CubColtPacer

They went 10-6 last year and if Brett Favre can pass against a good defense like the 49ers it means they are quite a bit better than last year's team because the offense isn't one dimensional. Considering the team with the best record from last year is 0-2, the Superbowl champ is 1-1, the Colts don't look as good as last yearand have lost some key players and the Patriots are 1-1 they might be the top team. It would be between Minnesota, Giants, Atlanta, Jets and Baltimore. This week the Giants are on the road, Jets play Tennessee and Atlanta is at New England. The only one who has a true easy win is Baltimore but even they play a rival in Cleveland. Why are you ignoring the Broncos? They beat two teams of the same quality (or better) than the Vikings did. More seriously, why are you ignoring New Orleans? They've been the most impressive NFC team so far if you ask me. I'd also like to add to this vis-a-vis the Colts. Last year at this time, the Colts were 1-1 with a home loss to the Bears and a road win over the Vikings in which they rallied from a 15-0 third quarter deficit. So far, the Colts look better than last year (and I think that will continue, though who knows what that means record-wise). Second, the "key players" they've lost are: Marvin Harrison, end of list. Now, Harrison is one of the greatest receivers of all time, and one of my favorite players of all time. However, he's unfortunately been a cipher since 2006. The past two seasons he combined for 80 catches and six touchdowns while playing only 20 games due to injury (for comparison's sake, that's worse than every season of his since Manning's rookie year). Love him, but he was no longer a key player -- see his current unsigned status. Anthony Gonzalez is currently hurt, and if he can't come back to near full strength, that would likely be a devastating injury to a key player. And, obviously, I'm not exactly ready to dismiss teams like the Steelers, Patriots, Titans, etc. For what it's worth, Baltimore has probably been the most impressive team so far to me. The Colts were a better team last year. The Colts struggled to start last year but that was mainly because Peyton was getting his timing down. Right now they have no Marvin and Gonzalez is hurt with no guarantee of being what some think he could be. They have Wayne and Clark, which is much better than most teams but not as good as what it has been. The defense is the same crap defense, plus Sanders is hurt, and the offense isn't as good. The Colts offense is better because the offensive line is playing so much better than last season so far. Receivers can be replaced in the offense (especially when they are paired with other great receivers already on the field) but the line giving Peyton time to throw is essential and that was way too much of a problem last year (and the line has shown signs of being better in the running game this year as well). The defense is still unknown (played well in week 1, played very badly in week 2). The special teams is around the same (punting is better than last year, not sure about coverage yet). The offense looks to be better so far though and that should definitely help. 6 of the 9 games in the Colts winning streak last year were by 7 points or less (and 2 of the 3 others were against the Titans 2nd team and only beating the 0-16 Lions by 10). They were extremely flawed last year and only beating teams because Peyton wouldn't let them lose most weeks. This year they appear to be slightly less flawed and do seem to be better.

1. When did Bradley do this? 2. Who [expletive] cares? Your skin seems to be as thin as Bradley's. He said the fans were involved in creating a completely negative environment and that he doesn't like playing in Chicago. He's also brought up racism, which rightly or wrongly people tend to take as directed towards a large part of the fanbase. As the head of an organization who survives based on how many people come to a game to see your product, you don't want one of your supposed main attractions saying those types of things to the fans you're trying to get to spend money, especially during times like this. He never, not once, said that he doesn't like playing in Chicago. I swear, some people just try to twist his words into believing what they want to believe. how else do you interpret "i pray the game is only 9 innings so i can be out there the least amount of time possible"? and i like bradley, but it's pretty plain the guy didn't enjoy being a cub. Also the quote when asked if he enjoyed playing in Chicago, his first words out of his mouth were "Not really" before expanding on why he didn't (the negative environment). There are reasons to question if people are taking Bradley's words too far, but wondering if he likes playing in Chicago is not one of them. He pretty clearly has indicated that he hasn't been a fan of the overall experience.

