CubColtPacer

I guess they could have continued to try to force the ball to Gore in the Colts game, but the reason they went away from it is because after the big run in the first quarter, he was getting stuffed. Here are the rest of his runs for the day: -1, 3, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, -1, 3, 7 The big run inflated his stats, but the running game wasn't really moving the chains whatsoever in that game. They did try to line up and just run it on both 1st and 2nd down in 2 different drives and it led to 3rd and long both times and then 3 and outs. So I agree with you a little bit (they probably should have tried 3-4 more runs during the course of the game) but I can't blame them too much because getting 2 yards a run is not going to get many drives started and Smith was throwing the ball well. I'm not sure what happened this week though.

Hmm, you're right now that I look at the standings. USC is the only one that has the quality opponents ahead of it and enough sex appeal to derail a Boise bid I think. When I'm putting in both TCU and Boise, I'm also putting in USC. I think they are a lock unless they lose again. I think the at-larges will be TCU, Boise, Alabama/Florida loser, and USC if those teams win out. What other team will be attractive enough?

The big winner today is likely Boise State. The Big 10 likely ruined their chances for a second bid. ND ruined a chance for theirs. That leaves space for both TCU and Boise to get into the BCS. If those two stay undefeated, I have a hard time seeing either a potential 2 loss Iowa or a 2 loss Penn State team getting selected over them (or a 2 loss Wisconsin). I also can't see the Pittsburgh/Cincy loser getting in over them. In the ACC, you have maybe Ga Tech (if they lose the ACC title). And would they really select Oklahoma State without Bryant? So unless they derail, I have a hard time seeing how they both don't get in. Bowl organizers will hate it, but it's going to be really tough to do anything else.

I didnt think this deserved its own thread, so I figured Id hijack this one for a moment. While I dont knowmuch about Thames defense, he is the offensive equivelent of Cameron, so why not get him for cheaper instead? If we must get as player we dont really want, may as well be the cheapest one. Thames is a poor defensive corner OF. He's much closer to Jake Fox than a legitimate option in the OF. There is a huge difference between the impact that Cameron would provide and the one that Thames would.

The Colts are having a bad week so far. Tyjuan Hagler is out for the season with a ruptured biceps. Marlin Jackson is out for the season with another ACL tear. Bob Sanders is going to have surgery on his elbow and is out indefinitely. Kelvin Hayden has a knee injury and is out around 4 weeks. Anthony Gonzalez had knee surgery this week and is out at least another 2-3 weeks. The defensive injuries are the scariest as the Colts are carrying a very thin secondary into the next 4 games against some very good QB's (Schaub twice, Brady, and Flacco).

I used to think icing the kicker was stupid until I saw the stats for the past couple seasons. Don't remember it exactly but it was for kicks deciding the outcome in the final seconds and no timeout was 70% made while timeout was 57%. That stat has a lot of noise in it. If a team is already in close field goal range, then the other team is forced to take its timeouts on the earlier downs in an effort to get the ball back. Usually, the only reason why the defense still has a timeout to call right before the field goal is because it was iffy if the offense could move it into field goal range, which would usually indicate a longer field goal. Unless they accounted for that (sorting the kicks by distance as well as timeout) the stat doesn't end up meaning much.

There are several reasons why the game yesterday was so damaging for Iowa. 1) 6 TO's. That's quite a bit, and since all of those were when Iowa was trailing the sloppy play in a blowout rationalization doesn't work. 2) The officials. How much of an impact they had is debatable. But when certain calls are a joke (the 2nd TD replay certainly was when the best anybody can say about it was that they weren't sure if the foot was down or not) that tends to stick with people. 3) The fact that the plays in the 4th quarter were so easy hurt Iowa. They didn't really need to make plays to win the game-they completed two medium length passes and Indiana just let them go all the way for scores. Then the INT that sealed the game was just a duck. There is the perception out there that Iowa ended up not having to show they were the better team as Indiana just stopped playing. On that last point, Iowa's first 3 TD's in the second half were on a fluke interception, then 2 good 20 yard routes where the receivers were allowed to run up the field and score without much opposition. Iowa clearly showed they were much better than Indiana. But the way that was accomplished was worrying for them. Indiana was able to drive on them (2 60+ yard TD drives and would have had 3 if not for that horrible overturn on the replay). Iowa made lots of mistakes with the turnovers. After being given lots of chances, they were able to have some plays that got them back into the game and then allowed them to pull away. Now, this does happen to other teams. In many ways, this was much the same game as the Florida-Mississippi State game. But these type of games build on each other. Almost everybody has 1. It's not unusual to have 2. But to have at least 3 and possibly 4 of these types of games against really bad teams is a very bad trend for Iowa.

