CubColtPacer

You're completely subtracting the factors of his injury history and how much he's owed in this analysis. I have no doubt his personality plays a factor in any deal, but I think you're overstating it over reasons that are far more likely to dictate how this will play out (Cubs' position, cost, health history). I agree with all of that besides the Cubs position. It appears that this isn't a situation where one team puts Bradley's value at much higher than others do. So the Cubs position of desperation is pretty much irrelevant. This is kind of like a free agent situation. Teams are trying to bid as little as they can. They will be willing to bid as high as what they perceive his value to be though if other teams are also bidding little amounts. But I agree Bradley's contract is the biggest thing depressing his value because no club seems to think he's worth that much. His health and his attitude make the amount they're willing to pay even lower. In the end, Bradley will be traded for very close to what other teams would be willing to pay even if the Cubs weren't desperate to trade him.

depends on whether they drop out of the BCS Top 12 or not Top 14. And Oregon will stay in the top 14 unless they get absolutely demolished in the game and pollsters punish them for that. I can't see them getting picked even if they stay in though. You usually lose credit if you lose your last game of the season especially when that game could have played your way into the BCS. That will probably be enough to push them below Iowa/Penn State. And I don't see a 3 loss Oregon who would not have played well over the last month of the season being picked over an undefeated Boise State team even with travel considerations. I think even the Fiesta bowl would stay away from that firestorm. I definitely don't think another BCS bowl would want a Pac 10/Big 10 matchup either so they would have to shake up the matchups after they were chosen. I see Oregon's chances in that scenario to just be a little higher than Virginia Tech's, but I don't see either having much of a chance at this point.

Soriano, ARam, and Zambrano have a history of injuries. So, saying the Cubs were over .500 with them being injured doesn't mean much, when it should have been reasonably expected that they would get injured anyway. They are a .500 team if they don't have contingency plans for when players get injured or underperform again. No team can have a contingency plan when they have the number of injuries the Cubs had. If you don't believe me ask the Mets. Last year ARam had 55% of the ABs that he averaged in the last 7 seasons, Soriano had 85% of the ABs that he averaged over the last 3 seasons when he has had "a history of injuries" (before that he played almost every game for quite a few years), and Zambrano pitched 80% of the innings he's averaged the 6 years before. Every team suffers injuries, but when they become excessive the Win-Loss stat is going to suffer. When your "regular" starting lineup is on the field 6-8 times out of 162 games, you aren't going to be a contender. In 2010, there's no reason to think ARam is going to miss half the season, Zambrano will miss 20% of his starts, Soriano will play most of the season on one leg, Dempster will break his toe hopping over the dugout railing, etc. Injury problems mount as guys get older and deal with more and more past injuries. And if there's one thing the Cubs didn't suffer from, it was a lack of Soriano on the field. When he did play, he sucked. More of that doesn't help. And the best of that group, Ramirez, is a lock to get injured again. He always has and he always will. He's going to miss time. I wouldn't call it a lock that he's going to miss time...at least not a significant amount. He played 157 games in 2006 and played 149 in 08 (and 4 of the 13 games he missed were the Cubs resting starters the final week of the season after they clinched). So two out of the last four years he hasn't hit the DL at all. And even if he misses more time like he did in 05 or 07 and plays in the 120-140 game range, that still means he's very, very likely to play 40-50 more games than he did this year. That's a quarter of the season that was lost at the position that the Cubs are most vulnerable at. Even if other players on the team have serious injuries next year, having Ramirez be likely back for a much bigger percentage of the season will be a big help to the team.

