CubinNY

Tressel abstained from voting. BRILLIANT move to not give the No. 2 team bulletin board material in the event it wouldn't have been the No. 2 team Tressel voted for. Ingenious really. he's a brilliant coach. the idea of Tressel at a school that gets the talent OSU does is a scary proposition. they'll be in the running for the NC almoste every year for years to come. I agree. He'd already won two national championships at Youngstown State before comming to Columbus. My hope was that he would clean up the system at OSU too, but that is just too big a job for one I guess. I could see him leaving for the NFL at some point in time.

Then they're bad businessmen. The LA times is a horrible business opportunity as a stand alone product. There is little growth potential in print media.

Brilliant! I really cannot believe he still has a job.

The impression I got from that bit was that he would only buy the Cubs from whoever bought the entire Tribune Co. Smart decision on his part to look into that option, since it seems the Tribune will be sold as one big chunk. So look for Cuban to attempt to buy the Cubs from whoever buys the whole Trib Co. The problem with that idea is that the Cubs are the only asset that generates significanlty more income than it costs to prodiuce the product. That's why the Tribune Company wants to sell the Cubs with the Trib. It's like making a team take a bad contract for getting a good player. The team will not sell the good player without the other team taking back the bad contract. I cannot see whomever buys the trib selling the Cubs. They are a cash cow. The rest is just a loss leader. It's Walmart 101.

Exactly. The only thing standing in the way is money. D IA is the only division that doesn't have a playoff in football. There has to be a way to make a playoff lucritive enough to change the sytem.

If the Cubs got Bonds and won it all. I'd feel like I sold my soul to the devil to get a WS. It's would be like Damn Yankees in real life.

I can only answer to one of those, but I'd say Yes. ;) Indeed. But I don't want Hendry to spend unwisely. It may be too late with Fonzie already here.

I heard somebody talk about a play in game. Let Florida play Michigan and see who plays OSU. What about other one loss teams?

Anyone who read the thread knows my positon. A platoon is a necessary evil for a mid to low payroll team. A platoon is an inefficient use of scarce resources both in terms of dollars and 25 man roster spots unless: A) the short end player is cheap B) The team is in the AL The definiton of a platoon is that one player is not good for some portion of the time. It's fine to have bench players that can hit from either the left or right side of the plate e.g., a lefty on the bench with power. My position is not finite, I can be pursuaded, but there are oppotunity costs involved.

Ok, it's late and I've had a few pops but my logic looks like this: If the Cubs cannot sign Shmidt or Lilly. Heck, even if they sign Lilly, they will probably need someone better to get them over the top, so to speak, to the playoffs. If the Cubs are in the mix in June who may be available? I'm thinking both position wise (2nd, CF, and SS) and starting pitching. Would Hendry be smart not to spend all the loot and wait to see who is available to put the team in a position to win it all? I'm thinking yes as I look out and see who is availabe now. Am I drunk and looking too far in the future?

Let chaos reign! Let it reign!

Actually, the loss should prevent them from going to a BCS bowl, but it won't.

Hahahahahahaha! Go UCLA! Now Florida has to win and chaos will reign!!!! Take that BCS

Either USC isn't as good as they looked in the ND game or ND wasn't as good as they looked in the UCLA game. If USC wins, they will get destroyed by OSU. Go UCLA and Go Florida!

If a team has two guys for one postion it is ineficient based on a 25 man roster. I suppose, if the guy on the short end could play other positons that would be ok. However, he is still only valuable N -2/3 of the time becuase of his poor splits. If the palyer is inexpensive the differnce is less. Last year Nixon made $7.5 JJ makes $6 million Last year Craig Wilson made $3.3 million you're making it sound like the guy not starting that day doesn't get to dress for the game. He might as well not dress if he isn't valuable. There are many games when I wish Neifi didn't dress. Suppose you have the guy on the bench who cannot hit righties. The other team puts in a lefty pitcher. The guy gets up and they take out the lefty.

