CubColtPacer

I might have believed that before the season. But I really didn't expect Pritchard or Williams to be anything more than role players for their entire IU career. That would have left the freshman next year as the ones who would have to carry the team, which is way too much to expect of them. Pritchard has been a much better offensive player than I expected from the beginning of the year though, and Williams has really been flashing his skill the last few weeks. What they need now is to not be the only 2 players on the court who will shoot (frequently in the Penn State game it was those 2 and 3 others who won't even look at the basket). Add Watford, who I believe who will be a legitimate scorer from the beginning, and you have a pretty nice top 3 scoring threats. My projected starting lineup is also 6-4 (who was a post guy in high school and is a pretty good rebounder), 6-5, 6-8, 6-8, and 6-9. No giant players among them, but they aren't going to get outclassed size wise like they are on a regular basis this year. Also those 5 should be well above average defensively, especially on perimeter defense. The bench is solid in that scenario. Jones as your backup point guard is fine. Roth as a situational guy is absolutely fine. Dumes and Story getting a few minutes a game won't hurt you much at all. And then we'll see what they get from the other 4 recruits for next year, any of whom could join the rotation. They aren't going to be anything special. Poor 3 point shooting and no huge size advantages will make certain of that. But I have a hard time seeing why that lineup should not be projected as a low-tier tournament team next year.

Either next year or the year after. They get potentially 7 new bodies next year, so it really depends on how the team gels and how quickly. Their starting lineup for next year won't look anything like this year though: PG: Rivers SG: Williams SF: Watford PF: Elston C: Pritchard Backups: Dumes, Jones, Creek, Hulls, Miniru/Capobiano (one of these will be too raw and out of the rotation), Roth, Story Watford gives the team that 3rd scoring threat. Also that team will have a lot more height on the court than this year even if there still isn't a lot of heavy guys. Add to that a point guard with experience and most of the things that are killing IU this year will be different next year. They'll have plenty of depth so that the walkons who have been on the court a lot this year won't have to play. But that team will still be mostly filled with freshman and sophmores. My projected starting lineup has 3 freshman in it, and that's always a cause for worry. So depending on how mature they are when they get to the university, it will be either 09 or 10 (the only players IU loses after 09 are Dumes and Jobe, where their replacements will almost certainly be a collective upgrade).

How can you assume it was more watched because of the HFA thing? You did catch me there. I only have anecdotal evidence to back that up. I know many people including myself who have admitted they wouldn't have stayed up until 1:30 in the morning to watch an All-Star game without the allure of seeing which league won HFA. The interest on this site's game thread was incredible to the point where that is still the longest game thread on file even beating all the Cubs playoff games and Opening days (the site's archives go back 4 years). There was even a hatred of Dan Uggla that came out of the game that shows how many people were emotionally invested in the game, and that is something that was not happening for the most part in the 90's.

Really? I hate the idea. Alternating would be fine with me, whichever team had th best record in the regular season would also be nice. But the problem with the allstar game is that a team could potentially be screwed out of home field advantage by a pitcher - who is not on their team - giving up a run allowing the other team to win. Or in the case of last year, Dan Uggla forgetting how to play second base. It seems completely stupid to me to allow Uggla's craptastic inning/game to put a team for whom he does not play in any sort of advantage/disadvantage. And in alternating, your fate is tied to if it's an odd or even year. I'd rather it be decided by players on other teams than to have it be locked in to a particular league for absolutely no reason. Neither one has anything to do with what team actually deserves home field advantage, so might as well go with the one that provides a little bit of entertainment if they are the only two choices.

It's been 6 seasons now and shows no signs of stopping. Personally, I don't know why people would want to go back to alternating. At least the All-Star game method has the bonus of making the game slightly more exciting (it was much more watched last year than if it didn't mean anything) while alternating gives you no benefit at all that I can see. I'd of course much rather see them pick it by record of teams or who wins interleague play. But if those are out, I'd much rather see them keep the All-Star game thing going than go back to just alternating years.

Since the Pie thread is locked and I really don't think this deserves it's own thread, I'll throw this bit by Callis on Henry Williamson in here:

The story that was posted last page is one example, here's a quote from that article:

One reason that Dunn is getting so few offers is that he wants to play the OF. Some teams had interest in him as either a first baseman or DH, but Dunn wasn't particularly interested in that.

Probably Warner and Brady. Brady has 3 rings, which all but guarantees his enshrinement. His totals are still a bit off, but he should have multiple good years ahead of him. Warner has fewer postseason numbers, and only 1 ring (and 1 loss to Brady in the SB). Yup. QB A is Warner, QB B is Brady. Their postseason numbers actually aren't that different: Warner: 63.9%, 2991 yards, 23 TD/12 INT, 8.3 Y/A, 97.8 rating Brady: 62.5%, 3954 yards, 26 TD/12 INT, 6.6 Y/A, 88.0 rating I think winning the Super Bowl has to get Warner in if Brady is assumed in as of today (which I think is correct to do). Warner would have one less Superbowl win than Brady, but he also would have been the driving force behind both of his Superbowl teams, which it is questionable if Brady was or not. I think Warner's reputation has suffered though by the unique way his career has developed.

