Exile on Waveland

Red Sox 2009 opening day payroll: $121,745,999 Cubs 2009 opening day payroll: $134,809,000.

Yeah, a loss for the Titans and they might already have dug themselves too deep a hole. An 0-3 start would be a foreboding position with two games remaining with the Colts, one against the Pats, Chargers, Texans, etc. Colts have a tough travel week -- Monday night in Miami (approximately 1,150 miles away) and then Arizona on Sunday night (approximately 1,700 miles away) -- plus consecutive prime time games in rather extreme temperature conditions. The defense may still have a hangover from a short rest week and 45 minutes on the field Monday. Still, I thought a 3-2 start heading into the bye would be a decent start for the Colts; take this one and 4-1 seems likely (doubt the Colts win in Nashville).

I think it's pretty clear DeRosa has been more valuable than Bradley this year, despite their numbers being substantially the same as noted previously: DeRosa: 257/326/451/777 for a 101 OPS+, with 23 homers and 76 RBI (team dependent nebulous rate stat, obviously). Bradley: 257/378/397/775 for a 100 OPS+, with 12 homers and 40 RBI. However, Bradley is producing at that rate while playing right field -- a premium offensive position -- and ostensibly making $9 million this year (and $21 million over the next two). Meanwhile, DeRosa is producing at that rate while having the ability to play second base, third base and the outfield corners. He's also only making $5.5 million in the last year of his deal. (Admittedly, Bradley changed teams/leagues before the season, but DeRosa has changed teams and leagues twice since the end of last year which can't be terribly easy.) Finally, for whatever it's worth in baseball, Bradley has pretty clearly been a clubhouse distraction. That said, the Bradley situation has been way overblown, and the DeRosa trade likely will end up in the "good" column in retrospect.

I don't consider the bolded to be very persuasive. Derek Jeter is the clutchiest player of all-time; David Eckstein the grittiest; Milton Bradley the most divisive, et al. Considering the LA media is smitten with Carroll (moreso than even Phil Jackson), that any of them are questioning him is a big deal. Well, I'm glad they are (finally?) questioning him. That's their job; now I wish the same would happen in Bloomington/Indy. My contention isn't that Carroll handled this perfectly -- or even necessarily well. I'm just not terribly fond of the "favoritism" rhetoric, especially in sport. I think that carries a deeper connotation than simply preferring the starter; if not, it's completely useless as innately the starter is preferred. That, or perhaps I'm bored and arguing for the sake of arguing.

It's certainly not ideal. However, I'm not sure how unusual it is for a coach to name/post the starting lineup the day of the game. I'm sure it's far more unusual with quarterbacks, but still. Further, favoritism towards the starter seems to be the inherent inclination of any coach. Of course a coach is going to favor the starter (i.e., at least theoretically the superior player). The article does seem to sew the seeds of discontent at both QB and RB positions at minimum. Not ideal? I think you'd be hard pressed to find another QB in the country that doesn't know he's the starter at least a few days before the game. Or, if there is no true starter, be told that both QBs will be getting reps (like MSU is doing). The problem is not knowing where you stand one way or the other doesn't show a great deal of confidence or trust. And it's certainly preferential to tell one QB more than a week before his start and never tell the other QB. Sure, once they're the starter, it's likely they'll get better treatment in certain respects. But that's not what happened here. I don't exactly remember, but did Michigan know how was to start the first game at QB? I know Rodriguez had stated to the media he planned on playing three QB's.

I don't consider the bolded to be very persuasive. Derek Jeter is the clutchiest player of all-time; David Eckstein the grittiest; Milton Bradley the most divisive, et al.

It's certainly not ideal. However, I'm not sure how unusual it is for a coach to name/post the starting lineup the day of the game. I'm sure it's far more unusual with quarterbacks, but still. Further, favoritism towards the starter seems to be the inherent inclination of any coach. Of course a coach is going to favor the starter (i.e., at least theoretically the superior player). The article does seem to sew the seeds of discontent at both QB and RB positions at minimum.

A healthy Corp already beat a healthy Barkely for the starting job earlier this year. But since then, it appears Carroll has fallen in love with Barkely and wants to dick around Corp. That's a stretch. There isn't a USC fan on the planet who wants Corp to start over Barkley now. Is Neuheisel dicking around Craft because he started Prince over him? Or is it that Craft really, really blows and no sane person would start him if they had other options? Craft knew he was starting over Brehaut by Thursday (and Craft lost the starting job to Prince in competition). Corp didn't know he was starting when he took the field on Saturday even though Barkely couldn't throw warm ups. Whether Carroll is "dicking" around Corp, he certainly was showing favoritism to Barkley even before Saturday's game which doesn't seem prudent. I have to take umbrage at your framing of the argument as "favoritism." If Carroll thinks Barkley is a superior choice, then it's not really favoritism, is it? It's simply coaching. And, for what it's worth, Carroll has a pretty decent track record with picking QB's.

