CubColtPacer

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.

It was pointed out in the 2009 surprising numbers thread a few days ago which is how so many people know the answer.

I doubt it. Maybe if he shows power. And convinces everyone he'll stay at SS. I haven't seen much that he won't stay at SS. There was that one isolated report, but it doesn't seem to have been substantiated by anything else. He seems to have all the right tools for the position (excellent range to both sides, decently strong arm, etc.). With Castro it's all about consistency, and that's something that isn't going to be improved by moving him over to 2nd. However if you meant convince everyone that he'll be a plus defender at SS, that I could get behind as a big help to his value.

Jersey made a good point about week 1. In addition to that, at least for ESPN's rankings, I believe they had a tie in last week's rankings between the Bears and Packers that was broken by the results of the head to head matchup. Those rankings are compiled by averaging 4 different writers. So if 1 writer had the Packers ahead of a team like the 49ers but had the Bears behind the 49ers last week, now the 49ers have moved behind both of them. That shift would move the Bears 1 spot up in that writer's rankings for this week which would break the tie they had last week.

What an embarassment. What is embarrassing about it?

The suggestion is to do what you can to make the team better. Keeping TO does nothing to help the team win, trading him for picks that could make a difference going forward would be better. The fans might feel slighted early, but in the long run they should realize the benefits. It is risky though because Buffalo cannot afford too many more PR hits. The fans in Buffalo are already feeling betrayed by having one of their home games taken away from them for the next few years (and the 9 straight non-playoff years have not helped). Sure, they would likely eventually come around, but only if there is enough of a fanbase left at that point.

He makes that little because his skills have declined and his attitude has kept suitors away. A non-dick TO could have been making over $10m this year. Exactly. The number of teams interested in him is very small at this point. He already has been cut from two different teams in the last 3 to 4 years including one of the teams who is known to take headcases (Dallas). He's had plenty of big contracts in his career but teams have consistently decided that having the dead money from his big contract is worth it just to have him gone.

There are problems both ways. If they played college rules, any corner that is beat in the NFL on one of those deep balls would just dive and tackle the receiver and take the 15 yards. I like the way the NFL does it. Sure, it causes some large field position changes when the calls are questionable. But only having 15 yards is sometimes a reward for defenses when the receiver was likely to catch the pass without the interference. If it's close, I'd rather go with the way that is going to cause less penalty flags in the first place, and the harsh punishment does that. Edit: And I see I am very late on that point. Sorry about that.

There's not a lot to explain. Ted Ginn dropped a touchdown pass with seconds to go in the game. The coverage was solid, but if Ginn his hands like a normal person, the Dolphins take the lead with about 20 seconds to go. This in spite of the worst clock management I have ever seen in the final minutes of that game. That's true. Although I do think you're being a little hard on Ginn..that was a tough catch for all but the best jump ball receivers, and Ginn is certainly not used to having to be in a jump ball situation. But I definitely agree that Miami was very close to winning that game. I do hope the Dolphins figure it out though (which is almost heretical for a Colts fan to say even after all these years). It's fun to have a very different type of philosophy in the NFL.

Call me a homer, but I definitely don't see Miami at the level of the rest of that bunch you've named. They've been in every game they've played, and their three losses are to teams with a combined 10-3 record, all of which made the playoffs last year. It can be argued that they should have beaten Indy, and they were doing fine against SD until the Pennington injury followed almost immediately by a pick 6. They're first in the league in rushing and rushing defense. They're low ranked in pass defense, but they're playing two rookie corners and their first three games were against playoff teams with Pro Bowl quarterbacks. I'm not saying they're great by any means, but I wouldn't be betting on them ending up with a top 10 pick. And regarding their assumed non-contention...if they win tonight, they'll be one game behind NE and NYJ for first in the AFC East, and 2-0 in division. Not in the driver's seat by any means, but certainly not an afterthought, either. I'd be interested to hear that argument from you or from ChiCubsfan (who said that Miami outplayed Indy in that game). I'm just curious on the reasons for that. I certainly don't think Miami is a very bad team though. They definitely have a better idea of what they're doing than most of the teams on that list. Losing Pennington will hurt quite a bit as he was a great QB for that particular offense (his great accuracy kept the chains moving quite well when the running game couldn't generate first downs). Time will tell if they can replace him. However, they are the type of team who could very well lose a lot of games they were in until the end so it is very hard to project their record. They're not one of the gimmes, but they're so limited that they're one of the less dangerous teams in the league.

I don't understand how anyone could still be against replay after this postseason so far. My only concern with replay is what happens if a call is reversed. For example, what if a ball if fair that they called foul? Where do you put the batter? The play didn't continue, so nobody has any idea if the batter was going to get a single or a triple. What about a play at the plate? Let's say a guy gets called out at the plate (as the other runners are also attempting to advance). That's the third out that ends the inning. Replay reverses the call-where do you put the other runners who were advancing? The defense never got a chance to throw them out. The same thing happens with a catch or a trap. If it's a trap, where does the batter go and where do the runners on base go? What if it was on the infield where the fielder would have had a chance to throw runners or the batter out if it hadn't been ruled a catch to begin with? Expanded replay in baseball is really tricky because of that. I'm not concerned with the amount of time replay would take or the human element of the game, but I'm not sure how there can be a fair system of replay put into place.

Hmmm....I guess maybe if it is simply the plays that are most likely to be remembered: 1. Bartman 2. Sosa home run (2003 NLCS game 1) 3. Wood home run (2003 NLCS game 7) 4. Ramirez home run (2007 regular season against Milwaukee) 5. Sosa corked bat (2003 against TB) 6. Gonzalez double play ball (2003 NLCS game 6) 7. DeRosa double play hit into (2007 NLDS game 3) 8. Ramirez grand slam (2003 NLCS game 4) 9. Gonzalez home run (2003 NLDS game 5) 10. Sosa/Alou go back to back on 2 straight pitches (2004 against Reds) 4 and 5 feel too low to me..I think there is a definite divide between the first 5 and second 5. I know I cheated on the last one but it happened so fast that it felt like one play.

When you consider that Miles signed his 2-year, $4.9 million contract on December 31, 2008 and Orlando Hudson signed his 1-year $3.4 million contract with the Dodgers on February 20, 2009, one could argue that his awfulness hasn't been addressed anywhere near enough. Hudson was a Type A free agent which drove down his value considerably. And Hudson would have never signed with the Cubs without the team promising him the starting job. One of the reasons the Cubs traded away their starting 2B in the first place was because they felt Fontenot was ready for more at-bats. They weren't going to trade DeRosa just to sign another starting second baseman who also would have cost them their 1st round pick. The Miles contract is bad enough on its own. There's no reason to need to make a very flawed comparison with Hudson who had different costs associated with him and was signed for a very different purpose. Speaking of which, why did Hudson not accept arbitration? He made over $6M in 2008, so his arbitration offer couldn't have been much less. Instead he choose free agency and only got $3.4M. Was it just a poor decision on his part? I don't think anybody expected contract values to drop as quickly as they did. I can't remember what he was demanding during the offseason (I believe it was something like 3/30) but I know he wanted 15 million per year in free agency when he was talking about it the offseason before. Eventually, guys like Hudson, Abreu, Cabrera, and Cruz had to drop their demands significantly or risk skipping the season.

IIRC, the Cubs had talked to the Royals about him (as had several other teams), but the Royals were always demanding way too much for him so nobody got very far in the discussion.