CubColtPacer

They only hold the tiebreaker over Miami and Houston if they don't tie with them and another team. So, the Titans will make the playoffs at 9-7 if no team other than Miami OR Houston finish 9-7, but not both of them. Well, they have the tiebreaker over Houston regardless. But Miami is a different story. And there are lots of scenarios that could possibly involve the Dolphins. They could win the division, which would be bad for Tennessee as Tennessee cannot beat NE in any 2 or 3 way tiebreaker. They could possibly beat Denver or Baltimore in certain tiebreakers which would then cause Denver or Baltimore to eliminate Tennessee. So if either Denver or Baltimore win their 9th game the Titans also want them to win their 10th game just to avoid that scenario. And NE beating Jacksonville would be very helpful for the Titans because it not only gives the Jags a loss it also makes it impossible for Miami to win the division.

It affects both in the markets these cities are in. In Chicago for example, they originally were going to see their game, the Packers game, and the Cincy-San Diego game. Now that their game is moved, they'll see their game, Miami-TN, and probably the Detroit-Arizona game. Both games ended up changing because they don't want to play a game on the other channel at the same time the Bears are playing.

Now the whole country will get to either see the Falcons-Jets or Cardinals-Lions. And now even less people will be able to see the Cincy-San Diego game (since the Philly market will likely be shifted to the 1 pm CBS game since their game is now at 4:15). I really wish it was a CBS doubleheader tomorrow.

I can always appreciate your level-headed observations and you are probably more accurate with the reality than most of us, but the last sentence in the above quote disturbs me a bit. You make it sound as though all trades happen because a team has personality issues with someone, when we really don't know why players are traded. Teams trade players they like all the time. Kenny Lofton sure bounced around, as did Reggie Sanders. I don't think anyone can honestly say that each time Bradley was traded was due to his misconduct or poor behavior. Do we honestly know why he was traded from Montreal to Cleveland? Zach Day was a pretty nice return for Montreal in exchange for Bradley. How about the trade from Cleveland to LA? Franklin Gutierrez and a PTBNL is a pretty decent exchange, also. I don't remember any issues until he actually got to LA, where a fan hit him with a bottle or something. He lasted 2 years in LA before LA traded him for Andre Ethier, another pretty good trade. I recall the Cubs being interested in him then, also. They loved him in San Diego. And they loved him even after he got himself hurt. The one issue was actually a pretty legitimate complaint on Bradley's part, and no different than just about any other situation a typical player goes through. The manager was simply trying to get his player away before suspensions became a part of the equation and in the process, Bradley messed up his ACL. Freak accident, but no one in San Diego turned on him. I don't remember any problems in Oakland, either. Texas loved having him there, and it sounded like for the right price they might want him back. Sure, he's had issues time and again, but I can't agree that all of the trades or team changes are because he's a marked man that no one wants. I have no idea why he was traded from Montreal. I know he had been suspended in the minors for spitting gum at an umpire, but ultimately the Expos situation is uncertain why they decided to trade him. Here's a link to why he left Cleveland (and he had plenty of issues there and the article has brief references to several of them): http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1773330 Basically the end was when he got into an argument with his manager and it was bad enough that he was barred from training camp and quickly traded. Here's a link to why he left the Dodgers: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2258032 Bradley had multiple suspensions in 04 along with a confrontation with a reporter. He also didn't get along with Jeff Kent and claimed Kent was a racist which was the stated reason for the Dodgers eventually trading him. The police also had to come to his house for domestic violence calls 3 times in 05 after he had been arrested for another incident in 04. In Oakland, everything was fine for a while until Bradley was battling some injuries. Oakland wasn't willing to guarantee him playing time as they had a crowded outfield when he got back and Bradley was upset about that so Oakland ended up DFA'ing him (they later were able to trade him before the 10 days were up). Here are some quotes from that story: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/06/22/SPGH6QK00S1.DTL I don't believe San Diego got rid of him because of his attitude. The ACL incident was well publicized but the Padres seemed to support him through that and I believe they offered him a small contract even with the torn ACL. Texas wanted to keep him but was unwilling to offer more than 1 year and Bradley wanted multiple after the 2008 season. And the Cubs got rid of him for off the field attitude reasons. So that's 4 out of 7 teams that seem to have gotten rid of him because of off the field problems, 1 that is uncertain, 1 that is unlikely, and 1 that just wasn't willing to offer multiple years. I didn't say that every team he's been with had gotten rid of him because of his attitude. But several teams have.