That was very impressive by Miami. The Colts need Bob Sanders. All that effort and bang, Colts are almost to the red zone in 30 seconds. Haha, oh the times I've seen him do that against the Titans. That's the joy of playing against Peyton. :D You know you love it. (Actually, as a UT fan, I know you do . . . except for two games a year.) Miami -- especially offensively -- is the prototype to beat the Colts. Power running game to eat up the clock, accurate passer to keep the chains moving in front of the Cover-2. Add in a 3-4 defense (though it's my opinion this has diminished, at least somewhat, as the Colts' Achilles' Heel) and you have a matchup nightmare. A time of possession disparity was to be expected, though obviously not to the extreme of 45-15. As CCP said, Colts fans are discouraged, but I'm not sure how much they should be. The Wildcat is an anomaly, for one. Second, the offensive line play was very encouraging. If the line was the biggest concerning entering this season, as I thought, then last night bodes relatively well. Donald Brown and Pierre Garcon both had their moments, as well. Most importantly, there are a number of damn good teams sitting at 1-1, and even 0-2. Conversely, that depends on the assumption the (run) defense is closer to their week one performance than last night's. If last night was a better approximation of the run defense, then, well . . .

It was 2003 and the Cubs took four out of five at Wrigley. Guess which game I was at? :x

Ugh, tell me about it. Or, on second though, please don't.

Toronto's proximity to Buffalo could be problematic. The Bills are even playing a game in Toronto this year. Not to say it couldn't work.

Jon's a Bloomington, IN native (the SI writer/author). Just sayin'. And, yeah, the first name only is a furtive name drop. Also, most NFL coaches are too conservative. This was one of my complaints with Coach Dungy -- don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan -- but his tactics were a bit archaic at times. Meaning, if your team has most of its money and big-name players tied up in offense, you should be extremely aggressive in fourth down situations instead of punting and relying on defense. The stats, even for inferior offenses, bear this out.

Portland has generally been one of the first cities mentioned recently. I've long been a supporter of a professional team in Las Vegas, but the timing may be inopportune (recession has hit tourism, and thus the economy, there pretty hard). A New Jersey team would work, but likely be pretty disappointing and seen by others as redundant -- not that such reason should be dispositive. I am, however, intrigued by the interesting/crazy angle. Though not sure it's logistically possible right now.

Just curious -- and realizing for potential thread-hijacking -- but what two cities would you propose for expansion?

I demand to know where my hovercraft is!

What makes you think the O's or Mets are going to give up all-star calibre players for non-elite prospects? He specifically said an elite prospect for Reyes.

Huh, I've been so familiar with, so used to Vincennes Lincoln being the Alices the nickname never really occurred to me as being bad. The band does play Alice Cooper songs, for what it's worth. The Frankfort Hot Dogs is a great nickname though.

The default is the old style board. Read back in the thread on how to change the board style to "Nexus". Oh, so I guess I'm lazy. Sorry.

I have the new front page, but the old message boards. Seems abnormal; perhaps it's still being updated?

wake and rutgers are Wake has won 11, 9, and 8 games the past three years. Rutgers has won 11, 8, and 8 games the past three years. They have combined for a 5-1 record in bowl games during that stretch (the one loss being Wake's Orange Bowl loss). Granted, those are out of the ACC and the Big East, but "scrub teams" may be a bit harsh, no?

Just because the subsequent act was more grievous doesn't make the initial act acceptable.

Man, IU is awful. Glad I went to that garbage. They have a nice group wideouts at least. Also, probably t-minus 11 games for the Bill Lynch era/error. For what it's worth: Bama Boise (would have been my pick, no reason to believe me though, I guess) Illinois UGa Hope I'm wrong as I'll be rooting for Va Tech and Okie State.

The difficulty this year is that the new owner hasn't really said much about what they intend to do. He *might* want to make a big splash in what should be a buyers market. He may want to decrease payroll as many of the recent high dollar signees haven't really panned out. I don't see Hendry paying a FA closer. The focus will probably be on upgrading 2nd base which probably means Figgins or Hudson (did he sign a 1 year deal with the Dodgers?) Now that they've moved Soriano out of the leadoff spot they will be looking for someone with some speed. I'm expecting a big run at Figgins (assuming they have money to spend).

I think Jim Mora would have something to say about this thread.