CubColtPacer

Pick 2: Pierre Thomas Reggie Bush Mike Bell Lendale White Derrick Ward Correll Buckhalter There are also a host of WR options (including Morgan, Bruce, Randle El, Henderson, Murphy, Bennett) available, but I think I'll probably pick 2 RB's from the above list unless people absolutely love one of the WR options. If any of those WR's you don't like this week but like overall, I'd love to hear it as well. I have Hester as my #2 receiver now that Gonzalez is hurt, and I'm not sure about him against some matchups.

What's an ace caliber starting pitcher? He's only 28 and he's got a better career ERA+ than CC Sabathia, Chris Carpenter, Ted Lilly, Danny Haren, Jake Peavey, Cliff Lee, John Lackey, Josh Beckett, Zach Greinke, and just under Roy Halladay (Doc 132, Z 127). His WHIP is better than or just over all of them too. Z's problem is that he gets demonstrably upset while in public, not that he's not a great pitcher. As per usual, the Cubs are going to trade him for cents on the dollar mostly because they don't like his antics. On top of that they're tipping their hand publicly, which more than likely lowers whatever value he would have had if it were not the case. There's a reason why they haven't won a world series in over 100 years. Edit: I forgot to mention that he hits pretty well for a pitcher too. Cobs! You can make a good argument that Ted Lilly has been more productive than Zambrano over that stretch. much better, actually Pitching wise Lilly might be better over that timeframe. But Z's hitting probably puts him at a greater value than somebody like Lilly. A 400 point OPS advantage in over 200 PA's in that timeframe is significant. Z's been very valuable also not only because of his production but because of his consistency. Having a player locked in who is going to give you well above average numbers every single season is very helpful. Is that worth 18 million dollars? To a team with the Cubs payroll, probably. For a big payroll team, the constraints of the roster limit of 25 is just as significant as the constraints of the payroll. There's only so many places to spread the money around, and often the mid-salary players are the worst buys because their inconsistency and their use of a roster spot clash (for example lower end starting pitchers, good relievers, bench players-anybody who typically gets signed between 2-8 million per year). To know that Z every single year is going to be worth putting onto the mound and the Cubs are never going to have to worry about if they need to bench him and when to pull the trigger on that (Soriano this year for example) makes the percentage of the payroll he can take up higher. Now this is all contingent on Z's health. If you feel is his health is going to continue declining over the next 3 years or is even likely to stay as bad as it was in 2009, then he should be traded. If you feel he's going to make over 90 starts the next 3 seasons, then a guy who pitches close to 200 innings per year with a consistent ERA around 4 with a bat that adds value could well be worth around 7 to 7.5% of the Cubs total payroll. If aces were available more regularly and the Cubs had a real chance of getting one for just a few million more (say 22 million a year) than having Z gone and having the financial flexibility to pick up an ace when one becomes available would be helpful. But those aces rarely come on the free agent market and so having Z at that price is preferable to waiting with a worse roster for the small chance that a true ace would come along

I would consider Sheets, but I don't see how signing him makes it more likely the Cubs offer arbitration to Harden. In fact, it's probably quite the opposite. The Cubs don't really have either the money or the rotation room for both, so they aren't going to risk offering arbitration to Harden if they already have Sheets signed. I would deal with Sheets only after the Cubs get their other offseason business done. Either decide to sign Harden to a multi-year deal or offer him arbitration. When he declines, then you can start looking at other options like Sheets.

No, it's the BCS standings that doesn't start until later in the season. The AP poll has always been weekly from preseason on. I know the BCS polls are always later but I could've sworn the AP poll didn't come out until around week 4 or 5 for the last two seasons. The Harris poll is the one that waits for week 4-6 to do their first poll (the poll that replaced the AP poll as part of the BCS rankings). That's probably the one you were thinking of.

And yet somehow the game clock has changed from 38 seconds to 20 during the extra point with no explanation.