We know that Bradley has been knocked off of 4 teams because of personality issues (Cleveland, LA, Oakland, and now the Cubs). It's uncertain if that played into the situations in Montreal or San Diego, and with Texas it's pretty clear that it was a contract issue. So I would agree with you that there are certainly other reasons for Bradley to have changed teams, but the majority of teams have ended up moving him because of his personality. Some other random thoughts from reading the last couple pages: Bradley certainly did own up to his mistakes in the media. The things he said that ended up causing him to get traded were all about how people were affecting him personally. Bradley blamed himself multiple times for his struggles on the field. Silva has an unmovable contract now but if he does have 1 decent year the Cubs probably could save 5-6 million more by trading him and eating some of the salary after 2010. The one thing I am happy about is that Hendry's quotes about the trade pretty clearly show that they consider Silva a rehab project and probably won't stick with him too long if he is struggling. This was a business decision. Although I do agree that the Cubs may have a strong enough brand that Bradley couldn't have put the dent in the fanbase like he could have in a smaller city with less of a following even if everything did go wrong. To try to justify this in baseball terms is futile in my opinion. At the absolute best, Silva will be worth just a little less than Bradley over the next couple years. It's a very bad baseball move. This was strictly PR and trying to avoid the disaster that could have happened if the Cubs struggled again with Bradley in 2010. I'm not sure anymore if it was a good business decision (like I said, the Cubs might have a strong enough fanbase that fans wouldn't have been gone from the Cubs for long) but it certainly wasn't anything but that. As I've said before the Cubs desperation couldn't have caused this. The Mariners got a bargain because the Cubs weren't willing to hold onto Bradley. For every other team in the league, the fact that they weren't willing to offer the Cubs any better of a package then this shows that teams really weren't willing to take a chance on Bradley for more than minimum salary. Any team who was willing to give the Cubs just a little bit more salary relief could have had him and all but the Mariners passed. Bradley's value around the league was low because teams weren't willing to guarantee him enough money that it would be hard to cut him if things went wrong. The Cubs desperation had very little to do with every other team's offer besides the Mariners, and we have no idea if it affected Seattle's offer or not.

I would agree. It's a bad deal regardless. But Silva still has a decent chance of being close to mediocre. And that has value for a starting pitcher. I'm hoping the Cubs will be willing to release him if he struggles and doesn't show any bounce back from last year. That's my biggest worry of the trade that they will give him way too long of a leash. But if he does come back, he could easily be worth 4-5 million per year and a roster spot and the Cubs would have only wasted 6-8 million on this deal. If he doesn't and the Cubs are willing to release him, then they are out 16 million. The biggest problem is if they let him have negative value for most of 2 years clogging up a roster spot. It's definitely a bad trade, but it's how the Cubs handle it that could turn it from bad to absolutely horrible. And Silva has a chance of making it only bad if he can pitch like he has for a decent percentage of his career. His contract is so ridiculous because his upside is mediocre. But he doesn't have a horrible chance of reaching that upside like he has before.

Bruce says this is a serious rumor but it isn't finished yet and the Cubs may get some financial relief out of it: http://blogs.dailyherald.com/node/3114

Nah, that's just him messing up there. Silva is owed 4 more million than Bradley so it's the Mariners who would be sending money if they were just trying to even the salaries out. This is a bad move without any other players in it. It's an absolutely horrible move if no money is exchanged or if the Mariners are just evening out the money.

The one thing I disagree with is that I don't see the Big 10 going back to 16 conference games with this move even if they use basketball divisions. I really cannot see them using divisions at all in basketball because there is still so much emphasis on winning the regular season Big 10 crown that isn't quite the case in some other conferences. For that some reason, I can't see them going back down from 18 conference games.

I don't think the Titans-Rams Super Bowl is as good because of how boring it was for the first two and a half quarters. It was field goal try after field goal try and several of them weren't made. Plus the Rams were dominating on the scoreboard (16-0). The last 3 minutes were amazing, but it just doesn't match some of the other Super bowls in this decade.

Not that I want to see it on the list, but the Bush Push game could just as easily be on it, and I'm sure there are a slew of examples that fans of other teams could come up with too. I agree that ND-USC game should be on there. That game had it all and it had the added pressure of supposedly being a USC team for the ages. Big plays on offense, defense, and special teams. Both coaches went for 4th down gambles (Carroll went for a 4th down inside his 20 yard line). The huge drive by ND to take the lead with just a couple minutes left. The 4th down conversion by USC to get it down near the goal line, then the fumble out of play that originally ended the game, and then the Bush push after time was put back on the clock. In my biased opinion, it was definitely a better game than Texas-Texas Tech. They probably didn't put it on there because the USC-Texas game was just as good and that game was for the title. The games that stood out for me from that list as the best are the 2006 Rose Bowl, the two Patriots super bowls, the Colts AFC Championship victory, the 2001 World Series game 7, the 07 Fiesta bowl, the 08 Olympics, and the 09 Big East game.

