Exile on Waveland

Ohio State Michigan State Wisconsin Illinois Indiana Michigan Purdue Northwestern Minnesota Nebraska Iowa Penn State I'm pretty concerned about Sheehey. IU is still not a very athletic team overall, and Sheehey is a very good athlete. If he misses (or is hobbled for) a decent portion of the conference season, it will be difficult for IU over eighteen games.

Agreed. I think this is a huge tactical error that many, many coaches make. As you said, best-case scenario is still pretty crappy.

I couldn't believe the line was only 6 for this game. The Colts have been pretty decent against the run overall, but they simply have no idea how to stop the Houston running game. Arian Foster is probably going to win many people their fantasy leagues. Well, maybe that was why the line was where it was. The Colts are trying their best to lose out on the number 1 pick (although if they lose to the Jaguars next week they should still have it). Somehow the Texans went 1-10 on 3rd downs which was the difference in the game. I don't believe for a second the Colts (i.e., Polian) don't know what they're doing in regards to the top pick. The Colts played Painter, surely knowing Orlovsky was a better option, right through the Panthers game (who had only two wins at the time and therefore were a contender for the top pick). Only once the Colts lost that game did they make a quarterback switch. From a front office prospective, the Colts won last week because they desperately did not want to finish 0-16. Last night night served as a send-off to multiple long-time Colts who may never wear the horseshoe again (Reggie Wayne, Gary Brackett, Jeff Saturday, Robert Mathis), without affecting the top-pick because the Colts, evidently, hold the tie-breakers. As for next week, I have a sneaking cynical suspicion that you'll see some Colts "injured" this week in practice. What a crock -- teams that lose on purpose should take an airplane dive. This is the same team that (ostensibly) lost on purpose when they were undefeated.

Theo is the one who said winning is sacred/precious. And he's the one who (so far) decided to forego (any attempt at) winning this year.

I couldn't believe the line was only 6 for this game. The Colts have been pretty decent against the run overall, but they simply have no idea how to stop the Houston running game. Arian Foster is probably going to win many people their fantasy leagues. Well, maybe that was why the line was where it was. The Colts are trying their best to lose out on the number 1 pick (although if they lose to the Jaguars next week they should still have it). Somehow the Texans went 1-10 on 3rd downs which was the difference in the game. I don't believe for a second the Colts (i.e., Polian) don't know what they're doing in regards to the top pick. The Colts played Painter, surely knowing Orlovsky was a better option, right through the Panthers game (who had only two wins at the time and therefore were a contender for the top pick). Only once the Colts lost that game did they make a quarterback switch. From a front office prospective, the Colts won last week because they desperately did not want to finish 0-16. Last night night served as a send-off to multiple long-time Colts who may never wear the horseshoe again (Reggie Wayne, Gary Brackett, Jeff Saturday, Robert Mathis), without affecting the top-pick because the Colts, evidently, hold the tie-breakers. As for next week, I have a sneaking cynical suspicion that you'll see some Colts "injured" this week in practice.

Joe Saunders: 4.78 FIP 2011, 4.65 career Travis Wood: 4.01 FIP in 2011, 3.75 career I was looking at standard ERA, the same way an arbiter would. An arbiter looks at whatever evidence is presented to him. They'll look at and disregard. You honestly think an arbitration award has ever taken FIP into account? I value Wood more than you do . . . but I'm totally with you on this. I don't know baseball arbitration specialists, but I'm guessing they're good-ole-baseball-boys.

Who cares about pitching depth when your team isn't going to be any good? Who cares about one year of a relief pitcher when your team isn't going to be any good? You can absurdly reduce any move down to "why? the team isn't going to be any good." That doesn't mean the Cubs shouldn't make moves; especially moves for young, cost-controlled starting pitchers. Maybe you weren't serious. If so, yeesh. Nobody complaining about the Marshall trade is saying we should've kept him in order to win 61 games instead of 59 next year. They're saying they should've traded him for something better than "5 cost-controlled years" of a back of the rotation starter. Well, the post I responded to had no such evaluation. In fact, it had no evaluation whatsoever; only a blanket statement that pitching depth doesn't matter for bad teams. However, nothing really matters to bad teams, so that point is completely irrelevant. Therefore, my post stood only for the proposition that dismissing a move -- much less a move that obviously has the future in mind -- based on such logic is nonsense. It, invariably, leads to a paralysis where no moves are made. It is, ostensibly, the same logic that leads one to argue signing Fielder is pointless because the team is going to be bad this year.

Almost a week until the MSU game. I'd think Sheehey would be back by then. I sure hope so. Even so, I doubt he'll be fully recovered by then.