The returner touched the ball on the kickoff. I'm pretty sure he didn't touch it. The ball didn't change direction at all. Besides, the refs changed it to 11 seconds. Then it suddenly changed to 9 a few seconds before the play started. Even if the returner touched it, the refs aren't going to retroactively take time back off of the clock (it would have just stayed at 10 seconds if they ruled he touched it). Plus the ball went out of bounds with 1 second left on the clock. It only had about a 1% chance of affecting anything, but that was really fishy clock operation at the end.

Timeouts (at least offensively) aren't hugely important in college football. I'm glad they went for the first down..but I don't like that play call on 2nd down. It was too much of a home run play. The 3rd down play was perfect.

What if you are a quick strike team that doesn't have long drives but scores quickly. Or what if you are a defense that isn't afraid to give up yardage because you play for the turnover. Seems unfair to those guys. You didn't outscore your opponent in regulation but you still have a chance to win the game, consider yourself lucky regardless of the outcome of the coin flip. So essentially your argument is that both teams have already failed in what they were supposed to do, so who cares if the OT system is unfair. I just don't understand why football doesn't have a system that is like other sports. Most other sports plays an extra quarter of either the same length (baseball, hockey) or a different length (basketball, in some ways soccer). Why doesn't football play 2 potential 7 minute quarters after the end of regulation? You still have around the same amount of football as a regular tie so the risk of injuries isn't any worse (14 extra possible minutes instead of 15 in the current system). The team who wins the coin toss at the start of OT gets the ball first. If they can take the full 7 minutes and then score, then good for them (plus each team would get 2 timeouts to help keep that from happening). But that is really difficult to do, so it's incredibly likely that both teams would get the ball. If the first OT ends with the game tied, then the other team gets the ball to start the second OT. If its tied after 2 OT's, the game ends in a tie (except for playoff games of course). The problem with the current system is that one of the easiest ways to score is off of a kickoff because a team usually gets pretty good field position, and there's no incentive to go for a TD. It makes OT games incredibly anticlimactic while if you played extra short quarters you'd be replicating the most exciting part of a football game (the last few minutes of the 4th quarter).

I'm not seeing the "my board style" choice. And yeah, that left hand side menu is rather large. My board style doesn't show up as a choice for me either.

I know you're somewhat joking, but I was curious. They've actually been ranked really well the last few years: From the AP poll 2005 preseason-8th, Final-7th 2006 preseason-17th, Final-19th 2007 preseason-9th, Final-9th 2008 preseason-17th, Final-15th

I think another GM is more likely to get rid of Bradley than Hendry. Hendry likes Bradley and that might give him a chance of staying. If a new GM comes in, he probably won't be able to get over the fact that getting rid of Bradley would be unbelievable PR (the symbolism of the new era) even if his production doesn't warrant him leaving. I find it interesting to see that Bradley's splits have been getting much, much closer lately. For all the talk about giving up hitting from the left side of the plate, he has a chance of actually being more productive from the left side by the end of the year: Batting left: .244/.402/.418 Batting right: .333/.387/.448 Don't get me wrong..he is always likely to be better batting right-handed. But I'm guessing that one of the things that will be remembered about Bradley this year is his struggle batting left-handed, and it likely won't end up being true (that's due partially to an absurd walk rate from the left side, but he also has had a lot more power from that side).

Hendry can say whatever the hell he wants. Miles was brought here to replace DeRosa. I would hardly call DeRosa a bench player. Sort of. Essentially, they tried to replace 1 complete player (DeRosa) with 2 flawed players (Fontenot+Miles). Fontenot was supposed to replace DeRosa as the starter at 2B and be the left-handed bat in the starting lineup against right-handers. Miles was supposed to replace DeRosa's versatility and ability to hit left-handers.