Byrd is a meh signing for me. He's probably a 750 OPS ok at defense CF outside Texas. He hits right-handers and left-handers about the same. Is that a guy to get excited about? No. He is probably a decent stopgap for the position though. It would also improve the Cubs OF defense and gives them more flexibility with 2 at least decent hitters on the squad that can play CF. The main thing for me with Byrd is the years. He's too much of a risk with too little upside to give more than 2 years to. I'm ok with giving him a decent chunk of money but it better be a short deal.

It looks like it is Ted Lilly.

If Cameron signs I would hope we just keep Bradley. Bradley is better than Cameron and keeping Bradley wasn't an option then, so I don't know why it would be an option now. I don't know I would say that Bradley is a better player than Cameron. Bradley has the better upside while Cameron is more consistent. It's pretty close on who is more valuable overall. I would agree that the free agent options have little to no bearing on their decision to trade Bradley though.

Yeah, way too much money for Lackey. But ESPN will somehow overlook the amount and say "Theo did it again." Way too much? He's a better pitcher than Zambrano and it's less money. At the very least, it's overpaying a top of the rotation starter, instead of some schmuck. Is anybody signing better free agent pitchers for less? It's hard to compare Lackey and Zambrano because of the difference in leagues. If Lackey had signed with an NL team, would he have been a better value than Z? Z's hitting adds a lot of value compared to Lackey. Their injury histories are similar but Lackey has ended up being gone for more time than Z. And Lackey probably would have a few less innings in games in the NL because the Angels had the luxury of pitching him very deep into the game in a lot of close games. Lackey has much better control but has been more hittable and gives up more home runs the last couple years. His opponents OPS is also higher than Z's the last couple years. From a quick look, it looks like Z would probably have the better value if they were both NL pitchers while Lackey would have the better value if they were both AL pitchers. It's really hard to compare them because their strengths (Z's hitting, and Lackey's ability to conserve pitches and go deep in games) both suit their individual leagues so well. But Z's contract was signed in a much better economic environment. What's the excuse for Lackey's? I do agree with your one point though. If you're going to overpay, make it for an impact player because they don't come around enough. Even if Lackey is not better than Z, he is still an impact player unless there are real big concerns about his injuries.

The Titans only win 2 tiebreakers if they win out. They don't have to worry about Houston if both win out because the Titans have a better divisional record, and they would win a 2 way tie with Miami because of the upcoming head to head game. Every other team (Denver, Jacksonville, Baltimore, Jets, Miami in a 3 way tie, Pittsburgh) will all have better conference records than Tennessee. If they finish tied with Jacksonville, Jacksonville would eliminate them based on a better divisional record anyway. New England would be better in the tiebreakers as well if they were thrown into the mix. So the Titans are going to have to have a lot of games fall right in order to have a shot. They are mathematically alive but the fact that all 7 of their losses came in the AFC is really going to hurt them. I would agree that based on schedules, Denver and Baltimore are the teams I have the hardest time not seeing get to at least 9 wins, and if they both get to 9 wins the Titans are gone. If the Colts rest starters the Jaguars or Jets could easily get there as well.

I don't want to create a firestorm here, but I'm guessing that if the Big 10 had to pick only one site to hold the game every year they would put it at Lucas Oil. Soldier Field could have bad field conditions by the first week in December (unless they put in the turf) and the Big 10 probably doesn't want the perception of having potentially horrible weather in their championship games. We already know the conference likes Indianapolis. Plus Lucas Oil is just a tiny bit bigger so more tickets can be sold. I'm not sure if the Big 10 would follow the SEC model of picking one site or the Big 12 model of moving it around though.

Splitting the divisions would be tough, and that's especially true if the new member is part of the eastern half of the Big 10. If they put rivalries together they could end up seriously unbalancing the two divisions. Also it would mean going right back to playing four opponents only once in basketball. I still think it would be overall a good move with the right school but there are definitely challenges.

Oh please. Everybody can harp back on some report they heard to defend anything. Yeah, reports were dozens of teams were interested in Bradley this year as well. Dempster was a 31 year old with 1 good year under his belt as a starter. Are of those guys were much better free agent targets and were always going to get much more money. There is no comparison. Dempster had the best year of any of them. You've never seen teams be willing to overpay based on one amazing year coming from a pitcher with good stuff? And it wasn't just one report. Pretty much every single report had those three as interchangeable. In fact, there were lots of people here who wanted Burnett or Lowe instead of Dempster precisely because they were going to be around the same amount. Dempster ended up signing first, Burnett got the guaranteed 5th year because the Yankees knew that the Braves wouldn't give it, and then Lowe was signed as the only choice left by the Braves. There has been no indication at any point that Dempster was seen as inferior to the other two. Saying otherwise is more of us putting a value on consistency which many GM's don't have (they are much more easily coerced with the possibility of what may be that comes from a career year).