The advantage to Burrell over the other options is that it is only for 1 year. And if you brought in some other pieces around him (a player to hit most of the right-handers and a defensive replacement on the bench) he just turns into a very expensive platoon OF. And he has value in such a spot. The Cubs could accomplish that in two ways. Either find somebody in CF and have Fukudome/Burrell in RF or trade for somebody like Luke Scott who could platoon with Burrell, and have somebody like Fuld on the bench who can come into the game late in CF and have Fukudome shift over to RF. The other names on the list have bigger contracts and their deficiencies are not so easily hidden. Burrell is still not a good option, but it's much less ugly than any other bad contract.

I didnt even know thats how it weant down. Well Im glad they forced him on us, considering hes our best players and everyone else involved in the trade is long out of baseball. That's because it didn't go down like that. We were after Ramirez, Lofton was a 1/2 year rental that we got thrown in. You certainly botched the quotes on that response. But, the trade happened basically on the same day Tom Goodwin got hurt, which was less than 3 weeks after Patterson went down for the year. To me, Aramis was a throw in by Pittsburgh just to be rid of his salary. It certainly helped that the Cubs had Jose Hernandez playing 3rd base. But, it cost the Cubs Jose Freaking Hernandez, Matt Bruback and Bobby Hill to get both Lofton AND Ramirez. Any team in the league basically could have beaten that offer, Hendry was just lucky enough to be in desperate need for someone who could field the CF position for half a season when the deal was consumated. The Cubs were in need of a 3b long before July 22nd, 2003. It's when they no longer had a viable CFer that the trade actually happened. If Patterson never gets hurt, I'm not so sure Aramis ever gets traded to the Cubs. If you want to call it working some sort of magic, go for it. But, to me it's just dumb luck. The Cubs had been trying to trade for a 3rd baseman for the previous 2 months. They were chasing after Lowell and then the Marlins suddenly didn't want to trade him. When the Patterson injury then happened, the chance to get Ramirez and Lofton together was a big opening. But I think the Cubs would have very likely gone after Ramirez even if Lofton wasn't in the picture. He wasn't their first choice, but he would have been the fallback plan at a position that the Cubs were desperate to try to upgrade. I do agree with Jersey that in Pittsburgh's mind it was a salary dump though.

I'd probably question the guy who is in second to last and ask why he wants to make that deal. It might need to be rejected. It's probably unfair, but there might be a legit reason. Wayne's injury and the unknowns related to that might be enough to let it be accepted (he might play this week but he might not). As for the other, I'd probably rather have Nicks. I don't know who is going to have more points the rest of the year, but Nicks has fantasy starter upside (if he is named a starter in NY) while I'm not sure Knox will be any better than a very good bench option. But they are really, really close so both ways are easily justifiable.

Agreed on Gaudin. He wouldn't have been an awful fit with the Cubs, but he isn't anything that was a problem to just let go either. Here are two pitchers this year: Pitcher A: 8.8 H/9, 7.3 K/9, 4.3 BB/9, 1.5 HR/9, 1.452 WHIP Pitcher B: 8.5 H/9, 8.1 K/9, 4.1 BB/9, 1.1 HR/9, 1.41 WHIP Pretty similar numbers right? Pitcher B seems to be just slightly better based on the peripherals. Pitcher A is Gaudin with the Yankees this year. Pitcher B was Aaron Heilman this year with the Cubs. The difference in their ERA's (3.43 for Gaudin compared to 4.11 for Heilman) isn't really based on anything sustainable. Gaudin's total numbers for the year are also that type of pitcher: 4.64 ERA, 8.9 H/9, 8.5 K/9, 4.6 BB/9, 0.9 HR/9, 1.507 WHIP Gaudin would have been an average bullpen arm like Heilman was, but that HR rate in Chicago and the Yankees is concerning. It might be a result of moving out of the West divisions which are more forgiving to fly balls. If he keeps up that HR rate and that walk rate, he's going to have a really hard time staying somewhat effective.

