I don't disagree with you, but it is my understanding that Johnosn didn't much care for NY and the media attention. He's been hounded since his first day in NY when he swore at a news reporter and camera man. When the NY media turns on you NY can be a very unfriendly place for a high profile athlete. Maybe Johnson asked to be dealt?

On ESPN Robert Smith brought up a great point. ND hasn't won a bowl game in over a decade. It's because they are always playing someone they shouldn't. They are habitually overrated and only get into the bigger bowl games b/c they bring in a bigger audience. The bowls are about how much money can be generated, not about getting the best teams matched up. The entire BCS and all the bowls are a sham. --------------- ND hasn't beaten a top ten team since Lou Holtz coached them. Forget joining The Big Ten, maybe they'd have a better shot in the MAC.

The Yankees would probably be interested in Blaylock from Texas and they are in need of pitching- Cubs get: Arod+Pavano Rangers get:Marshall+Mateo+Gallagher? Yankees get Blaylock+Eyre as a cub fan i would be all over that. i dont see the other teams agreeing to this though. A more realistic deal would probably be Cubs: Arod + Pavano Rangers get: Veal + Prior Yankees get: Blalock + Eyre + Marshall At this point in time I don't think any "deal" that involves Prior is realistic. He has to show he is healthy first. If he doesn't pitch in ST games that will be a bad sign. He is without a doubt the Cubs most important question to be answered this season. With him the Cubs have the makings of a pretty good rotation. Without him they're just mediocre.

The 2007 Chicago Cubs: A jigsaw puzzle with 25 pieces, some of which don't fit.

Agreed. That was a bad, desperate trade. Not only Nolasco, but Pinto will more than likely end up being every bit as big a blunder. We have a ton of question marks at the #5 starter slot with Prior, Miller, Cotts or Marshall. For all I know Guzman will all of a sudden snap out of it and realize his potential. But I can guarantee we'd have had no problems worrying about the 5 hole or maybe even wouldn't have signed Marquis if not for they horrific lose/lose trade. I can rattle off a lot of Hendry moves that i liked and until that Pierre mess i always thought protecting Macias insrtead of Sisco was his worst move, but nope. Losing those 3 young arms for NOTHING was simply awful. I am actually quite pleased that we spent money rather than leveraged away any more siginificant farm pieces, but I still await with baited breath to see what is done about an impact CF. I don't think some unfilled potential, claimed off the scrap heap type gets it done. There are few options out there, but someone out of perhaps the Dodger or Brewer orgs may be helpful. Both seem to have a surplus of OF's with good upside. Repko or Corey Hart would be awesome--i'd even be happy with Brady Clark for a short term--he's 33--but very serviceable. Maybe a 3-way with another team could land him...the Brewers look loaded in the OF with T Gwynn Jr, Laynce Nix, Mench, Hart, Clark, Jenkins, Anderson and Gross. Even Nix would work for me--saw him in AAA for a couple games right after TX traded him and he flat killed the ball. Bill Hall will more than likely land in the OF as well... Pie needs a lightning bolt miracle to be ready before 2008...he doesn't seem to be even close right now. Lets wait to see who the Cubs get in the Supplemental Draft for Pierre before we bash Hendry for failing to trade him before the deadline. I would rather have a first round pick than a C level prospect. I don't think Slappy was a Type A free agent. I believe he is a Type B so the pick the Cubs get for him will likely be after the 2nd round. I think the Cubs could have done better if they would have traded him at the deadline. However, "better" might mean closer to MLB ready than a draft pick. Nevertheless, the initial trade was very, very bad, but not as bad as the contract he got with the Dodgers. He's going to block some young talent for a few years.

My point is that Lee may have lost some power with the writst injury. But either way, if Soriano hits a solo HR and then Lee follows it is still two runs. My thinking is that Lee has decent enough speed and a pretty good OBP. If he doesn't hit for a lot of power or less power he could be pretty good in that slot.

No. Just No. Ok. Why not? Well, we would probably lead MLB in solo HR's. Lee has a career OBP of .363 Murton has a career OBP of .370 Aramis is a lock to hit at least 25 HRs.

No. Just No. Ok. Why not?

Lately I've been thinking a lot about the importance of Lee in the lineup. I think his performance in terms of power is almost as big a question as Wood or Prior. One thing that Lee has been good at throughout his career is pitch selection. He's posted good to very good OBP thoughout most of his career. I wonder if it wouldn't be a good idea to move him up to the 2nd slot behind Soriano. In my world Soriano would be hitting lower in the order, but that doesn't look like it will happen. Something like Soriano Lee Murton Aramis Barrett DeRosa CF/RF (I don't think JJ will be around to start the season) Izturis Thoughts?

Tim and tech people. Occasionally when I click on a thread I get this message: I don't know if someone is trying to hack information or what, but I thought I should let you know.

i just read that on yahoo, some of you thought we had it bad with Lillys contract The number of years is bad on the Zito contract, the pay is not. With Lilly the number of years isn't so bad but the pay is. Zito will probably perform better given the dimensions of Pac Bell. I really worry about Lilly in the NL Central ballparks. So you think that Zito is worth 18 million a year? That's not what I think. I really don't have anything to say about "worth". Worth is relative to the team's payroll and the player's contribution. I don't really know how to determine worth. That said, I'm not all that upset about the Lilly signing, but I worry about The Cubs signing fly ball pitchers.

i just read that on yahoo, some of you thought we had it bad with Lillys contract The number of years is bad on the Zito contract, the pay is not. With Lilly the number of years isn't so bad but the pay is. Zito will probably perform better given the dimensions of Pac Bell. I really worry about Lilly in the NL Central ballparks.

