Exile on Waveland

I live in downtown Indy and I run into absolutely zero racist rednecks. Been to Conseco Fieldhouse many times - never talked to any. It's dumb and naive to say the fans of Indy stopped supporting their team because they're racist rednecks. There's no basis to it other than the ignorant view of an entire state. People who say dumb things can be corrected once in a while, it won't hurt them. Moving on. I live in downtown Indy and run into racist rednecks quite often. Been to Conseco Fieldhouse many times -- run into many racist rednecks there too. And this isn't discussing the rest of the state, where a lot of support for the Pacers would be derived. Indy is by no means the total podunk town some have portrayed it -- and it's easy to steer clear of the rednecks as there are plenty of non-rednecks -- but its citizens are mainly derived from elsewhere Indiana. On the other hand, it seems odd that one can dismiss Pacers fans/Indiana as racist rednecks, yet not believe that the legal troubles/brawl (i.e., rich lawless out-of-control black athletes) had no affect on fan support from the racist white rednecks. I'm not sure how one can logically hold/rationalize both those thoughts in their head (not to say losing played no part, it obviously did). I'm not sure any of this is relevant to the Cubs, with their huge and diverse fanbase.

That's a good point -- I firmly believe the extra games hurt Spurs last year (fewer games should/could help Liverpool this year). I think City is deep enough, though, to withstand it. We shall see. If United do get Sneijder, then I think they win the league.

Getting really excited for the EPL tomorrow. Especially after the first-half nightmare last year for LFC, the resurgent second half, and a whole bunch of new quality signings. I'll get the predictions started, for whatever it's worth, if anyone wants to join: 1. Man City (Might open myself to criticism here as the smart money is probably still on Man U -- but I thought them a rather weak winner last year despite the nine-point cushion, and not sure they're better. Mancini maybe has a more difficult job than most with the size of his squad and the Tevez/Balotelli, um, "issues." But signing Aguero was huge, especially in case Tevez does leave. This is probably the best overall defensive team in the league, and, if Mancini loosens the reigns a bit, I think they win the league. Won't be a popular winner because they'll have bought the league. Oh well). 2. Man U (Still the favorites, though for a league winner and Champions League finalist weak(er still without Scholes) in central midfield -- which is only kind of important. But they'll be there in the end like they always are. I just think City is stronger/deeper all over the field.) 3. Chelsea (Unless Villa Boas works some magic or Modric is actually signed, I think Chelsea will finish a lot close to fourth than second. Aging all over the place. Lukaku is a great signing, but probably not for this year as they still have Drogba/Anelka and signed some oft-injured striker in January. Can't recall his name though.) 4. Liverpool (As I said, resurgent second half under Dalglish and a good summer -- made even better with an apparent answer at left back, finally. I feel relatively confident/optimistic(?) they'll finish in a Champions League spot, but would be surprised if much higher. Would be absolutely thrilled with third, which is the highest I can rationally envision.) 5. Arsenal (Would be very strange seeing them out of the Champions League -- though, I suppose, technically they need to beat Udinese to make it this year, but whatever. I think they finish here even with Fabregas/Nasri. Without them? They might be looking at sixth. Which is unfortuante because, outside of Liverpool naturally, I'd rather see them challenging for the league than anyone else.) 6. Spurs (With Modric they won't go lower and could finish higher. I struggle seeing them finishing in the top-four though, regardless. They were fifth last year, didn't improve over the summer, and I think Liverpool has pretty clearly jumped them in the pecking order. Though if they do completely ignore Europa, they would/could be much fresher for league games than last year.) 7. Everton (Might be the most likely finish of any team. Think they're better than everyone else, but certainly not better than any of the aforementioned six. Of course, if Arsenal lose Fabregas/Nasri, don't replace them, and Spurs lose Modric, and don't replace him, they'll dream of higher.) After that, toss a bunch of teams in the hat, and, frankly, I don't care enough to even try to pick (nor do I imagine anyone cares to read). Relegation will be a battle between all three promoted teams, Wigan, Blackburn, and maybe a couple others (Wolves, Newcastle(?), etc). That was longer than I intended, sorry. Feel free to ignore.

Jose Reyes weeps.

In this type of deal, I'd rather take my chance on the lottery ticket that has big potential and serious flaws than someone who might be more in the Sam Fuld mold. I get that, and I have no issue with the boom/bust trade for lesser prospects. But this type of boom/bust -- which seemingly always go bust with the Cubs -- seems to fit the definition of insanity. You're not getting sure things for two months of a 4th OF. Unless those things are sure to suck. I think it's been pretty obvious I wasn't asking for sure things. Instead, I'm merely arguing that I would have preferred "lottery tickets" that I had some semblance of faith in the Cubs correctly scratching off -- wild strikeout pitchers, gritty middle infielders, etc. The Cubs seem to exacerbate the flaws of toolsy impatient players because they proactively don't see the impatience as a flaw. I think Abreu is an intriguing prospect to receive for the rental of Fukudome, I just have no faith whatsoever the Cubs developing such a player. And I am nitpicking, no doubt.

Trying the same thing, expecting different results, yada yada.

In this type of deal, I'd rather take my chance on the lottery ticket that has big potential and serious flaws than someone who might be more in the Sam Fuld mold. I get that, and I have no issue with the boom/bust trade for lesser prospects. But this type of boom/bust -- which seemingly always go bust with the Cubs -- seems to fit the definition of insanity.