I don't know if it will be anything significant, but other teams are interested in Bradley for the same reason teams like the Cubs, Rangers, Padres, Athletics, and Dodgers were in the past. They know that if they can harness Bradley's talent they can get a steal, and they always feel like they have the correct situation to where he won't act up as much. The deal will essentially end up be what the second most interested team thinks Bradley's true value is. That's where the Cubs leverage will come from. If two teams think that Bradley is not very much overpaid (and that he's actually worth 7-8 million each of the next two years), then the Cubs will not have to pay very much of the contract. If only one team is willing to take a chance on him for much more than minimum salary, then the Cubs are in trouble as far as negotiating a decent deal because they will have no leverage. We're basically talking about a garage sale here. An owner puts out a damaged good and puts a 25 cent price tag on it. Three people come by and one decides they can repair it and make it worth 10 dollars, another 15, and another 20. The person who thinks it's worth $20 isn't going to stop offering more when the bidding gets to $5 just because the owner would have let it go for a quarter. That wouldn't be rational of them because they would be hurting themselves out of paying only $15 for what they think is a $20 product. All Sammy Sosa really did was walk out on the team on the last game of the year, and the Cubs paid 17m of his guaranteed 19m. The Cubs got Jerry Hairston, Mike Fontenot and one other guy who thought it would be better to retire rather than grace us in a Cubs uniform. Adding in the current financial climate out there and I just don't see how the Cubs can expect anything significant for a known pain in the ass. Sosa was a little different of a situation. Teams didn't want him because they felt he wasn't going to be productive anymore and not quite as much because of his attitude. Sosa was 36 and seemed to be quickly falling off the cliff. The Orioles took a chance on him to sell tickets and paid 5 million of his contract. Bradley has a much bigger attitude problem but not nearly as much of a production problem. There are plenty of people around the league who feel like he'll bounce back and be very productive the next two years. But I do agree that I don't see the Cubs getting anything significant. They'll probably get a better deal than the Sosa one but not by that much.

I don't know if it will be anything significant, but other teams are interested in Bradley for the same reason teams like the Cubs, Rangers, Padres, Athletics, and Dodgers were in the past. They know that if they can harness Bradley's talent they can get a steal, and they always feel like they have the correct situation to where he won't act up as much. The deal will essentially end up be what the second most interested team thinks Bradley's true value is. That's where the Cubs leverage will come from. If two teams think that Bradley is not very much overpaid (and that he's actually worth 7-8 million each of the next two years), then the Cubs will not have to pay very much of the contract. If only one team is willing to take a chance on him for much more than minimum salary, then the Cubs are in trouble as far as negotiating a decent deal because they will have no leverage. We're basically talking about a garage sale here. An owner puts out a damaged good and puts a 25 cent price tag on it. Three people come by and one decides they can repair it and make it worth 10 dollars, another 15, and another 20. The person who thinks it's worth $20 isn't going to stop offering more when the bidding gets to $5 just because the owner would have let it go for a quarter. That wouldn't be rational of them because they would be hurting themselves out of paying only $15 for what they think is a $20 product.

That is very likely true...but if Iowa was #1 and Florida was #4 or #5 to start the season, Iowa probably wouldn't be higher than 4th right now and Florida would likely be in front of them. Close games in the first couple weeks of the season can really hurt the national perception of a team and that is especially true when it's against an opponent like Northern Iowa. Iowa would have dropped behind several teams after week 1 and it would have been extremely difficult with the other close games that they have played for them to jump back over teams like Florida, Alabama, and Texas. But they likely would have been still ahead of Boise, USC, Cincy, and TCU if they had started the season in the top 5.

