Exile on Waveland

1. No, because after all the teeth-gnashing, IU is currently under-signed. 2. Evan Gordon is a vagabond; wow. But IU could definitely use any experience they could find.

I think a lot of out-of-towners would likely agree with this sentiment, as I do (noting that out-of-towners are less important to this discussion). It's far easier for me to go see the Cubs in Cincinnati (yes, they play far less games there, but I can go there on a weeknight and come back, it's cheaper, tickets are less scarce, etc.). While obviously Chicago is way better than Cincinnati, I'm in Chicago relatively often regardless. The big draw, baseball-wise, is Wrigley. If the Cubs played in the suburbs, I might very well resign myself to seeing the games in Cincinnati instead.

At least OKC has Kevin Martin and Jeremy Lamb.

perfect example of some bigoted idiot letting his mask slip when he writes "it's a choice." aha, now we get it. Yuuuup. Figured he was a homophobe with the semantic haggling about "hero," and he want ahead and, ahem, outted himself.

It's a big deal whether he's active or not. To this point, he's the closest to active we've got.

Odd, because his statement (prior to the "SMH"), to me, seems a pretty good argument for the immutability of sexual orientation . . .

I'm sure the 2014 roster will be better than the 2013 roster the same way the 2013 roster was better than the 2012 roster. Is that really enough to avoid stinking? Because I have seen very little (implicit or explicit) that leads me to believe 2014 won't stink.

I don't see the point of refusing to spend money because the team isn't ready for it, then later paying double for a single player like Price (in talent and then a contract extension) when the team is in just as bad a shape. Nor do I find it to be a likely scenario. I have no doubt that they'll be willing to deal prospects in the general sense. I have a ton of doubt that they'll be doing it as a push to make the 2014 team competitive. Considering all the moves the front office has and has not made, trading a bunch of prospects for David Price would be almost irrational.

I think so. On paper, the team this year shouldn't be nearly as bad as it has been. I think it's an acquisition or two from being decent, especially if we retain Garza, which I think is increasingly likely. With a good offseason, I could see the Cubs being a wild card contender next year. Well, first, people have been saying "the team . . . shouldn't be nearly as bad as it has been" for going on two years. Sure, they're going to win more games than they're on pace for, but, either way, this team stinks. Second, I've been arguing for quite awhile that a couple players could change a lot, but I'm not sure the necessary acquisitions fit in "the plan." I am a big fan of the Edwin Jackson signing, but I don't think two more similar additions is sufficient (other than hoping for 2012 Orioles luck--which is one reason we should all support such signings).

Is it credibly possible to (1) "stick to the plan" and (2) the Cubs not to stink next year?

Yep, this is my 2nd least favorite device of the fans of the process. "You'll feel sorry about this when we win the division in 2017!!!" Oh really, because I'm feeling pretty [expletive] about 2013 now. Because the Cubs will certainly win the division in 2017. And certainly the only path to winning the division in 2017 was tanking multiple seasons. And the current front office is certainly the only front office that could muster such a feat.

That does not make me feel much more at peace. I didn't want C.J. Wilson (because he does not have elite talent/stuff for his contract and there was a serious correlation/causation issue with the "lack of mileage" on his arm). Instead, I wanted Edwin Jackson last year (2.0 WAR). It does seem the front office realized, admitted, and rectified this mistake. But . . . should they have not foreseen this? (And it is actually a problem even though that 2.0 WAR wouldn't have made last year's Cubs a contender--there is only so much time/recruitment one team can do in free agency; perhaps the time spent on Jackson this year could have been spent on a similar player.) Next, like it or not, the jury is still out on Anthony Rizzo. While I like what I've seen so far, it is far too early to say with confidence that he will be producing similarly to Prince Fielder in the next several years (Fielder, not Albert Pujols, being who I wanted because I think the "fat players age worse" logic has an even more serious correlation/causation issue). Now, if you're asking if I'd rather have Rizzo and the spare cash, yeah, I probably would--based on the assumption that the money actually would be allocated elsewhere. Still waiting on that.

At least. That's crazy.

Joe Lundardi doesn't know anything about basketball, so it's not a surprise, but he's way too high on IU. I would be thrilled if they're a top-4 seed (I'd take top-7 seed, right now, in a second).