If a team has two guys for one postion it is ineficient based on a 25 man roster. I suppose, if the guy on the short end could play other positons that would be ok. However, he is still only valuable N -2/3 of the time becuase of his poor splits. If the palyer is inexpensive the differnce is less. Last year Nixon made $7.5 JJ makes $6 million Last year Craig Wilson made $3.3 million

It is meaningless to pay two guys to play one postion and to pay one guy to sit on the bench @100 games a year? The opportunity costs: The platoon player is taking a roster spot that could otherwise be filled by someone better You have one less player to use on your bench How do you propose to get "people on board"? Assuming the guy is good enough to be worth platooning, odds are you aren't going to be finding many better bench players. With people like Nixon, who hasn't been a full-time player in several years, it should be pretty easy to convince him to participate in such a situation. Guys like Jones, who play most games but stink against one type of pitcher would probably put up a fight. But that's what managers are for, to do what's best for the team. You don't have one less player to use on your bench. It's not like the guy who is not starting that day is ineligible to play. The first couple times through the lineup he's going to be facing the same pitcher, and you don't even have to think about pinch hitting. In many games I wouldn't even sub-in the platoon if they bring in a new pitcher. It doesn't have to be, and really, it can never be, a 100% strict platoon. But it doesn't have to be much of a problem either. I understand. I think it is a philosophical disagreement about personnel use. I can see a platoon if you have an iexpensive player on the short end of the platoon situation or if you are small market team, or even in the AL. My belief is that if the Cubs need to platoon Jones then they have a problem. However, in the case of Nixon he would platooning with Murton and not Jones. I'm not against getting Nixon for a 4th OFer and the first guy off the bench, depending on how much he'd cost.

It is meaningless to pay two guys to play one postion and to pay one guy to sit on the bench @100 games a year? The opportunity costs: The platoon player is taking a roster spot that could otherwise be filled by someone better You have one less player to use on your bench How do you propose to get "people on board"?

That doesn't make any sense. Why? This isn't fantasy baseball. All things being equal platoons are a sign of weakness. You are paying two guys to play one position, not to mention most players don't like being platooned. I understand the logic, but in this instance you cannot just use the numbers to justify a platoon. There are opportunity cost problems all over the place. If I'm better at putting and you are better at driving, then wouldnt it stand to reason that we would combine for a better scramble score than if we played separately? Yes, but this is baseball we are talking about and not golf. Why would a team try and use a platoon if they didn't have too? Especially a team with a top five payroll? There are only 25 roster spots. One guy is going to play 70 to 80% of the time and the guy who can't hit righties is almost usless.

That doesn't make any sense. Why? This isn't fantasy baseball. All things being equal platoons are a sign of weakness. You are paying two guys to play one position, not to mention most players don't like being platooned. I understand the logic, but in this instance you cannot just use the numbers to justify a platoon. There are opportunity cost problems all over the place.

Craig Wilson is a guy I wouldn't mind having off the bench. I don't want the Cubs to platoon anybody. If they are going to trade JJ, find a suitable replacement who can play against any pitcher. Using a platoon is a weakness, not a strength.

I don't disagree, but I'd rather have the better talent for the money (within parameters). The inequalitiy of the talent is the key here.

Depending on who the Cubs could get for Jones, it would also make them an even worse offense. Nixon is a sexy name but his best baseball is behind him. Now, if the Cubs could get him as 4th outfielder/1st guy off the bench/spot Lee a game or two at 1st/ for around $1 m for 1 year. I would applaud Hendry. I loveD Nixon, but I know he has regressed significantly. However, my point is not that Nixon>Jones, my point is that Nixon+platoon partner>Jones playing against righties and lefties. Who would be the platoon partner? I'm not a big fan of platoons, unless the partner is young and inexpensive. I just don't like having two guys on the roster for one position. IMO, in the NL platoons severly limit a teams flexibility. They make much more sense with a DH.

Depending on who the Cubs could get for Jones, it would also make them an even worse offense. Nixon is a sexy name but his best baseball is behind him. Now, if the Cubs could get him as 4th outfielder/1st guy off the bench/spot Lee a game or two at 1st/ for around $1 m for 1 year. I would applaud Hendry.

Carlos Lee got 17M a year after putting up an average of under 120 OPS+ over the last 4 years, Schmidt has put up an average of over 130 ERA+ over the same period. While Schmidt is older, Lee dresses up like the State Puff Marshmallow man for Halloween and every other day of the year and signed to a longer term contract than Schmidt is rumor to be signed for. The way this market is going with such low depth at all positions, I wouldn't doubt he would recieve an offer in that range. I just hope Hendry is smart enough to not offer him a contract that exceeds 45 million. I would also doubt that he receives an offer in that range. Also, I think he would receive an offer in that range. I also do not doubt that I am doubting that someone will offer Schmidt a $60 million contarct. But I don't doubt it can happen.