Exile on Waveland

I think you've missed my point. I'm all for the Bulls landing a superstar on the cheap and becoming a consistent championship-contending team. I don't want the Bulls to give up too much for Kobe or any other superstar and turn into the Minnesota Timberwolves of the East, though. I also think you're wrong about NBA players not developing. Deng, Gordon and Tyrus all have significant room for improvement, and Deng and Gordon are borderline All-Stars in terms of productivity already. EDIT to add: How many titles did Dominik Wilkins win? Charles Barkley? Reggie Miller? Kevin Garnett? Talent wins, no doubt about it, but gutting a team to land that one mythic superstar is a fools errand in my mind. All superstars don't win titles. However, basically every team that wins a title has a superstar (actually, most have two). So, citing the exception-that-proves-the-rule Pistons or a few stars that haven't won is neither cogent nor persuasive.

That would actually work quite well for all teams involved (I haven't actually run it through RealGM, so I don't know about salaries). Bulls get Kobe without giving up a ton, the Lakers get a lot back and wouldn't be much worse off considering what they gave up and I love the deal from the Pacers perspective. Also, for the Pacers, I'd say it depends on how you define "good." It's going to be awhile before they're an actual contender, but they could easily return to the playoffs next season. In the East, that won't necessarily mean they're good, but they are by no means moribund. They just missed the playoffs for the first time since 1997.

Zambrano 6-5 255 (cubs.com); Artest 6-7 260 (nba.com/kings). Not too big a difference, but Arest is bigger and the height likely translates to a greater reach. Plus, while Zambrano is big, Artest is ripped. I haven't seen Z in a basketball tank-top, but something tells me he doesn't look like Artest does.

Yep, that one truly is impossible to break. I think this is an easy choice for unbreakable baseball records. In other sports, Wilt Chamberlain's 48.5 mpg in 1961-62 won't be topped.

I'm going to be in Chicago next weekend. However, not sure anyone I am visiting will be willing to attend the game with me. Assuming the US advances to the final, I may be flying solo.

Kobe is a top 3 player but the Lakers have limited bargaining power here. The Bulls need to realize that and also realize that Kobe is going to be 29 before next season and will have 11 years on him - he's no spring chicken. I'd be wary of a Kobe trade gutting the team and that's why I'm not completely interested. This isn't to deny that Kobe is a superb basketball player, this is to determine the best possible trade for the Bulls and have the best possible team. I'm sure the Lakers will go along with whatever is the best possible trade for the Bulls. Now, I know your point was the Bulls shouldn't gut their team for Kobe, which I agree with. However, no way are the Lakers going to take Gordon, Nocioni and the #9 for Kobe. He's one of the best players in the world and the Bulls are going to get him without giving up Deng, Thomas or Hinrich. That's just not reasonable. If Deng isn't in the deal, then it's going to be Thomas, Gordon/Hinrich and the #9 at least. The Lakers don't have to trade Kobe yet. Oops, I guess I forgot to say that but I'd definitely do a TT/Gordon/#9 for Kobe. I quoted you, which was probably unfair. It's just that to get a player of Kobe's caliber, the Bulls will have to give up something that hurts. It seems a lot of posters aren't willing to do so -- Nocioni is a backup, Gordon is replaced by Kobe. Deng or Thomas will be an absolute prerequisite, I'd think. That's probably true (plus a sign and trade to make the salaries work), but there is a small possibility that Kobe holds out on the Lakers. In a situation like that Buss's best option would be to send Kobe to an Eastern Conference team that can send back young assets, albeit at 50 cents on the dollar. Kobe's holdout would put Paxson in a great bargaining position. I'd agree with that. If Kobe does holdout, at some point, the Lakers will likely give in and trade him. If so, they'll get less than 10 cents on the dollar. Until that point, though, start the trade package with Deng/Thomas, Gordon and pick, at least.