The Cubs saved $2.5m in the DeRosa to Miles shift, that did not make or break the Bradley acquisition. 3.3 million actually (5.5 for DeRosa, 2.2 for Miles) and depending on how you charge the signing bonus for Bradley, that could be as little as 1/3 of his contract for this year or more than 1/2 of his contract. But I tend to agree with you that getting more money for the Bradley deal was a concern but not a significant one. However, I don't agree at all that they signed Miles to get more left-handed. They signed Miles to replace the versatility of DeRosa and as a platoon partner for Fontenot. The fact that he switch hits was a distant third in the reasons for signing him. In fact, if Miles batted only from the left side, the Cubs probably wouldn't have signed him. You can not agree if you choose, but you'd be wrong. It's so freaking obvious, I don't understand the need to try and pretend it's not what happened. Bradley replaced Edmonds. Miles replaced DeRosa. The goal was to get more left handed and only one of those things got the team more left handed. The goal was to get more left-handed in order to build a better playoff lineup against right handed pitching. Fontenot would have replaced DeRosa in those situations, not Miles. The goal was to have 3 left-handers playing in the playoff lineup instead of just 2. That was why they traded DeRosa in the first place. Miles doesn't factor into that equation whatsoever. His signing was simply this..Hendry's quote when he signed: 3 questions: 1) Is Miles the choice if he only plays second base? Probably not, no. The Cubs were looking to find a player who was versatile so they could go with 12 pitchers and also keep Hoffpauir on the bench. 2) Is Miles the choice if he only bats left-handed? Probably not, no. The Cubs would have to find another second baseman who can hit left-handers since Fontenot clearly can't. 3) If Miles the choice if he only bats right-handed? Probably yes. The Cubs would have been disappointed, but Miles is still the best free agent option because he still can platoon with Fontenot and still allows freedom for building the rest of the bench. It just doesn't fit that Miles being left-handed was anything more than a side benefit. If DeRosa made a small amount of money and Hendry didn't feel that it was wrong to bench him, they probably would have kept him instead as a supersub and just let Fontenot start. Instead, DeRosa was traded and Miles was signed to try to replicate what DeRosa would have brought to the team in a bench role.

The Cubs saved $2.5m in the DeRosa to Miles shift, that did not make or break the Bradley acquisition. 3.3 million actually (5.5 for DeRosa, 2.2 for Miles) and depending on how you charge the signing bonus for Bradley, that could be as little as 1/3 of his contract for this year or more than 1/2 of his contract. But I tend to agree with you that getting more money for the Bradley deal was a concern but not a significant one. However, I don't agree at all that they signed Miles to get more left-handed. They signed Miles to replace the versatility of DeRosa and as a platoon partner for Fontenot. The fact that he switch hits was a distant third in the reasons for signing him. In fact, if Miles batted only from the left side, the Cubs probably wouldn't have signed him.

There really isn't that much difference either way. They could have saved a relatively small amount of money if they had let him go. There is no roster spot involved here as the team is going to expand to 40 tomorrow anyway, and the Cubs aren't likely to need yet another 40 man spot for the next month. It's keeping an extra arm for the month of September and a chance that the Cubs would want Heilman on their playoff roster if they somehow made it and he pitched well in September (both big ifs even with Heilman pitching better lately). So there is only a tiny potential benefit to keeping him for September, but if the Giants weren't offering anything there really isn't any risk either.

Maybe Vitters could help out The Chiefs in the playoffs. Hes not exactly thriving in Daytona. What would be the point of demoting him, especially for a week? To help the Chiefs through the playoffs. I dont know what kind of rules the minor leagues have as far as players being eligible for the playoffs, but he was huge for them in the first half. The development of Josh Vitters is far more important to the Cubs organization than whther or not the Chiefs win the MWL (besides, Jovan Rosa has done well at 3B for Peoria). Vitters would be better off with another week at high-A than 2 weeks down at Peoria. Is Rosa coming off the DL soon? I agree with you completely Raisin. The loss of a week of hitting high A pitching and the lost confidence of Vitters going into the offseason far outweighs the playoff games in Peoria even if Peoria had a huge hole at 3B. Which they don't..they've been doing just fine having Flaherty/Lake/LeMahieu share those 3 infield spots. Not moving a prospect up a level before the last week of the season because of a playoff chase is completely different than demoting a player just to get them in a playoff chase. The Cubs should never demote players for that reason.