He has no business starting a MLB game right now. I wish the FO would stop being jackasses and just let him sit in the minors for a full season and work on stuff. Instead of jacking him around from the minors and majors 20 times a season. While having him up in the pen throughout the season at this point is stupid, I don't see the harm in letting him get an actual start right now with the Cubs all but out of it and the minor league season done. And I don't see the point of wishing bad on Samardzija at this point, considering he's already approaching his 25th birthday, has burned 3* option years, has ammassed over 400 professional innings on top of the 200 college innings and pretty much needs to start performing in the majors next year or be considered a lost cause. *I believe it's 3 since he signed his major league deal in January 2007, and has at one point been optioned back to the minors in all 3 subsequent seasons. You are correct. Samardzija has used 3 of his option years. He does get a 4th option year because of his circumstances so he has 1 more year to potentially work it out in the minors before needing to stick.

GameCast says 14:53. And they didn't have any short field scoring drives or defense/special team scores either (their best field position on a scoring drive was their own 27 yard line). Their 27 points came on drives of 80, 48, 44, 79, and 80 yards. I think that game was a microcosm of the differences between those two teams. Colts fans are screaming about how badly the team got outplayed tonight. But they really didn't...Miami will dominate many teams physically (and a team like the Colts most of all) but their lack of big plays hurts them badly. It feels terrible when the other team is running down your throat, but Miami also had to settle for 4 long field goal attempts tonight, and then when they needed to come back in the last few minutes their strategy that they are built around worked against them.

Is that for this week only, or is that for the whole season? I didn't think it was always like this. It changes week to week. Sometimes CBS is the station who only gets to show 1 game and sometimes its Fox. But the maximum number of games a market can get combined between the 1 and 4 pm time slots is 3. Both stations are not allowed to show doubleheaders in the same week.

Even if there is a good comparison there (and I really don't know about it since you're compiling all of Z's questionable actions over the course of years while Bradley's have come over a few months) Bradley isn't going to get the same sort of leash as Z and he really doesn't deserve that long of a leash. So its ok to be a dick and act like a child numerous times over the course of 3-5 years, but its not ok to be a dick a couple times in 1 season because he hasnt endeared himself to the Cubbie faithful? Not sure I agree with that Im not quite sure how Z could deserve a longer leash, when he has shown repeatedly hes going to do what he wants. Punch teammates, throw balls toward the crowd, be out of shape, etc.....I dont see how Bradley as done anything near as bad as some of the [expletive] Z has, and fans look at it as Z being passionate. The point about the things occurring over years is that if you space out your stupid things, then it might never be quite bad enough to get you suspended because you earn some credit back in between. That's part of what has happened to Z who has been close a couple of times but then apologizes and behaves for a while. Why does Bradley not get as big of a leash as Z? Because of his past. The multiple times he had confrontations with managers/GM's/announcers etc. The legal troubles. The troubles with MLB with certain incidents. Bradley's got at least one of the top 3 most checkered histories in the entire league, and that doesn't all get washed away when he becomes a Cub. The Cubs were willing to give him another chance, but that doesn't mean he gets as much as Z who doesn't have nearly the history that Bradley does. Also, what SSR said was right. At times, the Cubs have put up with Z because they needed him so badly (especially after the fight with Barrett, which is probably the one time that Z should have been suspended). They also haven't done anything with Z because it didn't hurt business to not do anything. With Bradley, they both don't need him nearly as much as Z and he has continued to make comments about the fans and organization.

Even if there is a good comparison there (and I really don't know about it since you're compiling all of Z's questionable actions over the course of years while Bradley's have come over a few months) Bradley isn't going to get the same sort of leash as Z and he really doesn't deserve that long of a leash.

I'm confused by this. Shouldn't there be seperate maps for noon and 3 PM games? Fox only gets to show 1 game on Sunday. You either get the 1 PM game in your region or the 4 PM game, so it makes sense to bundle them all into one map rather than have two separate maps with large parts of the country receiving no game in that time slot.