I almost feel like there must be a better option on the free agent wire for you. Berrian has been awful (except for the other game against the Packers) and Crabtree has such limited upside against this matchup. The Colts only gave up 6 passing TD's all of last year and have only given up 2 so far this year (one of them in garbage time with the backup defense out there). Between those two options, Crabtree is more likely of the two to get 7 points for you. Berrian is more likely to get double digits for you. But I would really only project 4-7 points for each of them, so it seems like there could be better.

LSU won the the national championship in 2007 after losing to an unranked Arkansas team in the last game of the regular season. In 2006 UCLA beat USC in the final game of the regular season so I don't see how that applies to your theory. I guess USC stayed in the hunt after losing to Stanford but if they hadn't lost to Oregon that year they would've been the only other 1 loss team besides Ohio State among BCS teams. In 2008 Oregon State finished 18th in the country and had 9 wins. So basically your theory is garbage. I didn't say that USC played for the NC every time they lost to an unranked team, but they stay in the team picture for contenders all the way to the end. USC has had typically better non-conference wins than the rest of the title contenders. They try to schedule well (they've had exactly 2 games against non BCS conference+ND teams in the last 4 years combined). Not to mention that they typically have looked very impressive in compiling those early season wins and it shows why they have more staying power when they do lose a game.

Utah is a solid program. As a MSU fan I accept your apology for ragging on MSU about their sheduling. Also you should check out the ND scheduling during the Holtz years. They played some very good teams, but there was plenty of Army Navy and other crap sprinkled in Navy is always going to be on the schedule. If Navy is the worst team you play, you're doing just fine in scheduling strength. They used to play all the service academies and that was before air force adn navy became decent. Pre Joe Tiller Purdue was terrible every year, USC was down for most of Holtz's years(though they were #2 the year ND won the NT). They also bailed on Miami when they wanted to have a traditional game. I am not saying ND played the worse schedule out there, but they did have some years were is was pretty weak. Of course CFB scheduling can be a crap shoot sometimes. In Holtz's 11 seasons, they played Army exactly 1 time. The only strength of schedule rank site that I could find that has data from those years ranks ND's schedule in the country like this (starting from Holtz's first year): 8, 6, 19, 1, 4, 11, 24, 26, 3, 12, 36 It gradually got worse, but ND's schedules typically were very good. Even in the year where they had all 3 service academies, they also had Texas, Ohio State, USC, and Florida State on their schedule (along with having Northwestern that year who went to the Rose bowl against USC).

Clubhouse chemistry becomes more important if the problem player stays multiple seasons. It probably is unreasonable to think that the performance of players dramatically suffers because of what other players are doing. Personality clashes are likely to happen in almost every clubhouse even when there isn't a particular problem person. However, play on the field is not the only thing it affects. It also affects players decisions to re-sign with the club. It affects which players might want a trade. And there's a small possibility that it could affect the willingness of other players on other teams coming to the team in free agency. If his teammates want him gone (which is what the writers of the city seem to all be saying) then he almost has to go. There's too many other potential negatives compared to the positives Bradley brings you. Only the team truly knows if his teammates do want him to go though.

Eating 20% and getting back mediocrity is still a horrible move. If they can't get the entire salary off the books and bring back serious talent, they can't justify making the move. prepare to be disappointed what you have outlined is absolutely impossible Only if they insist on trading him no matter the offer. He's an asset, and they need to get a similar asset. If they eat money, they need to get a better asset. That's based on the thought that Milton Bradley at 2 years and 21 million is truly an asset. He may very well be..but most years, he has been around a 10 million dollar player (with the notable exceptions of 2008 where he was well above and 2009 where he was well below). However, he also is not going to get the fielding value he did in the past from playing a respectable CF. And with the leg injuries, being 32 next year, and having a below average defensive season at 31 he likely will only be average at best in RF next season. So he's going to have to be healthy for at least 120-130 games again and have an OPS that is probably 75 points higher than this year to be worth that sort of deal. However, if you only ate 20 percent (4.2 million) and got a couple of decent prospects back or even a decent cheap platoon player and/or a cheap middle reliever, you could go out and get almost 17 million worth of value on the free agent market and then have those players hopefully add the other 4 million of value over the next 2 years. Now, I don't think the Cubs will get that good of a deal. But if they did, it certainly wouldn't be horrible for them. Bradley is only a significant asset if 1) you feel his contract is under market value for his production (IMO, it's not, although he's not way overpaid either) or 2) RF's are too scarce to find other players who could fill that level of production for that money (which I don't believe they are). Now if the team is eating 50 percent or more or taking on a bad contract, then in baseball terms they would have to get a good asset in return for it not to be a horrible deal (in PR terms it might be worth it to the club anyway). But if they only take on 20 percent, they wouldn't have to get much back for it to be an ok baseball deal because Bradley wasn't worth that much more to the club in the first place.

