Exile on Waveland

I agree with your second paragraph. However, Wisconsin certainly was good last year. They lost one game, and won a bowl game against Auburn -- the only team to beat National Champion Florida. I'm not arguing they're a top-5 team, but they certainly are a good team. *Also, Wisconsin isn't very good, yet they're one of the top-20 teams in the country? Are you saying there are only like 10 good teams each year?

The Big 12 is better than the Big 11. wrong The Big 11 was garbage last year and, sans Wisconsin, is garbage this year. Wisconsin - good Michigan - sucks OSU - nowhere near as good as last year and probably overrated Indiana - garbage Illinois - too young right now Penn State - offense is not good at all Minnesota - HAHAHA, yeah Iowa - not very good Purdue - no defense Northwestern - even more "HA's" than Minnesota Michigan State - the best thing about them is John L is gone The Big 11 is not a very good conference. Don't get me wrong, the Big 12 isn't that good either, but at least they have Oklahoma. Big Ten teams finished last season ranked Nos. 2, 7, 8 and 24 in the AP Poll and 2, 5, 9 and 25 in the USA Today Poll. That is certainly not "garbage." The mighty Big 12 finished 11 and 13 in each. Your rundown of the Big 10 is laughable as well. One could easily make ridiculous claims and pick out weaknesses of every Big 12 team (perhaps sans Oklahoma). Ohio State was better last year? Really, you think? Well then, Texas isn't good because they aren't as good as they were two years ago. (That said, OSU probably is overrated) Penn State's offense isn't great, but they have quality pieces -- especially at WR. Iowa is a solid team. Oklahoma is likely the best team in either conference. But the Big 10 is better overall.

Just wanted to check in say I was incredibly wrong (at least so far) that Michigan would win this weekend. Oops. Also, as happy as I was that IU missed both Michigan and Ohio State this season, I kind of wish they played Michigan. I'm not saying they'd win, they likely still wouldn't, but it'd be the best chance they've had in a long while.

Agreed. They'll end up in the polls.

I imagine South Florida is going to bring 7 or 8 in the box, stop the run, and see if the o-line and Brandon Cox can find the open receiver. Cox wasn't able to do that for the first 3 quarters against K-State. Auburn wins 19-13. I'll be rooting for Auburn. I've always liked them for some reason -- plus they got a raw deal when they went 13-0 and I thought Tuberville got a raw deal the year before when he was almost ousted. That said, I'd be very concerned if I were them.

I agree. I also enjoy seeing Michigan completely falling out of the top 25. if Michigan really kill Oregon, I can see the stupid voters bringing them right back to the low teens again Dixon is going to be even harder to handle than that dude from A State. Michigan is going down again. Michigan won't lose this week. I would be absolutely stunned. Not saying they're great, but they'll win this week.

Juan Pierre. Dusty Baker.

-Big game for the Hoosiers. If they are to make a bowl -- a completely reasonable proposition -- they likely must win this game. It's a game they should win, and a team like IU cannot afford to lose such a game as they're so few and far between. -BenJarvus Green-Ellis...tear...wish you were still at IU... -Watch out for South Florida. Auburn was unimpressive against K-State (albeit so was USF in their opener), and USF is a team on a meteoric rise. I think there's an excellent chance this game catapults USF into the nation's mind, polls and major bowls.

You've obviously never met an OSU fan, otherwise you'd understand.

