illiniguy

Yep, it's true. He was very objective. Much more than I could stomach being.

i just don't see iowa being relevant in any big ten discussion. if it happens, i'll be extremely surprised. there are just other teams that have more going for themselves. I really think that it will be OSU and Illinois going for it in a few years. They are both going to be loaded. But, I also think that Purdue, Wisky, MSU, and even Minnesota will be pretty goodd again.s exciting to have the big ten getting good again. i think purdue is there to stay, i think msu is going nowhere, osu gets every single good player on earth, wisco will continue to contend with whomever they bring in and they're fairly loaded with incoming players, and minnesota is absolutely on their way back up in terms of recruiting. there just isn't any room for iowa at the table, although it would be good for the big ten. I don't get how Thad does it. He just looks at the top 25 list and goes. I want you,you, you, and you. Then he gets them. It's amazing.

Yep, he is an all around solid player. Basically another Adam Haluska with a little more of an inside game. The other freshman looked pretty good too. Tucker can stroke from outside. As I said earlier, this team is already much better than last year. There isn't one thing I can think of were they have not improved. Maybe the post depth could be a problem, but really, last year our 3rd big man was Kurt Looby. In a year or 2 we should be competitive for the top 3 in the BT. In two years Ohio State and Illinois will be loaded with talented. Loaded. Plus Wisky, MSU, and Purdue will still be very good. I can't see Iowa being a top three team. I can understand that. You are an illini fan. spare me, and you aren't the biggest hawkeye homer (and that's saying a lot) on the planet, i guess? if it werent for the god damn refs, the illini would be undefeated. thats all I know. What the heck are you talking about?

i just don't see iowa being relevant in any big ten discussion. if it happens, i'll be extremely surprised. there are just other teams that have more going for themselves. I really think that it will be OSU and Illinois going for it in a few years. They are both going to be loaded. But, I also think that Purdue, Wisky, MSU, and even Minnesota will be pretty good again. It's exciting to have the big ten getting good again.

Yep, he is an all around solid player. Basically another Adam Haluska with a little more of an inside game. The other freshman looked pretty good too. Tucker can stroke from outside. As I said earlier, this team is already much better than last year. There isn't one thing I can think of were they have not improved. Maybe the post depth could be a problem, but really, last year our 3rd big man was Kurt Looby. In a year or 2 we should be competitive for the top 3 in the BT. In two years Ohio State and Illinois will be loaded with talented. Loaded. Plus Wisky, MSU, and Purdue will still be very good. I can't see Iowa being a top three team. I can understand that. You are an illini fan. Who do you have coming in that can play with the likes of the talent those other schools are bringing in? I'll wait for your answer. I still think you can be very good, just not top three in what should be a great big ten. If you are looking for recruiting stars there isnt much I can do to convince you. Jake Kelly, Matt Gatens, Jarryd Cole, and Peterson/Tucker at point leaves us 1 big man short. If any one of a number of young posts steps up that would give us a very solid top 6. Personally, I believe we have one of the best coaches in the conference as well as far as taking that talent as far as it can go. I like your coach a lot as well, but even he would tell you that you need good players to win. Those are generally the guys that have the stars next to their names when they are being recruited.

Yep, he is an all around solid player. Basically another Adam Haluska with a little more of an inside game. The other freshman looked pretty good too. Tucker can stroke from outside. As I said earlier, this team is already much better than last year. There isn't one thing I can think of were they have not improved. Maybe the post depth could be a problem, but really, last year our 3rd big man was Kurt Looby. In a year or 2 we should be competitive for the top 3 in the BT. In two years Ohio State and Illinois will be loaded with talented. Loaded. Plus Wisky, MSU, and Purdue will still be very good. I can't see Iowa being a top three team. I can understand that. You are an illini fan. Who do you have coming in that can play with the likes of the talent those other schools are bringing in? I'll wait for your answer. I still think you can be very good, just not top three in what should be a great big ten.

Yep, he is an all around solid player. Basically another Adam Haluska with a little more of an inside game. The other freshman looked pretty good too. Tucker can stroke from outside. As I said earlier, this team is already much better than last year. There isn't one thing I can think of were they have not improved. Maybe the post depth could be a problem, but really, last year our 3rd big man was Kurt Looby. In a year or 2 we should be competitive for the top 3 in the BT. In two years Ohio State and Illinois will be loaded with talented. Loaded. Plus Wisky, MSU, and Purdue will still be very good. I can't see Iowa being a top three team.

yes, because frazier has earned it with his career of mediocrity. We will have the best bench backcourt this year with Dmac and Alex Legion. what i hope bruce understands is that meacham and frazier look good against teams like eastern washington and that's about it. He didn't all last year. Semrau is a lot better than Tisdale.