I believe so. Fangraphs only has the Athletics/Cubs numbers combined for 2008, and Harden threw all 4 pitches over the course of the year but the other two were very limited compared to previous years. But 2008 has all sorts of red flags attached to it. He changed leagues in the middle of the year which made his 2 pitches have more deception than they otherwise would have. He gave up a large percentage of fly balls and yet kept the ball in the ballpark the best he ever had even while moving to a smaller ballpark. He also stranded an abnormally large percentage of runners (84.4%). He also continued his string from 2005/2006 of having a much better BABIP than his LD percentage would suggest. This year the only number that was out of line on his peripherals was his HR rate. And we know that wasn't because of cheap home runs as people were clobbering the ball off of him. All the rest of his numbers returned to normal luck status for most pitchers. Harden still has the potential to be the guy who defies the norms and becomes the dominant pitcher he was in 2005 and 2008. He still has one of the best upsides in the league But there's also a huge downside to him that is irrespective of health. Even when healthy, a 2 pitch Harden might end up walking too many and giving up too many home runs to be a consistently great pitcher. When you add in the fact that he's likely not going to go over 160 innings and is a threat to miss a very large percentage of the season, then his value is just not that high. Would I have offered arbitration? Probably...but that's because I really think some teams will want to take the risk with him. A 10 million dollar Harden is not a great investment for any team that is not desperate for pitching though so I would really hope that he wouldn't accept. The roster issues he's going to cause during the year is going to depress his value and his production when healthy is a huge question mark. He could be a huge steal for some team, but I believe the percentages favor him being overvalued by getting that much guaranteed between the money spent, the fact that you have to give him as much extra rest as possible to help his effectiveness, and the fact that he'll have to skip starts at random times without going on the DL.

I'll also copy my post here as this is probably the better thread for what may end up being a longer discussion: It has to be considered though that Harden was dominant with a very different arsenal of pitches that he now has. He turned from a 4 pitch pitcher to a 2 pitch pitcher because of the injuries. While the differing actions of the changeup means that he's not quite that limited, it's still hard to say how much that has affected his career. He's far from a lock right now at being one of the best pitchers in baseball even if he's healthy.

It has to be considered though that Harden was dominant with a very different arsenal of pitches that he now has. He turned from a 4 pitch pitcher to a 2 pitch pitcher because of the injuries. While the differing actions of the changeup means that he's not quite that limited, it's still hard to say how much that has affected his career. He's far from a lock right now at being one of the best pitchers in baseball even if he's healthy.

I'm sure Bradley has had plenty of counseling previously in his career. It's not going to suddenly magically fix him in one offseason. Don't you think the Indians or the Dodgers probably tried that option before getting rid of a talented player? I'm not sure there has been one season in his career where Bradley didn't have some sort of incident that made his club look bad. Some years have been better than others, but they all have had their troubles. The Cubs can either bring him back and live with the PR hits that he will inevitably cause in order to hopefully get his potential production or they decide it's not worth it. But I don't quite get the work with him and hope the attitude gets better argument. It's been going on for 10 years now. Several organizations have tried to fix him and many have ended up dumping him just because he cannot keep himself away from trouble over a full major league season. The Cubs situation isn't even the low point of his career-it's probably only the 4th or 5th worst. Could the Cubs bring Bradley back and get away with it? Possibly. Could the fans learn to live with him? If he hits like he did with Texas, the fans will certainly give him a little more leeway. Is he going to do something that hurts whatever team he is with off the field in 2010? Almost certainly yes, and the pressure cooker in Chicago makes it almost certain that he'll have multiple incidents next year. If his production is worth likely making some fans very angry and also making Chicago a slightly less desirable place to play than before, then keeping him is the right move. I'm not sure if it's worth it or not. But we know what we have with Bradley, and as far as off the field goes 2009 was not a particularly bad year for him so it's not going to improve. His play on the field would hopefully improve and win some of the fans over, but it definitely would be rocky at times with Bradley even if the Cubs were winning.

If he somehow does get to 2000 yards, i dont know how you don't give it to him. For one, Peyton Manning. He's been great, but still. 2000 yards is insane. Peyton is right about on a 5000 yard pace. That's only happened once in league history. 2000 yards rushing has happened 5 times and 3 of those were in the last 12 years. But by the traditional criteria of the MVP, I'd have to say Brett Favre should be the runaway frontrunner right now. His statistics are absolutely ridiculous so far this season. If we're using the alternative definition of MVP (player having a great season who is also indispensable to their team) then players like Manning, Johnson, and Brees would have to be on top.

I'm shocked Stanford would run the ball in that situation. Just put the ball in the middle of the field and kick the extra point as time expires. They're still very likely to win, but I wouldn't want to have to defend against these receivers for even less than a minute. Too bad that ND didn't let them score the previous play after he broke through and saved their second timeout.

