Exile on Waveland

You really think those are the same things? It's hard for me to say exactly. I honestly have no idea who was mentioned regarding Illinois' assistants, because I care very little about who are the next assistants at Illinois (I do, however, know that it's common knowledge that Jerrence Howard and World Wide Wes are close). I would be rather surprised if none of those names mentioned (or candidates in general) had some ties to either AAU or the CPL itself. It would only make sense. Tom Crean has pretty clearly targeted the Maryland/DC area as a secondary/tertiary recruiting area for IU after the state of Indiana itself. Crean has already landed Maurice Creek and Victor Oladipo from that area. Kenny Johnson was hired to help IU recruit that area based on his connections there from college, high school, and AAU basketball. That also seems to make sense.

The article entirely misses the point. Roth was on scholarship for four years and earned both a bachelor's and master's degree from IU. He has not been wronged. Perhaps the paradigm changes if he complains about the situation; however, I'm not sure how likely that seems considering he went through senior night ceremonies at the end of the season. As for the fifteen guys signed, I think the obvious answer is that Roth does not count towards that number (I have not looked up the Big Ten's rules on this issue, of course). I'm still concerned about how the fourteen-for-thirteen will work out, but Roth is a non-issue at this point. As for the assistant coach, that might be the most absurd complaint about IU, even for this board. IU hired someone that was a college assistant coach last year with recruiting ties via his AAU and high school coaching work. What, exactly is the complaint here -- that IU hired for its (recruiting) assistant a coach with recruiting ties? Um, yeah. There was just a long discussion about which assistant would help Illinois recruit Chicago the best.

At the very least, your seeming obsession with "200 innings" is detracting from your overall argument -- especially when Sanchez has pitched 195 and 196 innings the last two years. Now, if you want to say "only twice in his career has Sanchez pitched an acceptable amount of innings for a starter," that might be more persuasive.

I think it's pretty clear the implication here is not that Hamels is a better pitcher because he's pitched on better teams. It's that he may be more prepared to handle the pressure of signing a huge contract and moving teams (in his case, another high-pressure city/franchise). This would basically be a lateral move for Hamels; not so for Sanchez. I have no idea how either would react, or if it would even necessarily matter; but even Albert Pujols is seemingly struggling with this and "pressing" (unless you think he is hurt, or completely fell off a cliff at somepoint between the World Series and Opening Day). Moreover, you've mentioned that you're reluctant to sign Grienke because of his anxiety, which is basically a different way of saying that mental matters as well as physical. Now, most all of this unlicensed psychoanalzying will be factored in their respective contracts -- obviously, "baseball people" love the "winner" label -- so it's probably a moot point. And, personally, I'm guessing Sanchez will sign a much more reasonable (repeat: reasonable, not just cheaper) contract than Hamels, and I'd rather leave room for Upton in any case. But I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss Hamels' success in a figurative fish bowl. This is exactly it on that point, and that's exactly what pedigree is in the first place. Don't think this won't matter to teams that Hamels was the ace on a WS winner while Sanchez has been a non-ace on a bottom dweller. It's like any other field...The more you've seen and done matters, ESPECIALLY since they're essentially the same age. I'll have to get to the rest of that post later. Too many words for a phone. Will point out that Samchez has been healthy all of two years in the big league, hence the gloss over injuries point. Pinning injuries on a guy at 34-35 makes little sense when you're pushing giving 5 to a talent that has been far more damaged for years. Btw giving 5 to Sanchez makes him 33-34...Thisnisnt even a fn contest objectively. Sanchez would make a nice Dempster replacement...Hamels gives the Cubs a guy who's a legit #1 start on pretty much every rotation in the league. I'm not necessarily pro-Sanchez. But while I'd love to add Hamels, I suspect he's going to get a crazy contract (more Fielder than Pujols).

I actually hadn't even thought of it that way. That argument (or phrasing, maybe) makes a lot more sense, but I'm not sure it's a significant factor. It might help Hamels be a little better a little quicker, but over the course of the contract it shouldn't make much of a difference. On Greinke, that's an actual diagnosed disorder, not just amateur psychoanalyzing leading to concern. It's a far more significant issue for Greinke than it would be for Hamels/Anibal/nearly any other ML SP. Hey, I readily admit -- and, at least, tried to admit in my original post -- that it's probably not a significant factor and it's certainly not one that's really measurable or predictible (and, again, I suspect it will already be factored into their contracts). I certainly don't think it's dispositive. But I do think, between the two, Hamels would be more likely to feel unburdened by his contract. And no arguments that Greinke's issues run deeper.

All this was true last season, and yet no one on here seemingly wanted Jackson (I'm, yes, obviously patting myself on the back because I did). And, frankly, while I'm willing to be convinced to the contrary, I'm a little annoyed the front office did not step in and offer Jackson more than the one-year deal he received (of course, I suppose it's possible they did and we don't know, or maybe he flat-out was going to refuse to sign a one-year deal). A now-28 year old with good talent that's produced WARs of 2.2, 4.0, 1.7, and 2.9 (while throwing at least 183 innings); what wasn't to like?