Fukudome 2/13 with 5 BB Bradley 3/15 with 2 BB and a HBP so that is a combined OBP of .361 over the 4 games that they were in the top 2 spots in the lineup.

He's basically already lost an arm. His throwing arm. Shoulder surgery that will likely not have long-term effects. The last time I can remember a top 5 pick getting seriously hurt was McGahee. And the Bills took him 23rd overall even though they knew he was going to miss his rookie season with his devastating knee injury and had no idea how he would bounce back afterword. Bradford might actually be able to throw for NFL scouts before draft day (I haven't heard the timetable on the surgery), so that would be one advantage over McGahee. He will definitely slip because of this and quite possibly slip into the late 2nd or 3rd, but teams always take chances on potential elite talent. It's probably irrelevant anyway as he'll likely come back to school to try to drive his value back into the 1st round.

I really don't see the comparison between Patterson and Pie in how the Cubs handled them. Patterson was rushed but then given plenty of consistent at-bats in the majors (after a small period of riding the bench). He had the misfortune of both the injury and coaching turnover and different coaches had different ideas about what type of player he was. I really don't see how Pie was rushed. He spent the half season in rookie ball, a full year in Peoria, a full year in Daytona, a full year in Tennessee, a full year in Iowa, and then started the next year in Iowa before being called up. He had at least moderate success and sometimes great success at each level before being moved up. It's hard to say what was the exact thing that caused the Cubs to fail with him. Some would say it was the inconsistent playing time at the major league level, and others would say that they ignored his swing issues because he was so productive at the minor league level and then they had to ship him off because it would take too long to fix. Patterson hit the major leagues at 20-21 (I don't remember what date he came up) in his 2nd professional season. Pie hit the major league level at 22 in his 6th professional season. Castro if he followed the Pie path wouldn't see the major leagues until 2012 or 2013. I don't think anybody would think he was rushed if he hit the major leagues at that time. I think the only Patterson/Pie comparisons that can be made were that mistakes were made with both of them..but they were very different types of mistakes.

There are a couple of reasons why this is not commonly done. In the first place, teams don't take steps to keep offensive linemen from wearing down because they typically don't wear down. A defensive lineman has to exert much more effort than an offensive lineman on a normal play. A defensive lineman is supposed to pursue to the ball until the whistle is blown while an offensive lineman frequently gives up mid play because they're too slow to catch up with the play after it is past them. Also a defensive lineman has to have superior speed/strength to get past an offensive lineman, while an offensive lineman just has to have the same speed/strength as the defense in order to hold them up. Finally, continuity on the offensive line is more important sometimes because they are potentially protecting an entire season for the team (the health of the QB and RB) while the worst a defensive line being out can do is to give up a TD.

But Tijan Jobe will be gone by then. According to this, that might be exactly what IU needs. :D This is from Crean on the indystar blog talking about an injury to Rivers:

Pick 5 of 7 (2 RB, 2 WR, 1 flex): Forte vs. Atlanta Grant vs Detroit Moreno vs SD V. Jackson vs Denver Marshall vs SD Jennings vs Detroit Welker vs Tennessee Moreno is probably the worst player of the bunch, but he also is likely to get a ton of carries against a horrible run defense so far (and he has been showing his stuff the last two weeks). The rest have good matchups besides Jackson who has had a great start to the season. I'm having a hard time separating any of them from each other.