I'm not quite up on NFL rules, how much of his big rookie contract would we be responsible for with Leinart? If that's not a problem, I'd take a flier on him Both teams would be responsible for whatever is left on the deals, both teams would take cap hits related to the pro rated portion the signing bonus, I think. I'm pretty sure the team trading the player away takes the full hit on the bonus and them the team getting the player is responsible for the rest of the contract. That's what I was saying, I guess yours was more clear though. Leinert has been a pretty big disappointment for Arizona. I think Warner is still a solid year or two away from being Hall-worthy on his own, but multiple super bowls have a way of swaying voters. I see him staying in the league. If he was willing to come back at the relatively cheap price he signed for last year, I don't see why he wouldn't reap the benefits of one last contract. I think the Boldin injury thing is behind him. Someone posted an interesting comparison on another board: QB A: 65.4% comp, 28591 yards, 182 TD/114 INT, 8.0 Y/A, 93.8 QB rating QB B: 63.0% comp, 26446 yards, 197 TD/86 INT, 7.2 Y/A, 92.9 QB rating Both players have made it to multiple Super Bowls. Are both, just one, or neither Hall-worthy and why?

Dallas, Atlanta, San Diego. also Baltimore, Jets, Cleveland, San Fransisco at times, Miami at times, Denver possibly next year. BTW, the Texans are a 4-3 defense. Atlanta is also a 4-3. The Texans were a 3-4 when they first started though, right? I believe so. They converted about 3 years ago.

Dallas, Atlanta, San Diego. also Baltimore, Jets, Cleveland, San Fransisco at times, Miami at times, Denver possibly next year. BTW, the Texans are a 4-3 defense. Atlanta is also a 4-3.

Yeah. I think the dream scenario is that Wood comes out to get some work in the 3rd game of the series with the Cubs winning already. I'd hate to have him come out in a save situation.

Olson indeed has 1 option to use if they need it. I doubt he becomes the 5th starter after his dismal year last year. They'll likely either send him to AAA to start and wait for a pitching injury or let him acclimate to the majors in the bullpen. His upside is probably around Marquis (or maybe slightly better) but to get close to him this year would be a very nice step forward for Olson.

The early news out of Baltimore is that Pie will be the starting LF with Luke Scott moving to DH.

good deal for the Phils. Anyone know approximately what Hamels would get in arbitration? Seems like a steal for Philly. To compare, Z got 3.76, 6.5, and 12.4 in his arbitration years (none of the years actually went to arbitration but was settled in between the two figures each time). It saves probably somewhere between 5-7 million for Philly if Hamels stays really good. It's pretty much a meh deal though for both sides.

I'm kind of surprised he didn't get thrown out of the game there. That couldn't even be considered a heat of battle type of play. He just decided he would take the 15 yard penalty to get an easy shot at a QB on a running play.

Nothing to do with the west coast this time. These games are set in stone every year. they don't start until 3 because of the west coast. The ratings on the east coast are better at 3 and 6:30 than 1 and 4:30. It's also the reason why it's the 6:30 game that is the coveted one. The west coast certainly helps drive those times later, but they'd be around that time even if they were only trying to maximize the ratings on the east coast.

I doubt this is a signal that a Peavy move is in any way imminent because of no ownership change, but I'm sure that leaving the door open for a possible Peavy move was in Hendry's mind when he was deciding where to send Pie. If nothing else, Olson might step into that swingman role that Marshall might be vacating and become that second left-hander out of the pen. He also has 1 option left in case the Cubs need to use it.

Nothing to do with the west coast this time. These games are set in stone every year. It is kind of funny that with the way it shook out Arizona plays a game inside a dome at noon while the second game is in the freezing cold at night. But it's all TV ratings and these later starts are what's required to get them.

The host school would be pissing away tons of money for no reason. Neither has anything to benefit from playing a home game offsite. there are a crapload of Notre Dame alum in Chicago, that's all I'm saying There simply aren't enough seats. Even if they played it in Soldier, there aren't enough seats. But in Wrigley? It would be a horrific loss for either school. There are plenty of fans in Chicago to buy the tickets, but there just isn't the room. Now, ND is starting to schedule neutral site games across the country. But they aren't going to be the marquee matchups. Right now, they have neutral site matchups scheduled against Washington State, Arizona State, Army, Navy, and Baylor. They do have one game in Chicago against Army, but most of them are in very different areas of the country (San Antonio, Arlington, New Orleans, Orlando, Dublin)