I would put my money on Z against anybody on this planet. He's just one of those guys that once you get his adrenaline going there's not much that can stop him. That, and he's freakin' insane. I'd like to see him against Ron Artest. He'd Kill artest. Of course, that's probably why you'd like to see him go against him. I love Z and Artest helped destroy my Pacers, but no chance Z kills Artest. Artest is bigger, taller, crazier and learned how to box from his boxer/bouncer father. Artest is one of the very few non-fighting athletes I'd take over Z.

Kobe is a top 3 player but the Lakers have limited bargaining power here. The Bulls need to realize that and also realize that Kobe is going to be 29 before next season and will have 11 years on him - he's no spring chicken. I'd be wary of a Kobe trade gutting the team and that's why I'm not completely interested. This isn't to deny that Kobe is a superb basketball player, this is to determine the best possible trade for the Bulls and have the best possible team. I'm sure the Lakers will go along with whatever is the best possible trade for the Bulls. Now, I know your point was the Bulls shouldn't gut their team for Kobe, which I agree with. However, no way are the Lakers going to take Gordon, Nocioni and the #9 for Kobe. He's one of the best players in the world and the Bulls are going to get him without giving up Deng, Thomas or Hinrich. That's just not reasonable. If Deng isn't in the deal, then it's going to be Thomas, Gordon/Hinrich and the #9 at least. The Lakers don't have to trade Kobe yet. Oops, I guess I forgot to say that but I'd definitely do a TT/Gordon/#9 for Kobe. I quoted you, which was probably unfair. It's just that to get a player of Kobe's caliber, the Bulls will have to give up something that hurts. It seems a lot of posters aren't willing to do so -- Nocioni is a backup, Gordon is replaced by Kobe. Deng or Thomas will be an absolute prerequisite, I'd think.

Kobe is a top 3 player but the Lakers have limited bargaining power here. The Bulls need to realize that and also realize that Kobe is going to be 29 before next season and will have 11 years on him - he's no spring chicken. I'd be wary of a Kobe trade gutting the team and that's why I'm not completely interested. This isn't to deny that Kobe is a superb basketball player, this is to determine the best possible trade for the Bulls and have the best possible team. I'm sure the Lakers will go along with whatever is the best possible trade for the Bulls. Now, I know your point was the Bulls shouldn't gut their team for Kobe, which I agree with. However, no way are the Lakers going to take Gordon, Nocioni and the #9 for Kobe. He's one of the best players in the world and the Bulls are going to get him without giving up Deng, Thomas or Hinrich. That's just not reasonable. If Deng isn't in the deal, then it's going to be Thomas, Gordon/Hinrich and the #9 at least. The Lakers don't have to trade Kobe yet.

Hilarious. Sad, but hilarious.

I just found out 36 people voted for me against you. How/why did that happen? I'm stunned.

Kevin Maas.

Yes. And I think that was totally Jeff Foster with him.

Evidently not. After all the heat Bartman got, you would think fans at Wrigley wouldn't do it.

Ah, I see. Didn't know that, but, then again, I am just a lowly Pacer fan.

Yeah god forbid a 23 year old man enjoy a beer at a baseball game. Really. Sheesh. During the off-season, no less.

I don't like Jeter and am dubious about clutchness, but I'd say that is pretty good. Factoring in the added pressure, small sample sizes and better pitching, equal stats is pretty impressive, in my opinion. I'd argue that is clutch -- or, more precisely, that there really isn't clutch but only players that perform the same no matter what. I do believe, however, anti-clutch exists.

I'd like the Cubs to get Dunn but they don't have a positon for him becuase they refuse to move Soriano to RF. It is also my opinion that the Cubs do not want Dunn b/c he strikes out too much and doesn't play good defense. If they were to get him they would probably mis-manage him by hitting him 6 or 7. In short, I like him, the Cubs don't and wouldn't use him properly anyway. It's not that he doesn't play good defense it is that he plays terrible defense. We can't just pretend that's not the case. So [expletive] what? He's a LF er. Defense is highly overrated. As of right now, the Cubs are unwilling to move Soriano to RF even though they should. So for the Cubs sake, no, Dunn is not a LF, he's a RF. Dunn is a productive player, no doubt. However, I'm unsure if his negatives outweigh his positives (especially when considering cost to acquire him). And that goes doubly for the Cubs, a NL team without the DH that might play him at RF.

