Hosak8

Ouch. Actually, I do have a plan in place. With the rules as they are, I will have to drop NO ONE. So, I cannot add too many players through the draft. I actually think I'm in good shape next year. Vengeance will be mine! :twisted:

I anticipated that question. The NCAA can limit the number of schools who are a part of 1A. At the very least, set criteria that makes a team perform at a certain level (victories, enrollment, attendance figures, etc) for 3 years. If a team meets said requirements, you either make room and adjust, or you evaluate a current 1A team that needs to be demoted. Makes staying in 1A interesting for lower tier teams.

A simple, no chance at ever happening, scenario: The NCAA mandates that EVERY team who wants to be eligible for the playoff MUST join a conference. 120 team=12 conferences. For competetive balance, EVERY conference is capped at 10 teams. Every team plays a round-robin conference schedule, PLUS one wild card game. That's a 10 game schedule. NO CONFERENCE CHAMPIONSHIPS. All conference champions (including co and tri champions) are automatically in. Use a panel or a formula to determine the remaining teams in the 32 team tourney. (1st 3 rounds are high-seed home field. Rounds 4 and 5 are current BCS bowls) Play 8 bowl games for non-tourney teams. That creates a postseason opportunity for 48 teams- a much more appropriate number. After round one, winners move on, losers get a bowl game. After round two, winners move on, losers get a bowl game. After round three, winners advance. After round four, winners advance to National Championship. Losers play a consolation game. (Rounds 4 and 5 are current BCS Bowls.) So, non-tourney teams play 11 total games. 1st round losers play 12 games. 2nd and 3rd round losers play 13 games. 4th and 5th round teams play 15 games. There are a total of 24 Bowl games, and the title is decided on the field. This scenario is so far fetched that it could never happen.

I'll deal every pick I have from round 11 (98th overall) through the 20th for a 5th rounder. To sweeten the pot, I will also throw in 2 of the following 4 *points exempt* players: Dan Johnson, Ryan Garko, Carlos Quentin, Elijah Dukes. First to offer gets it.

Don't you know who our GM is?

Prior to SD Chase Headley, Sean Marshall, and Matt Murton to Oak Swisher in RF for the Cubs. Done.

Trading Sean Marshall for him is hardly "falling all over (our)selves" to get him.

I'd settle for Adam Lind or Jesse Litsch. Neither are spectacular, but either would be worth the gamble. If noting else, look at the money we'd save.

Now, that's just crazy talk.

That's fine. I don't see Hill as overpaying for Crawford. Relative value. Hill's relative value is lower than Crawford's would be. Even if the value is absolute, Crawford is a much more proven commodity at the Major League level.

This thread is [expletive]. We have one poster talking about algorithms and stating that wins and losses matter less in football than they do in baseball. See what happens when the guys from Big Bang Theory take an interest in sports? The actual meaning behind games gets lost in algorithms and theoretical statistical probabilities. Winning games is unimportant. It only matters what a computer says should happen. Perhaps they should give the Sears Trophy to the winner of my simulated 2007 NCAA Football Season?

Surely you aren't serious? You'd really want Rich Hill/Felix Pie over Matt Garza/Carl Crawford? Seriously? I mean, Hill is not dominant (and when he is, he's far from consistent), and he's older than Crawford. Crawford is a good defender, has 20HR/60 SB potential, and has gotten better every year he's been in the Majors. If I could get those two deals done, I do it without so much as a hesitation.

Breaking News on ESPN Bottom Line. More to come.

Funny, I saw this trade and actually had an optimistic thought. Based on the fact that Hendry and Beane have made trades with each other before, I was thinking Scutaro's exit gives Hendry a great opportunity to trade Beane one of his surplus middle infielders. Scutaro started a decent number of games at 2B, SS and 3B last year, so I would think the A's would need a backfill. It's clear Scutaro was dealt for financial reasons: he made $1.55M in 2007 and is arbitration eligible for 2008. Maybe Ronny Cedeno gets dealt here for a decent pitching prospect. Perhaps Cedeno is part of a package for Joe Blanton?

http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2007/11/16/derek-jeter-captain-role-model-tax-cheat/?ncid=NWS00010000000001 Does this make the Yankee/ARod flip flop make sense?