I'm very interested to see him playing CF and that the Cubs chose him over Fukudome for that spot. The Cubs have never given up on Colvin in CF, but they haven't made it a priority to have him play there either and the minor league managers have often gone with better defensive lineups which caused him to move to the corner OF.

He was part of the original DVD trio of pitching prospect for the Rangers. He was picked up by the Cubs a couple of weeks ago but didn't get into a game before the minor league season ended. They could be trying to sneak him through waivers in order to clear 40 man space for the offseason. Or they could have just worked him out and found that he had nothing they liked and so plan on releasing him. It's hard to tell. But I don't think they are doing this to clear 40 man space..not when they could still move Chad Fox to the 60 day DL if they needed a spot.

which cities has he been run out of? By the fans or by anybody? He was definitely run out of town by Cleveland, LA, and Oakland. The partings with both San Diego and Texas were much nicer, and I have no idea about Montreal.

Oakland works since nobody cares about anything there and he won't be talking to any press. I was mainly looking at it from the angle that he had already played there and they wouldn't want to deal with his [expletive] again, but Beane will probably look at it like it's essentially a free walk-machine, since we're going to eat 80 percent of his contract, anyway. I don't know any details of his time there, but I believe that was the season he was traded to SD for a halfway decent arm. Oakland seems to like bringing guys back there, unless I'm just making that up and Giambi is the only one. I'd bet Beane could look at a chance to get Bradley hitting for half a season and maybe spin him for something more than he dealt away. Oakland didn't just trade him for value though. Bradley was upset about not being guaranteed at-bats when he came off the DL so Oakland simply DFA'd him. Beane had tried to talk to him and apparently didn't like what he heard so the move was made. I'm not sure they'd want any part of him. Now Moore in KC did try to trade for him in 2007 but their medical staff shot it down.

I would say blaming the media is a short-sighted explanation to the whole problem. When Bradley signed, there were a lot of casual fans essentially saying "I really don't like him and can't believe we signed him since he has the biggest list of offenses in the entire league and really is a laughingstock. However, if he hits like he did in Texas, I guess I'll be fine with him" So when Bradley started to show that he wasn't going to be that player this year (and he never should have been expected to be that player) the fans understandably went back to their first instinct and went back to hating him. And even when he produced, his best production was in his huge number of walks which we know most fans of baseball undervalue to a criminal degree. And then you add in the frustration from the change in the team between last year and this year, and Bradley (who was both the biggest change and also hated) was an easy scapegoat. Now the media has also done nothing to help the situation and have gone to Bradley's locker for quotes more often than what really should be done to try to grab a story, but even without the media influence Bradley would have been hated by this point. The media coverage over the course of the year and Bradley's unfortunate series of comments over the last month have simply exacerbated a much bigger situation and not caused it.

I'm not sure I buy this as a business decision. Are people really going to stay away from Wrigley if Bradley is on the team next year? Attendance probably won't drop (even if lots of people stay home purely for Bradley other people will likely take their place), but TV ratings might. And the risk of that could hurt the Cubs in the yearly negotiation for advertising dollars. The Cubs have essentially sent the message that they are going to do everything they can to get rid of Bradley which should help them in those negotiations. It would hurt the Cubs most during the 2010 season if they had a mediocre season. If there are players that fans hate it becomes much easier to become lethargic about a decent team. If they lose big people will be lethargic anyway, and if they win big people will come regardless of Bradley. It's for that reason I think this is a good business decision even though a suspension at this point of the season does all bad for the baseball side of the equation.

This seems likely as the Cubs finally making a business decision. While railroading Bradley out of town is a bad baseball decision (by destroying any trade value he has) it is an excellent business decision, and that's probably what it came down to when the decision was made at the executive meetings. As soon as Bradley continued to go after the fans it painted the Cubs business wise into a corner and when push comes to shove they (along with almost every club) will choose business over baseball.