This is why bowls should be knocking down Notre Dame's door even though they are only a mediocre team. They have played ridiculously close games all season long and most of them have had tons of big plays and good offense in them. In 9 of their 11 games this year, the trailing team has had the ball trying to take the lead with less than 3 minutes left. Twice those teams have succeeded, 5 times they have failed, and twice the games went into OT. All of those games ended up being decided by 7 points or less. This looks like it will be game #10 that will fit into that exact same pattern. ND could very well lose this game and lose their bowl game, but you can match them up against most teams in the country and they'll give you a really exciting game.

Unless something wildly turns in this game, cross Oklahoma State off the BCS possibility list. They're getting pounded 20-0 after 3 quarters. That leaves the teams fighting for the elusive two spots as: Boise State, Iowa, Penn State, and Virginia Tech. I think if Miami wins today that they'll also be eligible when the season is over. The winner of BYU/Utah has a decent shot of becoming eligible, and there is still a small chance USC becomes eligible again. But it definitely looks like it will be Iowa/Penn State vs Boise in the Fiesta Bowl. I would call any of the 3 loss teams as huge underdogs in this fight mostly because of how late they've come into the picture.

Do you think Castros really ready? The last thing we want is to rush the guy. It will be interesting to see if Jaramillo can work miracles with Castro. All of the stories have said that Hendry is kind of prepping Theriot for a move to 2B, but I really think Castro needs a little more time in the minors. It wouldn't surprise me if he's called up part way into the season. You're right about not wanting to rush him. There would be a lot of pressure on a 20 year old playing SS on a contending team. It's been Hendry's M.O. to rush top prospects (see: Patterson, Pie, etc.) so it wouldn't surprise me if he broke camp with the big team Pie was not rushed. If Castro follows the Pie route, he won't see the major leagues until at least 2011 and possibly 2012 or 2013. And Hendry wasn't the GM when Patterson was rushed.

No, he's just talking about how the FSL list translates to the overall list. Vitters might be behind 13 certain players on the FSL list, but he is only going to be behind 6 of those same players on the overall list because the ranking criteria are different. But there are many other players who were not eligible for the FSL list who will also be ahead of Vitters on the overall list.

Martz was let go by the 49ers at the end of last season.

Seriously, try paying attention sometime. Who said be as good as DeRosa? How about be as good as he was in the past. Miles lost 100 points in both OBP and SLG off his career. But his career norms were already a downgrade from DeRosa's career, let alone his time in Chicago. They traded Mark DeRosa and signed his replacement, Aaron Miles, almost simultaneously. He was going to play a lot, likely 400+ PA if he was able to maintain his normal productio and stay healthy. He got hurt and he tanked, so they stopped playing him. But the plan was very obviously to have him be the new super sub guy. Just because you are wrong doesn't mean you have to be a jerk. Yes, Aaron Miles was signed to be the new super sub guy but his role was very different from DeRosa's. For one, a large part of DeRosa's value as a sub was in the OF, while Miles playing the OF was an afterthought (and that was proven by the fact that Miles didn't play a single inning in the OF this year). Miles was also signed to back up SS which was not DeRosa's role. And finally, DeRosa's main role on the team was not as a supersub but as the starting 2B. So they had one player who was the starter at 2nd and backed up at 3rd and the corner OF when there were injuries. Then they signed a player who was the short end of the platoon at 2nd base and backed up SS and 3rd. To say Miles replaced DeRosa is very misleading. One was a starter that with few injuries would have gotten 500 AB's at 2nd base. The other one was a bench player that needed injuries to be more than a limited platoon player. Miles only replaced DeRosa in 2 things. Playing at 2nd against left-handers, and backing up 3rd. That's only a small percentage of the total at-bats DeRosa had for the Cubs. You can say the Cubs wouldn't have signed Miles if they already had DeRosa, but that doesn't mean the same thing that they replaced DeRosa with Miles.

That's nice, but how do you propose accomplishing that one? Their teams aren't exactly giving them away, and neither is a free agent or soon-to-be free agent. If Cabrera is available you look into it because he will likely be the best player they have a chance to acquire and the best player on the team for several years. You don't pass on an impact bat because you have your eyes on a division rival's best player who is 4 seasons away from free agency. If you can get Cabrera now, you have his services now. I sincerely doubt either Gonzalez or Votto are unavailable if teams are willing to empty the farm to get them. Gonzalez especially has been rumored to be available for the right price.