Here's some 2008 projections James J.Loney .302 /.359/.465 /.823 CHONE J.Loney .284/.347/.431/.778 James M.Kemp .322/.365/.508/.873 CHONE M.Kemp .289/.337/.467/.804 Yeah, it'd totally suck to have those two hitting 3 and 5. Absolutely awful. James M. Murton .305/.373/.468/.841 James D. Lee .297/.386/.515/.901 Let's see. We want a higher OBP no? Both Murton and Lee are better than Kemp and Loney in that department. Lee's considerably better than Kemp and Murton's considerably better than Loney. Yeah, it'd totally suck to have those two hitting 3 and 5. Absolutely awful. The point is that you don't lose all that much offensively and you save a ton of cash. Cash is then applied to A-Rod. Also, D-Lee is on the downswing of his career and is only going to get worse, while Kemp and Loney are young and going to improve. Which would you rather have? Lee, Muton, and Theriot or Loney, Kemp, and A-Rod I'd go with the second option. Never going to happen, but that would probably be the best scenario for this team. Patterson, D-Lee, and Marshall for Loney and Kemp? Save a ton of cash? you'd save what? 15 mil? arod isnt signing for 15 mil We already have about 15M to spend. You save 15M or more by trading Lee. 15+15=30. I think we could have got A-Rod to sign to 25-30. None of this really matters, because there isn't any chance of it happening. I'm just saying that we'd be better off if we could trade Lee and others for two young players like Kemp and Loney, who have a good chance to be good for a long time. and we could keep lee and murton and acquire tejada instead. arod cant play SS anymore kids He can't? And you know this how?

Honestly, I like Lee, and would normally have no interest in dealing him. But, for a chance at those two, you have to try. Besides, I imagine Lee might like playing in LA under Torre. Not saying he'd go, just saying I could see why he might consider it...

While your first sentence is probably true, your second sentence definitely is not. However, I predict this thread will die into oblivion very soon. Loney/Kemp idea is nothing new. It's not, but the fact that the Dodgers seem to be shopping Kemp is...

I've never been more convinced that this is the right move for this team. According to Hoops in the 2008 salary sticky, the Cubs have approximately 105 million spent, and still need 3 players- a RF, SS, and a pitcher. He has Wood slotted as that pitcher. Now, if we could deal DLee, EPatt, and a young pitcher to LA for Loney and Kemp, we solve the RF problem, meaning we would only need a ss and rp to fill out the roster. Plus, we'd be down to around a $92 million payroll. With the bump to a potential $125 million payroll, I have to wonder where we'd find a decent ss for 25 million or so. Any ideas? Seriously... get this done, Jimbo. Then worry about what to do with Murton, Theriot, Fontenot, and Infante later.

Dear Lord... Why not offer DLee, EPatt, and Marshall for Loney and Kemp? Seriously.

Right. Because those moves weaken us in what way?

I'm not aware of very many NTC's... though I know ARam has one. The money would be pretty high, but we'd be exchanging ARam, DLee, and Soriano's contracts for ARod and Hunter, with extensions due for Crawford and Santana. In 2008, we might go backwards financially, though in the next 4-5 years, the payroll would absolutely skyrocket.

Taking into account all the rumors/suggestions that have appeared in this forum over the last 3 or 4 weeks, I was wondering if Cubs fans would accept an offseason that looked like this: 1. Sign ARod. 2. Trade DLee and a spare part to LA for Loney and Kemp. 3. Trade ARam and Soriano to NYY for Cano and Chamberlain. 4. Trade Infante, EPatt, Marshall, and Gallagher to Tampa for Carl Crawford. 5. Trade Derosa, Murton, Hill, and Pie to Minny for Santana. 6. Sign Torii Hunter. That would give us a lineup of: 1. Cano 2B 2. Crawford LF 3. ARod 3B 4. Loney 1B 5. Kemp RF 6. Hunter CF 7. Theriot SS 8. Soto C And a rotation of: 1. Santana 2. Zambrano 3. Lilly 4. Chamberlain 5. Hart/Prior/Marquis/Dempster/prospect/free agent Speed, power, defense, pitching. That is a world series team. Wouldn't happen in a billion years, but it would be fun to see. (I get stir crazy during the beginning of hot stove action...)

I'm sorry, but if you can get Carl Crawford for Rich Hill, you do it, and worry about that spot in the rotation later.

I may be jumping the gun here, but this article just confirms my suspicions that Veal is just another in a long line of overhyped Cubs prospects. For the life of me, I cannot figure out why people suggest that he could be a major piece in acquiring a big bat. To me, Veal is just... meh.