In a vacuum, I have no issues with the trade. Fukudome wasn't going to net much of a return in prospects. However, my concern would be that Hendry seems intent on continuing to acquire the same type of player that the Cubs evidently cannot develop at all (toolsy/impatient/etc).

\:D/ This sort of thing pretty much just doesn't happen to Indiana football. Amazing.

Yeah, the Ethier option intrigues me, and I've almost been leaning towards targeting Ethier if Fielder/Pujols are signed this offseason. I must admit I didn't realize there was a three-year age difference, however. Ethier will surely come much cheaper, doesn't require payment for "centerfield" (which the Cubs might not even need with Jackson and/or Kemp could be moved to a corner anyway), is left-handed (which while not everything, is not nothing), and maybe seems a bit more consistent/reliable (though he'll never fly as high as Kemp can). Kemp is clearly a superior player; but I must wonder if Ethier could be had a lot closer to his relative worth.

The Vancouver Canucks are one of the most historic NHL franchises? With their zero Stanley Cups? And mere forty year (NHL) existence? He must be talking about riots.

I've long thought about wanting Fukudome to return, but this is my concern too. I really want to make a run at Kemp (or Ethier -- I think you're less enthralled with signing Ethier, but still) next offseason. Assuming the Cubs don't/can't trade Soriano, that doesn't leave a spot for Brett Jackson. Now, I have no independent knowledge about Jackson, but it seems like he should/could have a spot in the outfield next year. And I haven't even mentioned Byrd yet. My concern is that, without other movement (or something we don't know about Jackson and/or free agency), re-signing Fukudome means either Jackson is blocked and doesn't develop or no free agency push for Kemp/Ethier.

Well . . . Brazil missed all four today in the Copa America . . .

A little worried that none of these chances have been converted.

Seriously, can anyone envision a realistic scenario where the Cubs contend over the coming few years without signing a marquee free agent? If/when the answer is "no," it's sheer lunacy not to sign a marquee free agent.

Pretty much. The Cubs will be garbage for at least most of the next decade if they go that route. Really doesn't jive with how savvy the Ricketts are as businessmen/women. I'm all in favor of spending money on the farm system and developing from within. However, that's not mutually exclusive to spending money on free agents (especially with a ultra-populer, major-market team like the Cubs). If you ever plan on competing to the level I believe most here think the Cubs should be competing, you're going to have to spend some money in the free agent market. The key is not spending it on the Soriano's (who is a productive player, no doubt) but on the Pujol's/Fielder's and the Kemp's/Ethier's (which I think is the board's preferred position-player shopping list the next two offseasons). I suspect that's more in line with the Ricketts' plans moving forward. We have no idea what the future holds -- and maybe Ricketts will turn out to be baseball's Donald Sterling -- but I don't believe that comports with the indications so far that he's a savvy businessman. I cannot imagine that Ricketts wants to be "garbage" the next few years -- and, in order to avoid such fate, the Cubs need an external (read: free agency) talent infusion.

If Ricketts isn't willing to spend on (any) major free agents, then we might as well resign ourselves to rooting for the quasi-Pirates/Royals/A's/whoever. Also, Ricketts should be tarred and feathered for buying a major market team and treating it like a small market team.

They're maybe the most skilled midfield in the tournament. They're possession has been their strength. . . . And that's what I get for making ish up.

Terrible defense on that one. Just like Brazil losing Wambach and giving her a free header, I don't know how you lose her on a corner kick. She's the last player on the team that should be left open. Wambach is a mismatch against anyone on Japan, but the US has to do a better job on maintaining possession. Surely the US are heavy favourites for the final? I know next to nothing about Japan -- hell, I'm far from an expert on the US -- but I think they have to be. I hardly knew Japan was good at women's soccer at all coming into the World Cup (though consecutive wins against Germany and Sweden are obviously impressive). I have a hard time believing Japan's midfield will be as skilled/creative and as able to hold possession against the US as France was, and, well, I can't imagine they have anyone to contend with Wambach in the air. But I'm guessing.

Where? I've been everywhere except for Seattle, Tampa and Baltimore.....the only cities I can think of with less to do than Pittsburgh are MAYBE Cincinnati and Oakland (but SF is near by). Major League Baseball features teams in Detroit and Oakland. Enough said.

PNC is outstanding. Outside of the historic parks (Wrigley, Fenway), PNC is at least my co-favorite (along with Pac Bell). I really need to get back to Pittsburgh for a game. As far as the city goes, it's by no means amazing, but it's surprisingly nice and scenic by the river. There are definitely worse cities (including worse cities with MLB teams).

Certainly, I don't believe the Cubs will contend next year without a (external) talent infusion. However, if the Cubs were able to sign, say, Prince Fielder and C.J. Wilson, I'd be rather shocked if they did not contend in the NL Central next year. The Cubs have money coming off the books and money to spend. Obviously without mortgaging the future, the Cubs should be targetting contention in 2012. I see no reason not to.

The Pirates lost 105 games last year and finished 34 games out of first place (18 games behind the fifth place Cubs!). And yet, with basically no ability to buy free agents like the Cubs, they're contending this year. This argument needs to die a quick death.

Isn't that (somewhat?) likely to happen with Brett Jackson? Otherwise, I agree, the defense isn't likely to improve a whole lot -- barring changes none of us are expecting.

There's no way you could have played soccer your whole life but not know what a red card is. Glad I'm not the only one who thought that. I was about to post something akin to "I've played basketball all my life . . . but what is this thing called 'the 3-point shot'?" But I was in a forgiving mood.