Who cares about pitching depth when your team isn't going to be any good? Who cares about one year of a relief pitcher when your team isn't going to be any good? You can absurdly reduce any move down to "why? the team isn't going to be any good." That doesn't mean the Cubs shouldn't make moves; especially moves for young, cost-controlled starting pitchers. Maybe you weren't serious. If so, yeesh.

The English FA is a complete farce.

There's a pretty decent chance that this deal doesn't make us any worse for next year(Wood returning to 2010 form at age 25, and Cashner playing up in the pen). Maybe if they deal a SP and/or outfielder for prospects, but as it stands, Marshall is going to give some team one year of awesome and then get paid. Getting 4 years of a decent SP and two other guys is a pretty good value for both now and later. Obviously we don't know all the details, but, roughly, I like this deal. Marshall is very good, but I'd trade one year of great relief pitching for four years of (likely) decent-or-better starting pitching basically all the time. Especially consdering the Cubs have evidently decided to suck this year.

Agreed, but doesn't his overall usefullness as 1-1.5 WAR player depend on who else is around him in the rotation? I don't see how he does much for this Cubs team as it is currently put together. He's a cheap arm who'll eat inning assuming he's healthy. That has value on any team. If we're punting 2012, this is the perfect opportunity to see if he can get back to at least league average. I don't have a problem with him being in the picture for 2012 or anything, I just have very little faith. Also, is he arb eligible now? Are we looking at $2-3m? Hard to track down comparables, but I see Gorzelanny at 800K and Marshall at 950K. Wells picked a very bad time(for him) to have a bad season. I'd say maybe 1.2M? I'd have no problem paying him that (and more, even). I just, firmly, believe the Cubs should proceed like he's not all that reliable.

Apologies. It's been changed.

Does that help or hurt your argument? First, Wells threw 107 innings in his age-21 season in 2004. It's not like he was converted to pitching the year before his big league debut or something. Second, I look and see a player that pitched only 95 and 123 innings -- and never more than 131 -- before having his workload increased to 191 and 194 innings his first two years in MLB. With that rather sudden increase in workload, it doesn't surprise me he became injured and only pitched 142 innings last year. Help, unless you think he's likely to be injured the rest of his career because of a 2 year delayed injury from an increased workload. A two-year delayed injury? That's a pretty obvious obfuscation. He pitched 190+ innings in consecutive years, after never pitching more than 131 innings. Those consecutive seasons, not only the increase the first year, is my concern. That an injury (possibly) from an increased workload did not manifest itself until the next year is entirely reasonable. Arm injuries aren't like clockwork. Further, as gooney said, he's a pitcher. I don't find it difficult to fathom he'll remain injured. Pitchers are made to be injured.

Now, that I would agree with. If he can do only so much as pitch the 190+ innings he pitched his first two years, while pitching no better than last year, he'd be useful because he'd be reliable. After 2006 and last year I think we should understand how important reliable (even if mediocre) starting pitching can be.

So Casey McGehee is a 3-ish WAR player then, right? Because, based on over 1,000 at-bats, he is. Sometimes players have unexplainable starts, or years, in their career. McGehee put up numbers that were better in the major leagues than any year in the minors, including his 2 years in the hitting crazy PCL. Wells had a very good K/BB ratio the entire way through the minors and had 2 excellent seasons in the minors. They are not really comparable. You're missing the point of the comparison. The point of the comparison is that it's not illogical to believe Wells' first two years don't presage his entire career. They may not be identical, and Casey McGehee might be Wells' reductio ad absurdum, but players do have randomly good seasons and yet never again approach those heights. If you want to discuss Wells' numbers, then sure. I'm guessing the two excellent seasons in the minors for Wells were his age 22 and 23 seasons, in which he pitched 106 and 131 innings (I'll incorporate my previous post about concerns of sudden workload increases). In the majors, Wells has pitched worse each year by basically every statistic: WAR (3.2-3.0-1.1), FIP (3.88-3.93-4.99), ERA+ (146-99-78), ERA (3.05-4.26-4.99), BB/9 (2.5-2.9-3.1), K/BB (2.26-2.29-1.74) (not exact there, admittedly), ground ball percentage (47.9%-46.9%-42.4%), etc. You couple that with the eye-test, which says he does not have outstanding stuff by any means, and one must start to wonder. Perhaps last year was a blip; I cannot see the future. But I see a player without very good stuff, with a big increase in workload, with a decrease in performance, an increase in injury, and I have little hope for the future.