Clutch or no, I think "close and late" stats are spurious. I pay no attention to stats like this, so forgive me if I'm wrong, but I believe it's defined as late innings +/- 3 runs. I'm sorry, but hitting a solo homerun up three runs in the ninth isn't clutch. This certainly isn't an argument for clutch, but simply for a better statistic to refute clutch.

So you'd take the guy who drives in fewer runs, and scores fewer runs (if the preferred OBP is lower, and his HR are lower, he will score less) all because you don't like the average? This makes no sense. What makes no sense is you seem to think a players OBP and HR totals a mainly tied to their runs scored production. You can have lower OBP and HR's and still score a truck load of runs. The point is you specifically said you would prefer the player with a lower RBI total but claimed if he changed his style he'd hit more. It's nonsensical. R and RBI are team oriented. The only thing a player can do to affect his R and RBI totals are produce OBP and SLG. In his defense, 285/360/510 is better than 234/365/490. I'm not sure if that's tkenm's main point or not, and I don't agree with judging players on RBI or Rs. However, I do think a team is better off with the former numbers.

Given how far (and quickly) Theriot has fallen, I'd hit him 7th or 8th and let Murton lead off. He's shown the ability to get on base at a .350-.360 clip, which is solid. All those concerned with his lack of power should have those concerns eased b/c he'd be hitting 1st, where power is less important. And Murton should be starting every day in RF anyway. Actually, I'd start Murton every day in LF and put Soriano in RF, but that's a discussion for a different day. No telling what effect a move to RF and out of the top spot would have on our $136m egg-shelled-psyche star. BTW - how does Soriano not wanting to move to the OF last year, then putting up career best #s, fit with your suggestion that his performance hinges on comfort? If his comfort dictated his offensive output, would he really have started last season with a .921 OPS in April and .977 in May? I don't know how to explain that exactly other than to say that he adjusted a lot better to being an OF than to moving down in the order. That's why he insisted on being a leadoff hitter, and he insisted on being an OF when he signed. He may have been reluctant to go to the OF originally (probably because it was something he had never done before), but he was on board with it quickly when he experienced it. He spent a full season at both the #3 and #5 spots in the order-so the chance of him changing his mind after he got to be in those spots is already gone. As far as Murton playing everday, the loss of production that the team is going to get by playing him over Floyd everyday (at least right now while Floyd has been much better than him) would make it a lateral move overall. Perhaps on the verge of being overly cynical, I'm guessing the reason Soriano was reluctant to move to OF was marketability. Soriano's production isn't an anomaly in the OF like it is as second. As an impending free agent, he was likely thinking about dollar signs. That no longer matters with his huge contract, and he now may enjoy LF more than 2B anyway (his production does seem tied to his spot in the order and/or his position in the field, for whatever reason).

I thought Sean pitched well, especially considering he's just up from AA. He left the curve to Renteria hang just a bit, but other than that he was good and showed a lot of promise. Again, congrats to you and your son on what had to be such a memorable weekend. Look forward to seeing Sean pitch again.

That's myopic. Regardless of who's paying him, the payor only has so much money to spend.

This is the kind of production the Cubs need out of Soriano to at least somewhat justify his contract. He's obviously going to slip later in his contract (hopefully that comes late in the contract, instead of in the middle), but if he puts up around a .940 OPS for the first couple years the contract is more justifiable. Of course, his OPS is only .940 after a 3 home run game.

I've never found Del Rio to be that bad, but they could certainly do better. "Elite" may have been too strong a word, but they would definitely be a very dangerous team. One of the better teams in the AFC, consistently. They'd be improved. They're already a borderline playoff team that won 12 games in 2005. Not sure their ceiling is much higher. The AFC still has the Colts, Patriots, Chargers, Steelers, Ravens, Broncos, Bengals. It's a pretty strong conference without a lot of upward mobility.