I still don't understand why you're under the impression that the Padres would want Gregg. He probably has negative value to them Your probably right, but Im just baffled about the Gregg trade otherwise. Greggs not particularly bad, and Im not saying that Cedas is the next K Rod, but he was one of our top trade chips, and we traded him for a guy who we really had little to no use for, with 1 year under team control. It could be that for once Hendry traded a player while his value was the highest, and got a decent return for someone he didn't see fitting into the Cubs plans in the future. He may have traded him while his value was highest, but he didn't get true value for him. He basically gave him away for a mediocre reliever who will make millions next year. It doesn't matter if he doesn't fit into the Cubs plans, he still has value that can be used. I can't stand when people use that argument. True value is in the eye of the beholder. Obviously, Hendry values Ceda a lot less than we do. Until Ceda comes to the major leagues and puts up numbers better than Gregg, I will give Hendry the benefit of the doubt. Plus, the Cubs got Ceda for basically nothing. One of the reasons I like this move is that Hendry is being proactive early in the off season. With Gregg the Cubs have at least one solid bullpen arm guaranteed. If Gregg were in the Cubs pen last year he would have had the third best WHIP behind Wood and Marmol. If he has a similar season in 2009, he is an upgrade over every other pitcher in the pen. Hendry still has time to go out and get some other arms, but he is not held hostage in free agency. Just because we got him for nothing, doesn't mean we should just give him back away. Good teams capitalize on the guys they get for nothing.

yes, because frazier has earned it with his career of mediocrity. We will have the best bench backcourt this year with Dmac and Alex Legion.

I want to know why E'Twaun Moore didn't start tonight for Purdue. He's getting minutes, but for some reason, he wasn't in the starting five. Maybe Matt Painter is as big a tool as Bruce Weber. :-k

Weber didn't start DMAC :banghead:

That saves number alone is going to drive his price way up on the open market. By doing this, Hendry is also making Marmol too pricey for the Cubs someday. so he has that going against him, but he did piss off a good majority of the fan base by getting rid of Wood. So it wasn't all bad. :banghead:

Defend not offering him arbitration.

God forbid we try and build a minor league system. Screw Hendry. He is horrible. We can give out shots to Wade Miller and Scott Williamson, but Kerry Wood is too injury prone.

Oy. Jim Hendry sucks.

I'm going to doubt Harden would accept that move. I'm going to doubt Harden would have any choice other than sitting out. Besides, it's not really that original of an idea. I heard that idea bandied about a couple years ago on the A's. I believe he still has the right to demand a trade. Plus, who is to say that pitching out of the pen will keep Rich any healthier. Maybe taking the ball more often in a week will be worse for him. I would rather just keep him in the rotation and let him skip a start when he needs to.

Braun? Yeah. Pujols? Yeah. Ankiel? Yeah. Guillen? Well. . . if that were the only way to win, I guess so. . . maybe. . . yeah. . . ______________________________________________ Sandberg>Mazeroski>Morgan I love that Woody is the reason we have been losing the past ten years now. Not inept management. Kerry Wood is the big reason we have won a single playoff series the last 100 years. Either you misquoted, or you got the totally wrong idea from those posts. I might have got the wrong idea, but it seems a couple of people have said that we haven't won with Wood so we might as well move on. Which is just crazy. Wood hasn't been the reason we have yet to win it all.

Braun? Yeah. Pujols? Yeah. Ankiel? Yeah. Guillen? Well. . . if that were the only way to win, I guess so. . . maybe. . . yeah. . . ______________________________________________ Sandberg>Mazeroski>Morgan I love that Woody is the reason we have been losing the past ten years now. Not inept management. Kerry Wood is the big reason we have won a single playoff series the last 100 years.

UCLA wins 64-59. I wonder if they didn't play well, or if Miami of Ohio is just pretty good.

UCLA is in trouble. Miami down only 2 with 2 to go.

No we can't do that, thats akin to giving Alphonso Soriano a contract that will be paying him 20 million a year when he is 40. Or paying DLee as much as Albert Pujols is getting. Or passing out NTC like candy. So I ask if we have made all these crappy decisions in the past why stop now with the most beloved Cub since Sandberg?

Sorry badger, you were the first thing I thought of when I read this terrible news.

IF that is the case I will poke out Jim Hendry's eyes and ... Seriously he has to offer arbitration. Has to.

I really don't think there were any other factors than the fact that you don't give a guy with his injury history the type of deal he's going to get unless you are in desperate need, which the Cubs aren't. There's no blame to be assigned over this, because it's the right thing to do from a business standpoint. Emotionally it really, really sucks, though. I think I might vomit the first time I see him in another uni. Well thats foolish then. He is no less a health risk than Harden. Peavy, who we are all dying to get has had arm problems the last two years and many are predicting more for him. This is a money issue. We wasted too much and now it is biting us in the butt. And yes it really sucks. It's not foolish at all. It's a move you make even in a vacuum. And Harden is going to make less than Kerry will, and the Cubs are only financially responsible for him for 2009. I don't care if it is smart or not. Anyone who has been a cubs fan the last 10 years doesn't have to use their head when it comes to Kerry Wood.