Which probably means Crean isn't done recruiting 13' right? Nope. He's still recruiting Jaren Sina (who decomitted from Northwestern). He would likely help . . . and then in a couple years probably be in a similar position to Abell (fringe-ish rotation player, possible transfer). That or Crean is one step closer to his dream roster of one point guard, one center, and eleven wings (OK, OK, fifteen wings). I must be missing something. I thought Abell was the top candidate to start at the 2 guard next year and at very least would have played much more than he did this year. Why is he really leaving? I think he might have started early in the season, but I doubt for very long. He's a solid player, but it would have been a surprise, to me, if he held off the younger, more talented players all year. He was, however, going to be heavily in the rotation as the second ball-handler and third-guard. He played 12.5 minutes per game last year and that number would have at least gone up to sixteen, probably more like twenty. His departure is a blow, but if he really wanted to start, that was not going to happen at IU. As for the starting lineup, it may be a bit awkward because the best five players are not going to easily fit into the starting five positions--both because of ball-handling and interior play. As it stands right now, the best four players on the team are Ferrell-Sheehey-Vonleh-Hollowell (edit: not in order). Crean will have to decide if he plays Sheehey at shooting guard (I think more likely than not, as of now), and/or if he starts Perea/Fischer at center because you need a center, or just starts a small, athletic team (inserting whichever other freshman, Robinson or Williams, is more ready to play). I could also see a situation where Crean is a slave to positions and doesn't have Hollowell start, only to sub him in almost immediately and play most the game anyway (this is something you see with many coaches, inexplicably).

Which probably means Crean isn't done recruiting 13' right? Nope. He's still recruiting Jaren Sina (who decomitted from Northwestern). He would likely help . . . and then in a couple years probably be in a similar position to Abell (fringe-ish rotation player, possible transfer). That or Crean is one step closer to his dream roster of one point guard, one center, and eleven wings (OK, OK, fifteen wings).

Rumors true: Remy Abell transferring. IU is down to one player that can even remotely be called a ball-handler (and I don't mean one point guard, I mean one ball-handler)..

Most definitely. He was really good this year, but slowed by injuries. He never really showed the athleticism level he possesses; offensively he was mainly a big shooter. He's much more diverse than that.

I don't believe that will ever happen. For the most part, "point guard" is an innate skill; it's not as simple as "dribble better" or "pass more."

Isn't Harris having some sort of shoulder surgery? Possibly. I think he'll end up staying at Michigan State; though the shoulder injury isn't preventative of leaving early.

Whatever your judgment about Roth is. But... I'm not the guy to make those calls. I thought that was you. I wouldn't want to sound like I'm rationalizing anything. I've only argued for consistent application of Creaning/Painting/Grocing, not a specific application (though it seems pretty clear applying any standards to walk-ons is illogical, even farcical). Players are wont to transfer. Some will do so because they want more playing time, some to be closer to home, some because their coach told them to, some because they're annoyed about their ex-girlfriend's tweet. If one wants to construe all one's team's transfers into the first two categories, while construing all one's rival's transfers into the third category, that's fine. But it's intellectually dishonest. Further, rationalizing is merely defined as "offering a reasonable explanation for something." If you explain the Marcuis situation, you are rationalizing it. When I explain the Roth situation, I am rationalizing it. Rationalizing does not negate truthfulness or accuracy. The issue with rationalizing is that Illinois fans have rationalized their transfers -- then baldly claimed they were not doing so! -- while not allowing any rationalization of Indiana transfers.

Whatever your judgment about Roth is.

berardini was a walk-on that completed his degree. he's never played, but can transfer somewhere and play immediately because he has another year of eligibility. if he can get a grad degree paid for by going to a mid-major and playing, that would be awesome for him. Fair enough. He shouldn't count. So Sandi Marcius doesn't count either? I just want to get thejudgement on it now before people accuse Painter later on down the road. You are the judge and jury on these matters, correct? Was Marcius a walk-on? Are we really going to have a debate that players offered scholarships are different than players that walk on? I mean, really?

well, Billy should have given more consideration to the very real possibility of his coach being canned or of leaving for another job. Just one part of the decision-making process. Of course Johnny could always be considered culpable for being a terrible judge of character himself, but his coach blatantly misled in him in selling him what he thought was a dream. Johnny's coach is a pathological scumbag that can never be trusted and will do the same thing over and over and over at the same school. The coach that cuts Billy only does so once or twice, whenever he moves. Once or twice, huh? Interesting. In Groce's first (full) off-season as coach, Illinois already has had four players transfer. In Crean's five (full) off-seasons, so far Indiana has had four transfers (five if you want to count Matt Roth; heck, six if you want to count Ron Patterson). So which program is doing a worse job fulfilling its obligations to student-athletes? of course you have to count roth and patterson. you're also being disingenuous when you talk about the transfers in Groce's first full year. yeah, of course that's when the kids he didn't recruit are going to leave. when else are they going to leave? what i'm saying is that this serial overrecruiting isn't going to happen under his watch. Patterson has admitted he didn't make grades even in his second chance summer school situation. He had to average a 2.0, which he wasn't quite able to do. He thinks that he didn't get a 3rd chance because of the scholarship situation (and he might be right), but if he had just made good enough grades in either of his chances he would be on the team right now. Could the basketball team have fought a little harder for him? Probably...it wouldn't be the first situation where a sports player got special treatment. Are they obligated to do that though? That and, you know, the whole honor code thing.

berardini was a walk-on that completed his degree. he's never played, but can transfer somewhere and play immediately because he has another year of eligibility. if he can get a grad degree paid for by going to a mid-major and playing, that would be awesome for him. Fair enough. He shouldn't count.