CubColtPacer

I don't see that devaluing Bradley any further. Hendry bluffing that he wasn't ready to deal Bradley during the offseason wasn't very likely to work anyway. The leverage the Cubs are going to have is pitting teams against each other for Bradley's services. That's where they are going to get a little more value out for him..not from the threat that they might keep him. The fact that the Cubs are 100% going to trade him rather than 80% of a couple weeks ago is going to be less significant than the fact that 5 other teams are making offers for him. None of those offers will be great (because Bradley's remaining contract was about the limit of what other teams were willing to go after his great season last year and his value has gone down since then), but the competition will drive his trade value up near what other teams perceive to be his value to their ballclub and not the value that they think they can force on a desperate team. So essentially, the fact that the Cubs have to trade Bradley hurts because they can't keep him and use his value to the ballclub. It likely won't hurt his trade value though because enough other clubs still want to take a risk on him.

his pass protection is unreal I pray to the Football Gods almost every week that I will ever root for a team with a line as good as the Colts' has been for about the last decade straight and especially the last 6 years. The Colts have not had a stellar offensive line for the last 2+ years. It's turned into an above average pass blocking line and a pretty bad run blocking line. They're bad at left tackle, decent with both guards and right tackle, and very good at center (except for last year when they were simply bad everywhere but right tackle). Now the Colts have always had RB's that are excellent at blitz pickup and that has helped the pass blocking quite a bit. Manning typically also makes up for it because he gets the ball out quicker from his hand than the average QB. It also helps that he reads blitzes so well and calls quick passes that doesn't allow the rush to get to him. At times, the line does block excellently. But I am confused at all the how unbelievable is the Colts line comments. The offensive line has been a major concern for Colts fans for a couple years now.

Yeah, can't have offsetting penalties when they are different possessions. The Seahwaks declined the Bears penalty which is their right as the only pre-kick penalty was against the Bears. So then the Bears of course are going to accept the penalty against the Seahawks because it pushes them 10 yards back. No chance of a re-kick there.

If you have a 4 oclock game this week on Fox, Fox isn't allowed to show anything in the 1 slot. I'm sure they would love to show football if they possibly could because it would get much better ratings, but there is no choice on their part.

http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2005/01/chicago-cubs_112114177768677294.html that's not what this site says. Now, this site could be wrong, I grant you, but unless there is another site that is better I'm going by what this site says. Actually, that's exactly what that site says. It says it is only a club option if one of those two things happened. Since neither of those two happened, it's guaranteed. That other incentive part was only a way for Bradley to guarantee it again if it became a club option in the first place. Since it didn't become a club option, that part is irrelevant.

That was mentioned somewhere. Doesn't make any sense to me. I think it was Bruce Miles who said that they wouldnt want to risk offering arb. God forbid. What would the Cubs be on the hook for, minimum, if arb was offered? This isn't one of those cases where a true minimum can be established. The Cubs can offer as low as 5.6 million. But if they offer that low, they'll most certainly lose the arbitration case pretty much no matter what Harden's offer is. Depending on who you ask, the Cubs are risking somewhere between 8-12 million if they offer arbitration.

Well that makes no damn sense. There are thousands of outstanding baseball players, football players, and basketball players who are playing pickup games because they couldn't accept the discipline necessary to fit into a team situation and follow some simple rules like play hard, shut up, show up, show up on time, and show respect your team mates and coach. True, but you when you have the talent of Bradley other teams will typically want you. Somebody was willing to trade for him after he got into an altercation with his own manager as a member of the Indians even after they demoted him for it. He was supposedly about to be suspended in LA in 2005 for the rest of the season when he hurt his knee. The other players in the clubhouse told Colletti that Bradley had to go. Still another team wanted him. He fought with the manager and GM in Oakland over playing time and it was bad enough for them to start the process of cutting him. And yet they were able to find a willing taker for him. And some team will probably be willing to take a chance on Bradley now (albeit not for very much money). If you have the skills, teams always think they can be the team where the behavior will suddenly get better. GM's have been doing this sort of thing to Bradley for a large part of his career but he is still a ML ballplayer because of his talent level.

I loved Marvin, but he was not a leader whatsoever. Even people who had been with him for 10 years had no idea who he was. He did his job and went home and didn't really ever talk to anybody. The only benefit young receivers might have gotten from him is being able to watch him on the practice field, but Harrison was certainly not taking anybody under his wing. They went back to the tape last year and it just isn't true. Harrison was mostly getting single covered last year and Wayne was getting the doubleteams. That must be quite a small sample size for the Colts supposed red zone problems because they've had an issue in exactly 1 possession so far . The first game they had 2 possessions in the red zone. One resulted in an INT (Peyton made a bad decision when he had Clark wide open) and the other one was a rushing TD. Last game the Colts had 1 red zone opportunity and had a 15 yard rushing TD. And btw, the passing game is doing just fine. Peyton is averaging over 300 yards a game and has 3 TD passes of 35 yards or more. He also has completed 68.9% of his passes which is the highest number of his career. His yards/attempt is the highest of his career, and his INT percentage is down. His QB rating is the 2nd highest of his career so far. There's speculation that the Colts passing game will suffer in the future. But so far, that hasn't been the case whatsoever. And this isn't the first time that something has been said will derail the Colts passing game and it just doesn't happen. I have no idea where you are getting that the passing game has actually been any worse so far this year though.

Giordano was a confusing type of player. From my observations, he was unbelievably fast but not necessarily as quick. He was a big hitter but I don't remember him being a good safety against either the pass or the run (although not absolutely awful at either). He was a good special teams player. He's the type of safety who will really impress on certain plays but doesn't really hold up to scrutiny over a full game. Some people really liked him as a Colt though and couldn't understand why he kept falling further down the depth chart each year so there are definitely differing opinions about him out there.

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.