I think it's pretty clear the implication here is not that Hamels is a better pitcher because he's pitched on better teams. It's that he may be more prepared to handle the pressure of signing a huge contract and moving teams (in his case, another high-pressure city/franchise). This would basically be a lateral move for Hamels; not so for Sanchez. I have no idea how either would react, or if it would even necessarily matter; but even Albert Pujols is seemingly struggling with this and "pressing" (unless you think he is hurt, or completely fell off a cliff at somepoint between the World Series and Opening Day). Moreover, you've mentioned that you're reluctant to sign Grienke because of his anxiety, which is basically a different way of saying that mental matters as well as physical. Now, most all of this unlicensed psychoanalzying will be factored in their respective contracts -- obviously, "baseball people" love the "winner" label -- so it's probably a moot point. And, personally, I'm guessing Sanchez will sign a much more reasonable (repeat: reasonable, not just cheaper) contract than Hamels, and I'd rather leave room for Upton in any case. But I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss Hamels' success in a figurative fish bowl.

Damn that sucks. It was about to be a great game annually. Who killed that? This really sucks. Both schools have egg on their face from this. The neutral sites that UK wanted worked quite well for fifteen years; whereas the campus sites since then have worked well and probably make more sense, considering the State of Kentucky's lack of viable neutral options. I've seen/heard a lot of IU fan's saying they're happy IU did not cave into UK's demands; however, everything does not have to be a pissing contest. Sometimes comprimising is the best solution. Sometimes, even "caving" may be the best solution; be the bigger man/school, and save a 43-year tradition that has been, every year, the game I've looked forward to most on the schedule. *For the record, though, the game was moved from neutral sites to campus sites at UK's behest seven years ago . . . so I could understand some frustration on IU's part that UK cannot make up their minds. But so what?

That would really be great. However, I doubt the Colts are drafting first next year.

Yeah, and imagine if the final four East teams are New York, New Jersey, Boston, and Philadelphia. Compared to the uninspiring West? Eek.

Has to be one of the least inspiring/interesting last four Western teams in recent memory. I'm tempted to say Nashville is the favorite to make the Finals.

I have it on DirecTV. But it's not HD. Not that I'm overly worried about it; I'll only be watching during commercials/period breaks of the Hawks game.

No worries. I've been out of town/busy at work, so I haven't even checked this thread (sorry). Regardless, I'm like you; so I would not have been any help with the Colts pick at this point in the draft. A receiving tight end is needed, though.

Is he? And you know this how? Byrd hasn't been the same since he was beaned; and sometimes players fall off a cliff regardless. I'm not saying he won't be good anymore -- I hope he is, I've liked him as a Cub -- but it's entirely possible he's done. He's certainly no lock, at 34, to be the same player he always was (last four WARs: 3.6--3.5--2.5--1.7 . . . ).

Well that was awful.

Well the trade deadline deals for defensemen haven't been so hot the last couple years . . .

The NHL Playoffs are great . . . but this game is boring. Go Hawks . . .

I'm annoyed that the Cubs haven't signed good players to this point and want them to spend in coming seasons. And yet, I wouldn't sign Greinke.* *For the deal I expect he'll receive.

As the poster child for the "free agency-averse posters" I'd be thrilled to sign BJ Upton. He's exactly the sort of player I want to have the money available for. He is to me, too. I'd probably argue he makes more sense than some even better players. Besides the fact he's in his prime, he's a good candidate to be worth his contract. Considering what we might expect his deal to be worth -- shouldn't be some crazy Fielder-esque deal -- he should fulfill it merely by having his previous five WARs of 4.7, 4.0, 1.1, 4.3, and 3.8. I would go a step further: he is the type of player that might over-perform his contract. He's still young and his talent says he should be even better.

Assuming he's healthy and doesn't bottom-out this year, I'd definitely go that high (not sure it will be needed though). This team needs a talent infusion and, as a major market team, should and can afford to pay for one (as one avenue of team improvement). And what exactly is the Cubs outfield now? Soriano's corpse, Byrd's corpse, DeJesus, and maybe, maybe Brett Jackson. Pay a man. That or just wait until the team is one player away and a perfect player with no health concerns in his prime and perfect production for his position is available for a at-market deal in free agency. Because that'll happen.

Chelsea is also my last choice to win the Champions League, but my first choice is whatever makes Chelsea the most tired/unfocused/whatever for the FA Cup Final. (Hey, we have to take our pleasures, however small, where we can.)

Yeah as much as I don't want either team to win it a Barca-Real Champions League final would be pretty damn epic to watch. Then again I don't want Chelsea to win it either. Pretty much just leaves me Bayern to root for. Yeah, I'm rooting for Bayern. Not only by default, but also because I rather like them (I'm a German national team fan . . . after the USA, of course).

In a vacuum, you're right. But Bayern is better than Chelsea and Real Madrid is not as good as Barcelona (whatever the La Liga table says). Bayern still has a better chance to advance. I think Barcelona will advance, but I'm not sure they'll win the final.

I would sign B.J. Upton so fast it would make the free agency-averse posters' -- and, let's be frank, that's what they are -- heads' spin. A player entering his prime, who has underacheived his talent as a four-WAR player? Uh, yes please.

That'll do.