Tennessee beat the crap out of Cal last year. Also, sure the Big Ten took 2 of 3 against the SEC last year but their top 2 teams got absolutely waxed in their bowl games. Last year, and probably again this year, it's the top four (OSU, Wisc, UM, PSU) and then the rest is crap. Purdue and Minnesota were 5 and 6 in the Big 10 last year - do you really they would stand a chance against any of Tennessee/Georgia/Auburn/LSU/Arkansas (depending on who you consider to be #5 and #6 in the SEC in 06)? Of course not. Oh, and the Big 10 went 2-5 in the bowls last year. Overrated. I think the SEC is the best conference year-in and year-out, though the Big Ten is generally close. So, you know where I'm coming from. However, I'd like to note a few things: First, Michigan lost to USC by 14. USC is a completely different ballgame. Last three times USC has played an SEC team: won at Arkansas 50-14 last season, beat Arkansas 70-17 in 2005, won at Auburn 23-0 in 2003. No, Michigan wasn't terribly competitive with the Trojans last season, but the SEC has actually faired much worse (and two of the above three games featured good SEC teams). Second, while Iowa was "crap" last year -- though they nearly knocked off Texas in their bowl -- until proven incorrect, that must be considered a hiccup. They're a solid team that has gone 2-1 against the SEC in bowls the last for years (beating Florida and LSU, while dropping one to Florida). The Rose Bowl is also a "Home" game for USC. I think if USC played a game in Chicago against Michigan in late November the outcome would be a lot different. I would venture to say the same for Florida against OSU, even though last years game was probably closer to OSU than Florida. Also soccer I did say in a later post that the SEC is probably the best conference year in and year out. I just dont think they are as superior as they think they are. In a later post I also said that as long as the NCAA is going to keep this crap BCS, then they need to take more control of scheduling to help eliminate the crap scheduling that a lot of big time schools do. In my post I never say that the SEC isnt the best conference. I just have heard several SEC coaches use this Superior conference excuse for not scheduling good teams. So your whole counter arguement wasnt even directed at anything I wrote. I didnt say the Big Ten, Pac 10 or anyone was better. Lastly if we are going to use Bowl games as a judge of whos the better conference the Big Ten and SEC are 11-11 since 1999 against each other. Most of these games of course being in SEC territory. I havent checked the SEC's record against other conferences in bowl games since then. I would use this to show that maybe just maybe the SEC isnt quite as superior as their coaches, their fans and ESPN would have everyone believe. I wasn't arguing with you. My counter argument WASN'T directed at anything you wrote, that's why I quoted soccer. I guess I should've deleted your post that soccer quoted, but I was not commenting on anything you said at all. I was just trying to shed some light on some things soccer posted -- like the fact that USC has dominated the Big Ten and the SEC.

I would think so, yes. Lots of passing yards and points.

Tennessee beat the crap out of Cal last year. Also, sure the Big Ten took 2 of 3 against the SEC last year but their top 2 teams got absolutely waxed in their bowl games. Last year, and probably again this year, it's the top four (OSU, Wisc, UM, PSU) and then the rest is crap. Purdue and Minnesota were 5 and 6 in the Big 10 last year - do you really they would stand a chance against any of Tennessee/Georgia/Auburn/LSU/Arkansas (depending on who you consider to be #5 and #6 in the SEC in 06)? Of course not. Oh, and the Big 10 went 2-5 in the bowls last year. Overrated. I think the SEC is the best conference year-in and year-out, though the Big Ten is generally close. So, you know where I'm coming from. However, I'd like to note a few things: First, Michigan lost to USC by 14. USC is a completely different ballgame. Last three times USC has played an SEC team: won at Arkansas 50-14 last season, beat Arkansas 70-17 in 2005, won at Auburn 23-0 in 2003. No, Michigan wasn't terribly competitive with the Trojans last season, but the SEC has actually faired much worse (and two of the above three games featured good SEC teams). Second, while Iowa was "crap" last year -- though they nearly knocked off Texas in their bowl -- until proven incorrect, that must be considered a hiccup. They're a solid team that has gone 2-1 against the SEC in bowls the last for years (beating Florida and LSU, while dropping one to Florida).

I've been concerned for awhile now.

It's always fun to have a guy who is a legit threat to hit a HR off the bench, and nothing more. But he hasn't been able to do anything against RHP this year. Need to keep his playing time very limited. DO you think Lou will be limiting his playing time? I see him filling in for Floyd & Murton a lot more. Which is terrible. Lou may even try to play him in CF. See you in a few weeks Fox or Pie. Right, because Lou is such a terrible manager. He just does dumb stuff all the time. He certainly isn't getting the most out of this team. not saying that lou is terrible, but "getting the most out of this team?" you have to be kidding. it's a $100 mil team that's like four games over .500. if that's the "most," i don't want to see the "least." Yes, because it's Lou's fault Hendry doesn't know how to properly construct a roster.