Hendry doesn't get it. The problem wasn't Marquis, it was Marquis contract. He was a very good 4th or 5th starter but he was payed like #1 or #2. Sabathia 7 years, 161 million Burnett 5 years, 82.5 million Lowe 4 years, 60 million Dempster 4 years, 52 million Moyer 2 years, 13 million Silva 4 years, 48 million Eaton 3 years, 24.5 million Hernandez (Orlando) 2 years, 12 million Igawa 5 years, 46 million (including posting fee) Lilly 4 years, 40 million Marquis 3 years, 21 million Matsuzaka 6 years, 103 million (including posting fee) Meche 5 years, 55 million Mulder 2 years, 13 million Mussina 2 years, 23 million Padilla 3 years, 33.75 million Schmidt 3 years, 47.5 million Suppan 4 years, 42 million Williams (Woody) 2 years 12 million Zito 7 years, 126 million There is every multi-year starting pitching deal given in the past 3 years. Every player who was considered a possible #1 or #2 at the time he was signed (Sabathia, Burnett, Matzuzaka, Schmidt, Zito, and possibly Lilly) got a contract that was much different from the one of Marquis. Just think about that. The best comparable contracts to the ones of Marquis on the market today? Jamie Moyer, Adam Eaton, Mark Mulder, and Woody Williams. Is Marquis worse than that group? Absolutely not. Does spending money on average starting pitchers not make sense instead of dipping into the minor leagues? That argument has some merit as starting pitching gets a premium on the free agent market and the money might be able to be better spent in other areas. But as far as value on the market, Marquis was not overpaid. In fact, of the 20 contracts listed above, the one for Marquis will probably be ranked 6th or 7th when all is said and done for effectiveness. At the time of the contract Marquis was severely overpaid. He's still overpaid and now the Cubs will be paying him to pitch for someone else. How exactly was he severely overpaid at the time of the contract? It's easy to say, but when you look at the other contracts that were signed that same year the argument seems to fall apart. The biggest reason that the Cubs are paying him to pitch for someone else is because they backloaded the contract. They got a bargain in 07 and they had to pay that difference this year.

Hendry doesn't get it. The problem wasn't Marquis, it was Marquis contract. He was a very good 4th or 5th starter but he was payed like #1 or #2. Sabathia 7 years, 161 million Burnett 5 years, 82.5 million Lowe 4 years, 60 million Dempster 4 years, 52 million Moyer 2 years, 13 million Silva 4 years, 48 million Eaton 3 years, 24.5 million Hernandez (Orlando) 2 years, 12 million Igawa 5 years, 46 million (including posting fee) Lilly 4 years, 40 million Marquis 3 years, 21 million Matsuzaka 6 years, 103 million (including posting fee) Meche 5 years, 55 million Mulder 2 years, 13 million Mussina 2 years, 23 million Padilla 3 years, 33.75 million Schmidt 3 years, 47.5 million Suppan 4 years, 42 million Williams (Woody) 2 years 12 million Zito 7 years, 126 million There is every multi-year starting pitching deal given in the past 3 years. Every player who was considered a possible #1 or #2 at the time he was signed (Sabathia, Burnett, Matzuzaka, Schmidt, Zito, and possibly Lilly) got a contract that was much different from the one of Marquis. Just think about that. The best comparable contracts to the ones of Marquis on the market today? Jamie Moyer, Adam Eaton, Mark Mulder, and Woody Williams. Is Marquis worse than that group? Absolutely not. Does spending money on average starting pitchers not make sense instead of dipping into the minor leagues? That argument has some merit as starting pitching gets a premium on the free agent market and the money might be able to be better spent in other areas. But as far as value on the market, Marquis was not overpaid. In fact, of the 20 contracts listed above, the one for Marquis will probably be ranked 6th or 7th when all is said and done for effectiveness.

I can't imagine the Cubs preferring to have one guy who can backup 1B and one guy who can backup 2B/SS/3B. I just can't imagine this team operating with one backup middle infielder. It's very un Cubs like. Which is why it's possible that we actually might have a 6 man bench this season instead of 5. I believe the Cubs spent more time with 13 pitchers than 11 last year. When the team had 11 pitchers for about 2 1/2 weeks in 2007, Lou was in the media with a new quote every other day that the 12th pitcher would be back very soon. Plus, pretty much every MLB team is carrying 12 and sometimes 13 pitchers now. Of all the teams to possibly buck that trend and carry a 6 man bench, the Cubs under Lou are likely to be near the bottom of the list. Hoffpauir's best chance IMO is if the Cubs decide to go with one reserve OF, which they have done in the past. His second best chance is if they go with one middle IF, which they did for a while in 07 but they weren't thrilled about. His worst chance would probably be that they go without that 12th pitcher.

Really? How? Koyie Hill doesn't make the minimum salary. He made 85,000 more than the minimum last year. If he gets any kind of a raise this year (which he likely will as the minimum is going up again and he's a year older), it will likely be more than the Bako rumored contract or at least the same amount.