Most of those players don't get back into the fold until training camp though. I can see why the Broncos didn't want to have that uncertainty with their QB situation and then potentially have to trade Cutler for even less than they did. Especially when he would be working with a new coaching staff that he was refusing to meet with. Still though, it's the Broncos fault in the first place. If they had wanted him, then they would never have tried to trade for Cassell, and Cutler would have had no reason for wanting a trade. The Broncos made a horrible mistake trying to get the player the coach wanted and it has backfired on them.

what was the HR power from Soriano? A deep foul? Yeah, he crushed a breaking ball that the wind+the ball hooking made it go foul.

If they trade Harden, does it have to be somebody who is not on a 40-man roster or somebody else who has passed through waivers? IIRC, yes. Although they can designate a 40 man player as a PTBNL and then complete the trade after the season when the waivers don't apply (that's assuming the player on the 40 man is in the minors or in the AL..if he is in the NL, that workaround cannot be used).

Oh, I'm sure they have the ok to do it. But I'm guessing the approval is that if you feel you can bunt for a hit, you can do it. Bradley has tried bunting more in a variety of situations lately. Lou is not a big sacrifice bunt guy, but the players have shown that they are encouraged to learn how to bunt for hits. The pitchers do it more than any other team in the league, and players like Kosuke, Theriot, and Bradley also try it from time to time.

Lou both wants enough power hitters in the middle spots and balance in the lineup. Fukudome at 5 accomplished both those things better than him at the number 1 spot. The Cubs actually only used that combination of Fukudome/Bradley twice (and of course with Lou's quick hook, it didn't help the case that the team scored a combined 3 runs in those 2 games). I have never agreed with him on this, but to Lou the integrity of the middle of the lineup is more important than the top or the bottom. The top and the bottom are then arranged as best as possible with the pieces that are left. I think it would still be a close decision either way if Soriano or Soto were hitting better. With them both struggling, it helps neutralize one of Kosuke's best assets (his walks) and makes him much more suited for leadoff on this particular team.

I tend to give players a long leash (so I'm not really supporting booing that early) but to be fair, that was after a miserable April for Bradley in all respects. He was hitting horribly. He got thrown out of a game for arguing. He didn't hit the DL in April despite only playing 1 full game in a 16 day period. He complained that the media was treating him unfairly and refused to talk to them for a day or two. Everything that could go wrong for Bradley did go wrong. The fact that the fans gave him a month showed that it was nothing like the Jones situation (where the fans booed him after 3-4 days). If it hadn't all come together in the first month, they might have given him a little bit longer. I do hope Bradley comes back next year though. He's regularly making solid contact now which is something he wasn't doing the first two months of the year. I think he would have a much better overall year next year.

Tennessee has a good shot at making the playoffs while Iowa doesn't. They aren't going to take a key player out of a playoff chase (and have to make a corresponding roster move with another player) just to give him 10-15 games with his new minor league club.

You have to offer arbitration to free agents if you want compensation picks if they sign elsewhere. What is the rationale for this? If you don't offer arbitration and free agents sign elsewhere, why don't you get compensation picks in that case? The rationale is that teams only get compensated if they actually want the player to come back. The team shows that they want the player by being willing to offer 1 year for a reasonable amount of money. This standard is similar to other leagues, although it takes very different forms (for example the NFL does restricted free agency with 3 levels of compensation. The more a team is willing to pay a player the more compensation they receive if they lose him.).

Yea of course. And its just a coincidence that they were on vacation to Detroit(since when is this a vacation spot?) where worldwide Wes is from. Completely coincidence. Is it really hard to believe that a kid from Chicago would travel to Detroit to watch a Detroit/Chicago playoff game? You have to register for the SAT's a month before the test. He wouldn't have known that there was going to be a playoff game there when he picked his site for the test. Even if he was able to change his site last minute (which I really don't think you can do)..do you really think he would take the time to change the site and make it a bad environment for trying to concentrate on the test that he badly needed just to go watch a playoff game? That's rather far-fetched. Edit: I found out. You can change the site with an additional fee no later than 2 1/2 weeks before the test date. The playoff schedule would still not have been set by this time. You can also try to plead your case for a later change if you go into the test center the day of, but I really doubt the "I went on vacation to watch a playoff game" would be an acceptable reason in order for him to take the test at a different site.