So, yes. That's one person that used the term "dynasty" towards the Cubs. He was immediately reprimanded. The second quote above -- while perhaps still too sunny -- disagreed with the term "dynasty." You picked out one overly optimistic fan and then portrayed the entire thread as being so. This team should be in contention in the NL Central for the next couple/few seasons -- and even the resident Brewer fan, the one team that could distance itself, agreed. I agree too but, being in contention in the division and being in World Series contention are two completely different things. To me the general tone of the thread is overly optimistic. The Cubs are a medicore team and I see nothing on the horizon that suggests otherwise. I agree, contending in the NL Central isn't terribly impressive. I think the immediate future holds more seasons like this. Now, if they could add another big bat* -- which is doubtful as they are likely near maxed-out payroll wise -- that could change. Otherwise, I agree with you. *Edit: Another starter may be needed, too. Is there really that much of a difference between being in contention for the division every year and in contention for the world series? Maybe in Las Vegas standards, but I don't think that there is. (Note: I'm not saying it should be our goal to settle for "contending within the division") If we make it to the playoffs, with the crapshoot that it is, we're automatically in World Series contention. Take the Cardinals, for example, who have gone to the playoffs 5 out of the last 6 years. They've won 2 pennants in that stretch. When they won 105 games (2004) they were swept in the WS. Last year, they won 83 games and took the series in 5. Once you're in the playoffs, you need to win 2 consecutive series, and you're already in the World Series. For the next few years, I think this team has what it takes to get to the playoffs -- from there, we'll have to see what happens. Who cares if our division is the worst in the league? I'll agree that the playoffs are a crap-shoot, and, by that definition, maybe the Cubs are contender. Perhaps instead of "World Series contender" we should talk of "consistent 90+ win team." That's a much better barometer of yearly success than contending by squeaking into the playoffs with 83-86 wins.

So, yes. That's one person that used the term "dynasty" towards the Cubs. He was immediately reprimanded. The second quote above -- while perhaps still too sunny -- disagreed with the term "dynasty." You picked out one overly optimistic fan and then portrayed the entire thread as being so. This team should be in contention in the NL Central for the next couple/few seasons -- and even the resident Brewer fan, the one team that could distance itself, agreed. I agree too but, being in contention in the division and being in World Series contention are two completely different things. To me the general tone of the thread is overly optimistic. The Cubs are a medicore team and I see nothing on the horizon that suggests otherwise. I agree, contending in the NL Central isn't terribly impressive. I think the immediate future holds more seasons like this. Now, if they could add another big bat* -- which is doubtful as they are likely near maxed-out payroll wise -- that could change. Otherwise, I agree with you. *Edit: Another starter may be needed, too.

So, yes. That's one person that used the term "dynasty" towards the Cubs. He was immediately reprimanded. The second quote above -- while perhaps still too sunny -- disagreed with the term "dynasty." You picked out one overly optimistic fan and then portrayed the entire thread as being so. This team should be in contention in the NL Central for the next couple/few seasons -- and even the resident Brewer fan, the one team that could distance itself, agreed.