Dempster's deal wasn't way above market value though so I'm not sure what comparison you're trying to make there. If anything, it was maybe a little under market value. I remember it being the perception at the time, but I don't have a full list of the 2008 off season contracts to verify Here are the starting pitcher contracts of the big 4 pitchers from last year: Sabathia: 7 years, 161 million Burnett: 5 years, 82.5 million Lowe: 4 years, 60 million Dempster: 4 years, 52 million There were only 3 other starters to get multi-year deals last year (Oliver Perez 3 years 36 million, Kawakami 3 years 23 million, Uehara 2 years 10 million). The perception may have been that the market completely collapsed last year, but the top guys still all got paid. Dempster was among them and the reports were that he would have likely been signed by the Braves to a deal similar to the Lowe deal if the Cubs hadn't resigned him. Why does Dempster get to be compared to those players? Because we're talking about market value. Several of those teams had reports that they weren't sure who they valued more between Dempster, Burnett, or Lowe. Dempster was signed early which took him out of the bidding but before that he was right up there with the second level of starters (obviously Sabathia is in a completely different league). It doesn't matter what their actual value was likely to be. The Cubs couldn't have waited and then paid Dempster less. If they hadn't paid him that much they would have lost him. That makes him not overpaid compared to the market. As far as actual value, after this year Dempster has just as much if not more chance of fulfilling his contract than Burnett or Lowe do.

Dempster's deal wasn't way above market value though so I'm not sure what comparison you're trying to make there. If anything, it was maybe a little under market value. I remember it being the perception at the time, but I don't have a full list of the 2008 off season contracts to verify Here are the starting pitcher contracts of the big 4 pitchers from last year: Sabathia: 7 years, 161 million Burnett: 5 years, 82.5 million Lowe: 4 years, 60 million Dempster: 4 years, 52 million There were only 3 other starters to get multi-year deals last year (Oliver Perez 3 years 36 million, Kawakami 3 years 23 million, Uehara 2 years 10 million). The perception may have been that the market completely collapsed last year, but the top guys still all got paid. Dempster was among them and the reports were that he would have likely been signed by the Braves to a deal similar to the Lowe deal if the Cubs hadn't resigned him.

Dempster's deal wasn't way above market value though so I'm not sure what comparison you're trying to make there. If anything, it was maybe a little under market value.

NFL doesn't feature as many mismatches as college football. That's what makes it more exciting to watch because so many games are likely to be competitive. College basketball gets most of their mismatches out of their way in the holiday season where people don't have as much time to watch sports and when they do they have both NFL and college football to watch. And most people don't watch large parts of the college basketball season. College football has the most mismatches of any sport out there. There has to be a reason to stay interested in those mismatches and the pressure of needing to stay undefeated does that very well. If good to great teams can drop a couple games, there won't be much reason to make sure to watch those games. There are still plenty of reasons to be excited in your team until it loses 3 games in the current system. And typically 3 losses would keep you from a playoff anyway. So while having a chance at a national title would be more exciting, it's still your team and so having a good team is entertaining. And the intensity of having to show up for every game when it's your team is exhilarating. The postseason is the worst part of college football but it comes in a time that many people don't have the time to sit down and watch football during the week. Having a better system to choose attractive matchups for bowls would go quite a long way towards helping the bowls be exciting without needing it to determine the national championship. And while a playoff might be great, it doesn't make up for the damage it would do to the prior 3 months.

Right now, college football is must see TV for 3 months straight on Saturdays. Watching top 5 teams battle through potential upset bids to not have their seasons ruined on any given Saturday. If a team gets upset, there are always other teams to take their place. A 16 team playoff would make me not care very much until the last couple weeks of November except for watching my team play. That would be incredibly sad and a couple good weeks of playoffs would not come close to making up for that.

No, he has definitely dropped a couple pitches. In fact, early in his career his changeup was his 4th most used pitch. He was a fastball/slider/splitfinger/changeup pitcher at the beginning of his career (a couple years he used the slider more, a couple he used the splitfinger more..the first year fangraphs actually has him throwing a few curveballs as well). In 07 he stopped throwing the slider as much, and then in 08 he mostly cut out the splitfinger. This year he threw the changeup much more often than he ever has before and is the first year he is listed as only throwing two pitches.