I'm not a fan of giving so much value for a 1B when there are always 1B options out there that can give you 50-100 points less of OPS (and I realize I'm generalizing offensive value using OPS) and are not that highly sought after. There are several other impact bats that you could possibly find a better deal with a little patience. And if the Cubs want elite bats right now, I'd even take a gamble on consistency with Votto and Gonzalez knowing that the Cubs would save between 25-40 million on the deal rather than pay Cabrera in both premium prospects and cash. If I'm going to trade the farm (say 3 of the top 5 prospects including Castro) then I want a guy like Hanley Ramirez who is likely going to upgrade your team at least 125 points and often 200-250 points over the SS options who are available year to year on the trade and free agent market. Hanley is a rather unique player in the league. Cabrera is most certainly not. And that doesn't even begin to address the fact that the Cubs will have to take a huge hit defensively to get Cabrera and Lee in the same lineup this year. The Cubs don't even have a desperation factor for a 1st baseman..why pay absolutely top dollar right now for one? I'm not completely opposed to trading for Cabrera. But I probably wouldn't trade nearly the talent that they would want.

Its an ugly contract, but we'd be getting him for the entirity of his prime. He'll be 33 when the contract expires, this is a guy you can build a teram around. Weve got some great players, but we dont have an A Rod, or Pujols. This is the guy. One of the top 5 in the game. What makes Cabrera better than Prince Fielder? Or Mark Teixeira? Or possibly even players like Joey Votto, Adrian Gonzalez, or Ryan Howard? If Cabrera is a top 5 talent, then he is only barely there over a dozen other players in the league. Several of them don't have contracts that are worth 20 million per year. Cabrera likely still would be worth 20 million in free agency. But he isn't worth 20 million+top prospects being given up. It's likely a fair deal, but you don't trade lots of talent to acquire a fair deal when there are countless other options that can play 1st base and give you the same value as Cabrera or just a little less.

I know. And I'm arguing that your idea of what the selection committee perceives to be true isn't all that accurate. Sure, but as long as you have highly subjective (and cash driven) committees picking these games, some facts and logic go out the window. At the end of the day, a BCS bowl could take either PSU or Iowa as an at-large and I wouldn't be surprised by either choice of course b/c you're a PSU fan. But I'd be very disappointed if a BCS bowl passed on Iowa for PSU. Just as I was disappointed when KU got picked over Missouri a couple years ago (and I don't like either of those schools). These are the kinds of situations where the BCS really doesn't work. let me ask you this: if you had to pick one of PSU and Iowa to be in a BCS game based on which one "deserved" it (not based on tv viewers or ticket sales), which would you pick? I would pick Iowa. But I really think that Penn State could get in...Iowa had a lot of press being unbeaten, but their frequent close calls meant that it wasn't all good press. And now that they've lost 2 and have lost their starting QB, it sounds very much like the 2002 Notre Dame team who were a very similar type of team, started 8-0 before losing twice, and got passed over. The perception would be that Iowa's lucky streak has run out and now with the injuries that they would get blown out of a bowl game. Nobody knows anything about what Penn State would do. If the bowls did go on who actually deserved it, how would people rank them? I've ranked the teams based partly on how they would land in the at-large pool, as some teams win their conferences if they win out: TCU (if they don't lose they're ranked here..they should get in regardless) Alabama/Florida loser Texas (if they lose in the Big 12 Championship) Boise State (if they don't lose) Cincy (with a loss against Pittsburgh) GA Tech (with a loss against Clemson) Iowa Penn State Virginia Tech Oregon (loss against Oregon State) Oklahoma State Pittsburgh (loss against Cincy) There are teams who I think deserve it more than they will be considered (Boise, Cincy, Ga Tech). Then there are teams who will likely be considered higher up on the list than they should (Oklahoma State, Penn State, Iowa).

I tend to agree with those who think that Halladay would likely extend with the Cubs if he was traded here. But I have serious doubts if an extension would actually be a good move with the money/years that Halladay will likely be asking for. The Blue Jays will almost certainly be asking for much more than I would be willing to pay because I would likely be unwilling to sign Halladay to an extension, and 1 year of Halladay is only so valuable.