Oh, he's not coming back. In fact, I think with the suspension his contract for the third year is not guaranteed anymore. While it certainly won't be easy to find a taker for this stiff, it will be easier with only one year left on the deal as opposed to two. And what makes you believe that? I am 99.999% sure that isn't true (he passed the games played qualifier a couple of months ago). Even if for some small chance it was true, the suspension probably wouldn't hold up in the courts if it was actually the determining factor in his last year not being guaranteed and the Cubs would end up having to pay that money to him anyway. I think this is an overreaction although Bradley has been asking for it for a while. As a GM though you can't let your emotions get to you and give in to what the player wants when it hurts your ballclub.

I'd start Cooley. I avoid anyone playing Tennessee/Pittsburgh/Baltimore like the plague. Baltimore didn't exactly shut down KC. They actually did pretty well..they just got put in some really bad positions by offense/special teams. Baltimore only allowed 188 yards of offense on Sunday. They did have a bad couple of drives in the 4th quarter which shouldn't happen against an offense like KC's, but their play the first 3 quarters was absolutely great.

The Colts absolutely love Garcon and his potential. He didn't win the 3rd receiver job out of preseason but that's because Collie fit better with what they needed in the slot. They didn't go to Garcon a lot in week 1 (3 catches, 24 yards..5 attempts his way in just over 3 quarters), but that's because the Jaguars for some reason decided to leave Mathis on him and go with Wayne against a rookie. I can't see Collie losing his slot job because he fits so well with what the Colts want out of that position. He probably will never be an outside player consistently though. If Garcon fails over the next 5-6 weeks, Baskett would probably be in line to replace him on the outside with Collie staying in the slot. But until then, Garcon will get lots of chances to prove the skills they see in him. And if it did get to that point where they had to use Baskett, the Colts would also use Dallas Clark some in that outside receiver slot and put Jacob Tamme (another player they like) at tight end.

i have a hard time believing that, considering that he didn't pitch many innings in 2006-07 and has just been average this season. He's making $7 million this year. You think he'll get a pay cut down to $5-something million? i didn't say that. but i don't think there's any way he gets into the $12-13M area. remember, the largest-ever arbitration award is $10M to ryan howard, after two years in which he hit 105 home runs, drove in nearly 300 runs and had an OPS over 1.000. harden will be coming off an average year, an outstanding year, and then two years in which he pitched well when he was healthy, which was almost never. i don't even think harden would get $12-13M on the free market, let alone in arbitration. i see $10M as the ceiling that he could ask for an reasonably get. The largest ever pre-FA arbitration award was Howard. Maddux made 14.75M in arbitration 7 years ago. K-Rod also made 10 million in an arbitration case prior to free agency (he wasn't in his first arbitration year like Howard was which made Howard's case special). Besides, looking at just the cases that make it to arbitration doesn't tell nearly the whole story. Most of the time, teams don't want to make their stars mad so they settle before arbitration. Howard would have made either 14 million or 18 million this year in arbitration. Z made 12.4 million after 2006 by settling instead of going to arbitration. And remember, in Howard's case he wasn't allowed to make full market value. He wasn't deep enough into his arbitration years to get more (as he proved by asking for a lot more the next year). Harden can make full market value as he can be compared to players in free agency from the last couple of years while Howard couldn't under the rules. I suspect an arbiter would decide that Harden's true value was somewhere between 9-10.5 million. The way I could see Harden possibly getting 12-13 is if he submits a claim for 12.5, the Cubs submit a claim for 8, and the arbiter decides his value is 10.5 so he gives Harden the win and awards him 12.5.

i have a hard time believing that, considering that he didn't pitch many innings in 2006-07 and has just been average this season. He's 19-11 over the last 2 years with 353 strikeouts combined and a combined ERA of just over 3. Those are the numbers his lawyers are probably going to keep hammering away in the arbitration hearing. The Cubs couldn't probably risk offering less than 8.5, and then they'd have to settle for close to 10 and if they set the figure too low than Harden could roll the dice and quite possibly get more than that. I don't think the low inning totals in 2006-2007 are going to have a huge bearing on the case. The fact that he's only had 300 innings or so over the last 2 years will hurt Harden, but for the most part he can say he was just following club orders on that one (skipping starts, etc.) which helped deflate his innings unnecessarily. It won't likely be true, but it would be a reasonable argument, and he doesn't have a ridiculous amount of DL time over those 2 years. Now the Cubs could get help at deflating that number if his medicals look poor at all, but if his medicals look poor they probably won't put themselves in that situation to begin with.