I believe you are correct Soul. Statistics show what was done. They are tangible proof that something happenend. However, the numbers don't "say" anything. It is the inferences that are made about what the numbers show that "say" things. Inferences are opinions based on the data. Two people could look at the same data and come to different conclusions. In science luck/chance is something to be gotten rid of. Usually this is done through randomization of the subject pool. If the scientist has done the right thing, luck plays a very little role in the outcome of the experiment. If the the variable under study is not found to be correlated with the results, the scientist doesn't say the results were do to luck. He/she says he/she doesn't know why it occured. Luck certainly plays a part in an individual baseball game or even a few games in a row. That is why the playoffs are such a crap shoot. But by the way some people talk about luck one would think that these guys/teams are all lottery winners. I seriously question some of these articles about the roll luck plays over the course of 162 games. Random variation and luck are not the same thing. It just means that the results are not likely to be repreated and the data are likely to regress to the mean, either for better or worse. But this is a closed system and without really looking up the data I'd say there is probably a large standard deviation in the data pool (in terms of BABIP). In other words there will always be outliers who overperform and underperform. The mean is just that. If an individual doesn't perform up to the mean or perfroms above the mean, it doens't necessarily say the person was lucky or unlucky. It says that they were better or worse than average.

Nah ... there'll be a rainout or two that won't be played cuz the Cubs will run away with the division :wink: Seriously, I agree with CubinNY. .500 is a realistic expectation for this team as presently constructed. But even with that over/under, somehow it seems more likely that they'll lose 90 than win 90 ... maybe it's a skewed distribution. Someone (I forget who) on NSBB did a position-by-position WARP analysis sometime back around the time Soriano was signed, and came up with a number close to .500 for the Cubs, which sounds about right to me. If I can find the thread I'll post a link - that might be the sort of argument or analysis jjgman wants to see? The biggest unknown - the biggest source of variance - is Prior IMO. The extremes between late 2003 and 2006 are extraordinary. Which Prior will show up when he finally takes the mound? (i.e. will he be healthy but I hate that cliche.) There's a big difference in expected wins on him alone. Yep. Prior and Wood are the big unkowns here. Right now I don't see the Cubs becoming an offensive juggernaut so if Prior can maintain an ERA in 3 range for 25 starts I will like the Cubs chances even better. If Wood can manage to pitch on consecutive days the majority of the time and be very good, the Cub could shorten a lot of games to six or seven innings. Those are huge ? in themselves. As I wrote earlier, I hope the Cubs can stay in contention until the trade deadline. If so, I will like the Cubs chances even more.

If not before... I agree. However, with Boras as his agent (if he is still z's agent) I'm thinking talks won't start until after Zito is signed. Just my 2 cents. Either way, I expect Hendry to get him signed. Hendry seems to be playing with monopoly money this year.

Forming opinions is more than just baseless conjecture and hyperbole. I happen to think it's a bit unreasonable for someone to require facts or proof on an opinion of something that hasn't happened yet. It's all guess work, including your opinion. I could go out on a limb and state that the major league baseball season will IN FACT be played in its entirety next year, but it won't truly be a fact until after the fact. I think the point he is trying to make is that he would like to have a discussion. All of this at this point is conjecture and "opinion" but he would like to know how the opinion is arrived at (if there is a thought process behind it). I agree it is far more interesting to read that than just declarative statements ("The cubs will win some, will lose some" type comments). He wants "analysis" in the form of "here is why I think this." Not one person in this thread has written an opinon without also saying why they think the way they do. As per ususal the poster is making acusations based on nothing but a fantastic sense of martyerdom. To me it's unwarrented to be making specific projections when the team is far from complete. JJ will likely be traded, for whom we don't know. They may bring in Cliff Floyd, but we don't know that yet. They haven't said what they plan to do with CF and we really have no idea what the pitching staff will look like. I fully expect one of the surplus young arms to be traded before the season begins. Again, I think the Cubs will be better than last year. How much better? I don't really know, but I think they have a realistic shot at being around .500.

Sine when is it pessimistic to project a team that won 66 games the previous year to be .500 the next year and have a shot to contend for the division?

won't somebody please make a comment like this and actually state your case. back this up with some analysis please. Analysis? What is your problem? You call pulling stats out of thin air analsyis? Where did you come up with those projections? On what are they based? Instead of trying to reinvent the wheel why don't you just use the commonly excepted projections like PECTOA? The Cubs were terrible last year. Terrible! They have upgreaded one positon on offense but will be getting Lee back. The pitching staff is no better, but they had some bad luck with injuries last year. I expect Guzman to come on strong given the time since his big injury. If they get any regression from last year's numbers from the middle of the order guys (of which, I'm including Soriano) they will not score significantly more runs than they did last year. If they don't score significanlty more runs they will need significantly better pitching than last year. I don't see it. So, in conclusion, the Cubs have a realistic shot at .500 and if things break right they could contend for the division. I don't need to make projections out of thin air to state my expectations.

Expectations? The Cubs have a realistic shot at .500. If they get a few career years from pitchers and Lee, Aramis, Barrett, and Soriano don't regress to the mean they could contend for the division. My hope is that they hang tough until June/July and Hendry can get some upgrades for the offense.

Except that McCarthy has about 4 (5?) seasons left where his salary can be controlled either by the team or by arbitration. So unless Williams is planning for the 2011 payroll, I don't think that's why he did it. It doesn't matter if his salary is controlled or not, if he puts up decent numbers he will be approaching the $8-10 in just a few seasons. Also, it seems as though they were going to relegate him to the pen or AAA this year. This is an example of trading a guy while he has maximum value. McCarthy may have contributed this season, but what he brought in trade was potentially far better for the near and long term. Chances are, losing McCarthy will not cost the WS a World Series.

I don't think it matters. His numbers are among the best ever for a CFer. He's a lock first ballot HOF IMO.