Cubs ended up adding 5 to the roster. Castillo, Gaub, Dolis, and Parker as mentioned above, and then they ended up protecting Adduci as well. http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20091120&content_id=7696088&vkey=news_chc&fext=.jsp&c_id=chc

That's probably a bit overstating it. For example, the last 2 world champions have both had left-handed middle relievers who were on multi-year deals for just as much money (it's difficult to find good contract information in one place for teams before that). It doesn't make it right to do, but it's certainly not something that just teams like the Cubs do. However, that only eases the sting slightly. On the surface of just Grabow living up to his contract, it's a below average but not awful move. When you consider the Cubs were in the ideal position to risk letting him leave though, it becomes much, much worse. They had the potential for picks, the ability to minimize risk by giving him just 1 guaranteed year, and no desperation if he left due to the candidates who would be replacing him. Unfortunately, they didn't see it that way.

I see it less that Hendry doesn't value picks enough to offer arbitration to departing free agents, and more that he can't afford to have them accept. He'd probably love to have a pick or two, but not at the risk of a major budget strain. The evidence doesn't support your claim at all. He's signed numerous middle relievers in recent years that have cost the team draft picks, and he's refused to offer arbitration to guys who could net the team draft picks. In the past 3 years the Cubs have gained 1 pick overall (2 extra picks vs 1 pick lost) despite them signing several more impact free agents then they lost. Hendry now seems to have a problem with taking the risk to gain more picks (Wood, Harden, Grabow). As for losing picks? Hendry has done a great job in recent history of avoiding losing picks. In the 06 offseason, Barry Zito and Jason Schmidt were both type A free agents as was Jeff Suppan. Schmidt and Suppan were two of the popular picks for the Cubs to sign. Hendry avoided all of them and went for Lilly and Marquis instead, both who did not cost a pick. Durham who was a popular pick for 2nd base was a type A. Hendry instead went for DeRosa who didn't cost compensation. The only pick the Cubs lost for that entire free agent spending spree was the one for Soriano. In 07, the Cubs signed Fukudome which was another solution that didn't require giving up a pick. And then in 08, the Cubs signed Bradley instead of Ibanez, which again saved them their pick. The Cubs also traded for Gregg instead of signing one of the free agent closers that would have lost them another pick. The 05-06 offseason was a terrible one for wasting picks on mediocre players. But since then, it appears Hendry has learned from his mistake. Even though the Cubs have been on a huge spending spree since then, they still have managed to lose exactly 1 pick. That trend of being careful with their own picks looks like it might continue this year.

That didn't help. How the hell is Crean not able to sell playing time to a couple more top 50 players? Only one remaining 4 or 5 star recruit is considering IU, and that is Josh Selby. I don't believe they are favored to land him. IU needs impact post players and depth at guard. They have no post play presently. zero. Watford should be playing 3 not 4. IU had a big question of how many scholarships would be in that class at one point. It was possibly going to be as low as 1. Then you miss on a couple of elite players and you have the situation for next year. Plus I have a feeling that Crean will be more of a system coach and bypass some talented players that don't fit. And I'm not sure that system will ever have a lot of talented big men in it. He certainly doesn't seem to be recruiting many. I'd settle for ones that can guard the post and rebound. I was happy from what I saw from IU today. Lots of early season mistakes...passes to players who aren't there anymore, terrible free throw shooting. But they're definitely much longer on the defensive end. They do run well and Rivers was still one of the most athletic players on the court even against a team like Ole Miss. More of the ingredients seem to be there and now they just need to learn to harness them a little bit better. They're still going to struggle offensively against good halfcourt defenses, and so Rivers and to a lesser extent Creek staying out of foul trouble will be huge factors in Big 10 play as they are the ones who can penetrate.

Converting the 4th down does actually pretty much win the Patriots the game. If they convert, they can run it into the line for 3 plays in a row and then punt it back to the Colts with less than 30 seconds left on the clock and also make the Colts use their final timeout in the process. That effectively ends the game because NFL teams just aren't dumb enough to allow what needs to happen to drive 70 yards in 25 seconds with no timeouts. And remember, the Colts had just come off a 79 yard drive that took less than 2 minutes to complete. The Patriots probably make the first down between 55-65 percent of the time on that play. They probably have a 10-15 percent chance of stopping the Colts from scoring from the 30. They have another 2-3 percent chance of kicking the game winning field goal after the Colts have scored too quickly. In order to make the punt the right decision, they would need to stop the Colts from scoring at least 70-80 percent of the time after the punt. And there's no way they're stopping Peyton that often in that situation.