Wrigley Field.

i wouldn't either. Maybin could be Soriano at a very cheap price for the next few years. I wonder how Dombrowski meant that. Did he mean it as a comparison? That Maybin will actually be better than Soriano over the next couple seasons? Or that factoring in age and cost, that Maybin is a better value? The reports were that the Nationals offer Soriano to the Tigers last year straight up for Maybin and that the Tigers rejected it. Guessing thats where it came from. Ah, thank you. I did not remember that.

they would complain because their idea of what a good lineup should be is so ingrained in them that they can't handle a little statistical analysis. Here's your "oh god what a horrible lineup" in terms of OBP: .150 (rough average of our starting pitchers' OBP) .404 .332 .366 .331 .368 .405 .350 .336 minus the pitchers spot, that lineup is barely different than the "traditional" lineup (and both, in terms of OBP, are poorly constructed) Never looked at it that way and that is pretty interesting and true. However, by having your best hitters hit earlier gives them more ABs per game and per season. And if it does only affect 1 or 2 games, that COULD conceivably be the difference of making it to the playoffs or going home come October. Therefore line-up order does matter. But it matters a lot less than what people think it does. Yes, exactly. It does matter some, it's just not the issue most make it out to be. The myth that really needs debunking, though, isn't the importance of lineup order, but the importance of a "leadoff hitter" and a "two-hole hitter" and such.

A friend of mine got tickets, but I told him I didn't want to go since I thought a rainout or delay was inevitable. He seemed a little annoyed with me. I'd like to watch the game tonight, but sort of hope it doesn't -- otherwise I'll be kicking myself too.

I'm not sure Hendry has changed. I think it may be more a case of Dusty likes that type of player but Piniella has this habit of liking players who can actually play. So, basically Hendry is a G.M. who is a little too attuned into what his manager wants. Considering that Hendry is pretty good at contracts and trades for the most part, maybe we just need to hire somebody with only 1 job-to hire the manager :D. I remember Dusty said he asked Hendry to bring back Eric Karros and Randall Simon to play 1B in 2004. I've always wondered if Hendry would have granted Dusty's wish if Derrek Lee hadn't been available. I think he probably would have, which would have been hilarious considering both those guys were so bad they were out of baseball midway through the 2004 season. I don't like Hendry, but his idiocy pales in comparison to Dusty's. It boggles the mind; I can't help but laugh thinking of him pushing for Karros/Simon in 2004.

Maybe not - depends on how well those 7 guys (I assume they are Soriano, Lee, ARam, Zambrano, Lily, Marquis, and DeRosa?) play and if our young pitching continues to produce. I also don't see any reason why this team's payroll can't be $150 million considering the amount of revenue the franchise will clear in yr where there are in the playoff race. Pie (CF) and Theriot (SS) should be starters next season. Hill and Gallagher should still be in the rotation. Ward should be brought back. If Pie is in CF and Soriano is in LF, you need to decide who will play RF (Jones? Murt?), or add someone via trade or FA. Plus the catching situation will need to be addressed. Kendall seems pretty good to me so far and I'd be willing to give him 2 yrs and 8-9 mill if he keeps up his current pace. Kendall should NOT be given a two-year deal. That's begging for trouble. I've been one of his bigger supporters on here (mainly because I didn't think that trade warranted such vitriol), and I might support a one-year, small-money deal. Two years is a bad idea. I'd rather he get a one yr deal, but I am not sure how realistic that is. Then, unless it's a two-year deal for like two million total, I'd thank him for this season and go with Soto/?.

Thanks for the updates. Two yellows and no red? Wow.

Maybe not - depends on how well those 7 guys (I assume they are Soriano, Lee, ARam, Zambrano, Lily, Marquis, and DeRosa?) play and if our young pitching continues to produce. I also don't see any reason why this team's payroll can't be $150 million considering the amount of revenue the franchise will clear in yr where there are in the playoff race. Pie (CF) and Theriot (SS) should be starters next season. Hill and Gallagher should still be in the rotation. Ward should be brought back. If Pie is in CF and Soriano is in LF, you need to decide who will play RF (Jones? Murt?), or add someone via trade or FA. Plus the catching situation will need to be addressed. Kendall seems pretty good to me so far and I'd be willing to give him 2 yrs and 8-9 mill if he keeps up his current pace. Kendall should NOT be given a two-year deal. That's begging for trouble. I've been one of his bigger supporters on here (mainly because I didn't think that trade warranted such vitriol), and I might support a one-year, small-money deal. Two years is a bad idea.