The 5.6 million number isn't realistic. If the Cubs offer arbitration and Harden accepts he'll probably get at least 10 and potentially 12-13 (it's hard to say exactly since Harden missed so much time in his early arbitration years and he had the club option instead of arbitration last year so there's no history to go off with him personally..plus there aren't a ton of comparables for Harden so it would be a risky arbitration case for both sides). Is there risk? Sure, there's risk. If Harden accepts arbitration, that's probably it for the Cubs offseason. They would have no money after giving Harden a raise along with the rest of players that are due for raises. They'd make 1-2 minor moves, but they'd have no money to improve the offense. There's also of course the risk that Harden either gets hurt next year or becomes even more average than he has been this year. He's not exactly the most stable pitcher in the world. The reward is of course either Harden accepts and becomes dominant again over 150 innings or more which means that the offense might not have to improve as much, or that he declines the offer and the Cubs pick up the 2 draft picks. I believe unless his medicals are worse than I think that Harden will decline arbitration and go out to free agency. So I would definitely offer arbitration and pick up the 2 picks. But if it becomes more likely that he'll accept (if other teams are truly scared of him), it becomes a much riskier decision with how much money the Cubs will have available this offseason and how much of a risk he is as a pitcher.

I'd consider picking up Gonzalez if you have room, but I wouldn't expect much. I'm always scared of players going down without even being hit and then having damage to knee ligaments. As for Baskett, don't pick him up. Even when he gets up to speed he'll be the Colts 4th receiver behind both Garcon and Collie. He might have 1 game where he goes off and has a big day, but he's not really in the Colts plans significantly. As for the other Colts receivers, they both get upgraded but I'm not sure either are even bench options right now in all but the deepest of leagues. Garcon has the upside, the tools, and is the deep threat while Collie is going to be the slot/picking up 1st downs guy. If either one wins the job for sure over the other, they might be worth picking up just because of the Colts passing attack, but until then they're just too risky.

The difficult part is four teams ahead of the Cubs. There are enough examples in baseball history of a team overcoming six games to win a playoff spot over one team. But it requires both the chasing team to win a lot of games and the leading team to lose them. In this case, we'd not only have to win a lot of games, but we'd require four separate teams to lose a whole bunch, too. It's just not going to happen. I don't think the 4 teams is a big deal actually. If the Cubs were going to get back into it, they'd have to play at an absurd rate the rest of the way...something like 15-3. If they do that, the Marlins would have to go 12-4 to tie and the Braves would have to go 13-4. While either of those are possible, they aren't very likely. The Giants would just have to go 11-5, but that would be very difficult for them if the Cubs went 15-3 since the Cubs play 4 against them (the likelihood is that the Cubs would have had to win at least 3 against them to get that sort of record). So really, if the Cubs were to catch Colorado they would have already caught the other 3. The only scenario that really makes the other 3 a problem is it takes out the scenario where Colorado goes something like 2-13 over their last 15 games and the Cubs sneak in even though they only played decently down the stretch. However, that's probably a more unrealistic scenario than the one above. It's pretty much all about Colorado.

A little blurb on Tennessee from Bruce. While we all suspected the last sentence, it's good to see a little confirmation of it:

It's probably more important for the Cardinals to lose than the Marlins just to make sure the Caridnals cannot clinch before the end of their series with Colorado next weekend. Plus of course that .45% chance of winning the division is probably higher than the tiny chance of the Cubs somehow going on a major run and passing Colorado and to have Florida be just as hot.