Does that help or hurt your argument? First, Wells threw 107 innings in his age-21 season in 2004. It's not like he was converted to pitching the year before his big league debut or something. Second, I look and see a player that pitched only 95 and 123 innings -- and never more than 131 -- before having his workload increased to 191 and 194 innings his first two years in MLB. With that rather sudden increase in workload, it doesn't surprise me he became injured and only pitched 142 innings last year.

So Casey McGehee is a 3-ish WAR player then, right? Because, based on over 1,000 at-bats, he is. Sometimes players have unexplainable starts, or years, in their career.

I would mostly agree, except I think the Cubs need to add a pitcher as well. Someone like Jackson or Kuroda is fine, and maybe even someone pretty crappy like Maholm. This team desperately needs pitching, even the average innings-eater types.* Edit: I would also note that, at this time, I'd be pretty darn surprised if the Cubs signed Fielder. Pleasantly surprised, but surprised nonetheless. *I'm sure this will elicit responses like "the Cubs have Cashner and Wells and etc.!" Relying on Cashner to start the whole season is setting oneself up for failure (did last year not happen?). Nor do I think Wells can be counted on either, much less counted on to be good (c'mon, people, he was smoke and mirrors and has gotten worse each season . . . it was nice while it lasted, though).

Ahahaha . . . The Cubs shouldn't sign a twenty-seven year old because he's a little fat. Instead, they should sign a thirty-one year old ex-junkie (and we're not talking pot or pain killers or something either). Oh yeah, and the ex-junkie likely won't even hit the free agency market.

Endorsements. And even if the $12 million number is completely made up, and it's only $6 million, what has been proved? That Darvish is still really rich and never has to work again in his life . . . ?

No, Notre Dame was not very impressive. They'll struggle in the Big East, though the league is a little down. While not a resume building win for IU, it was a still a nice win in context. It's never easy coming off a huge win. IU was rather sluggish but did have control of the game throughout the second half. Two more games which should be gimmes, then they dive right into the Big Ten. First three games: at Michigan State, home to Ohio State, home to Michigan. Eager to see how the team does in the league. I'd be extremely happy with 1-2 to start the conference season (Michigan looks most winnable). Should win 4 of the 5 after that. Pretty tough conference schedule with Ohio St, Michigan St, and Michigan all twice and only Wisconsin game is on the road. Huh, perhaps I've become an optimist. I expect 1-2 and would be perfect content with that. But "extremely happy"? No. Michigan is only No. 41 in Pomeroy, which gives IU a 78% chance of beating them in Bloomington. Michigan is overrated in the human polls (in my opinion as well). IU has beaten Michigan the last two years at home (by 19 last year) and had them beat, before losing in overtime, in the six-win season. If IU is 0-2 and doesn't respond with a really good performance against Michigan, I would be rather surprised.

No, Notre Dame was not very impressive. They'll struggle in the Big East, though the league is a little down. While not a resume building win for IU, it was a still a nice win in context. It's never easy coming off a huge win. IU was rather sluggish but did have control of the game throughout the second half. Two more games which should be gimmes, then they dive right into the Big Ten. First three games: at Michigan State, home to Ohio State, home to Michigan. Eager to see how the team does in the league.

Toronto's one of the best cities in MLB.

While this has some truth, I would disagree with a lot of it. FIrst, it wasn't seven or eight years. At most, it was six years, but that's ignoring all context about the 1999-2000 team and only basing the season on the NCAA Tournament. Sure, that team got punked by Pepperdine, but it beat three of the Final Four teams and lost single-digit games. That was a good team and an excellent coaching job by Knight. Further, IU actually was starting to do something under Knight at the end of his time at IU. The recruiting was really picking up: IU won big recruiting battles with Duke for Dane Fife and Jared Jeffries, and Sean May would have been on the way. Those, and other, recruiting successes set-up the 2001 and 2002 teams, which were both quite good, though held back by the dunce that was Davis. Knight became very lazy with recruiting in the mid-90s (and probably should have stepped down); however, it is hard to ignore the lack of in-state talent. For better or worse, Indiana has generally not had the national recruiting presence of some other major programs and relies on Indiana to produce talent. It didn't in the mid-90s. Corresponding with IU's recruiting issues, here are the Indiana Mr. Basketballs from 1992 to 1996: Charles Macon, Kojak Fuller, Bryce Drew, Damon Frierson, and Kevin Ault. Not very helpful. While I wish Knight would have recruited more himself in the 90s, or stepped down, the recent issues at IU are not his fault. They are the fault of awful, awful administrations (now gone) that hired an incompetent and then a cheater.