CubColtPacer

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.

I hate that they went this route too (specifically trading DeRosa) but you would have to throw in both the money saved and the 3 pitching prospects in order to get a fair comparison. I'd imagine they'd wind up saving ~1M. Probably the difference between whatever suckhole backup catcher we sign and Koyie Hill. Oh, and those prospects, unless they happened to be coveted by the Padres are garbage. Koyie Hill has a decent chance of making more money than whatever backup catcher we sign. We might actually save money by going with a different body there. And I don't see how you would get near a 1 mil difference unless you think Aurilia would get more than Miles this year, which I sincerely doubt.

I hate that they went this route too (specifically trading DeRosa) but you would have to throw in both the money saved and the 3 pitching prospects in order to get a fair comparison. The money saved isn't going to be all that much, if they sign Aurillia. I doubt he gets the minimum. And the pitchers aren't anything to rave about. I'm not assuming the minimum for Aurilia. If he signed for 1.2, the Cubs would save 2.7 million on that combo over the DeRosa/Cedeno combo. And I think it's more likely that he would come in under that 1.2 number than significantly over.

I hate that they went this route too (specifically trading DeRosa) but you would have to throw in both the money saved and the 3 pitching prospects in order to get a fair comparison.

Oh joy. What a terrible waste of a roster spot that would be. http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/chi-15-cubs-bits-chicagojan15,0,6211292.story I'd be a little scared about the role they had for him, but I don't mind him if he's just here to get a few spot starts at 1st and 3rd and come off the bench to hit left-handed pitching (which he is inconsistent with but still solid against). I think he fits onto this particular team a little better than Cedeno does. Cedeno's reverse splits really hurt him in a bench role because he's either the last guy off the bench against right-handed pitching or he gets sent up there against left-handers where he's terrible. Aurilia would actually get used in pinch-hitting situations where he could be moderately successful, and I'd rather have him get those starts at 3B than Miles. He did well last year, but was pathetic the year before. I don't think you can say he's still solid against RHP. He could just as easily do as poorly as he did in 2007. The problem I see is this leaves Miles as the only legit backup at either middle infield position*. Aurillia really can't play those spots. Cedeno can backup SS, and while he's probably not going to add much, if any offense, he could do as much as Aurillia. *Furthermore, it leaves the Cubs with no quality defensive SS on the team. That of course assumes that both Cedeno is a quality defensive SS (which is still highly debated) and that the Cubs would choose to play Cedeno over Miles when Theriot needs a break (which IMO is highly doubtful). Cedeno would likely only get a handful of starts all year long. Only having Miles and Fontenot to back up SS is a little scary though. As for Aurilia hitting LHP, he has been outstanding against them 2 out of the last 3 years and was decent against them the year before that. He definitely could hit like he did in 2007..when you are talking about a sample of 130 at-bats, those type of fluctuations are to be expected. But he has a greater than average chance of being at least decent against them, which is a lot better than most of our bench can say.

Oh joy. What a terrible waste of a roster spot that would be. http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/chi-15-cubs-bits-chicagojan15,0,6211292.story I'd be a little scared about the role they had for him, but I don't mind him if he's just here to get a few spot starts at 1st and 3rd and come off the bench to hit left-handed pitching (which he is inconsistent with but still solid against). I think he fits onto this particular team a little better than Cedeno does. Cedeno's reverse splits really hurt him in a bench role because he's either the last guy off the bench against right-handed pitching or he gets sent up there against left-handers where he's terrible. Aurilia would actually get used in pinch-hitting situations where he could be moderately successful, and I'd rather have him get those starts at 3B than Miles.

It's too bad that Soriano has that NTC, otherwise I'd love to see this 3 way deal: Baltimore gets Michael Young and Felix Pie Texas gets Alfonso Soriano Cubs get Brian Roberts and Garrett Olson Baltimore can afford the contract and aren't they in dire need of a SS? Texas must be able to afford the contract, since Young's contract practically mirrors Soriano's. Cubs sign Roberts to an extension and then include Olson in a deal for Peavy. There's just this one slight problem. Soriano's NTC. Baltimore wants a defense first SS which is why they signed Izturis. They'd love to find a defense first SS that could also hit, but I doubt they'd be interested in Young even if the Rangers were willing to give him away. Plus MacPhail does not like big contracts like that especially to players who do not fit the skill set he likes. At the least, they certainly wouldn't flip Roberts for Young. They'd much rather take the draft picks after Roberts plays another year and build from within if they can't find a great deal for him.

wha? you serious? hahahaha Looking at the Superbowl winners from the last 10 years or so what I see are teams that were, for the most part, offense first. The Patriot teams that won did so because of Tom Brady and the offense. The Colts won because of Manning. The Rams, The Broncos and I'd say even the Steelers won because they had a good offense. On the other side of the coin there's the Ravens and last year's Giants. The Ravens are an extreme example of absolute domination on one side of the ball, much like the Superbowl XX Bears. The Giants, though they did have a very good defense, don't win without strong play from Eli Manning. To be fair, the 01 Patriots won because of defense and special teams. In fact, they scored 6 TD's in those 3 playoff games-3 by the offense, and 3 by defense/special teams. If I had to put the teams of the last 10 years into categories, I'd put them like this: Defense Oriented with Terrible Offense 2000 Ravens Defense Oriented with Subpar offense 2001 Patriots Defense Oriented with Offense that makes enough plays to win 2002 Buccaneers 2003 Patriots (12th on offense, 1st on defense during the season) 2005 Steelers (getting close to balanced here) 2007 Giants (they honestly were mediocre on both sides of the ball during the season. I threw them in this category because of when they changed identities in the playoffs, it was more to a defense oriented team who didn't give up more than 20 points in any playoff game, and of course what they did in the Super Bowl). Balanced Teams 2004 Patriots Offense Oriented with Defense that makes enough plays to win 1997 Broncos 1998 Broncos 1999 Rams Offense Oriented with defense that showed up out of nowhere in playoffs: 2006 Indianapolis Colts I do agree though that it is very hard to build a ball control team and win the Super Bowl because it's so hard to win 3-4 close games in a row in the playoffs. The early Patriot teams and Steelers team calling card was defense, but their coaches trusted their offense to make plays when it needed to make them. Even with a ball control offense you need a passing game that if you get behind by 10 points can bring you back against a good team without the help of the running game. The 2000 Ravens were the only recent team who couldn't do that, but they were a huge aberration.

How do you get to the conclusion that DeRosa playing multiple positions showed that they weren't comfortable with him at 2nd? DeRosa playing multiple positions was purely a function of how the Cubs built their bench over the last two years. They had 5 bench players. 1) A hitting 1st baseman who is incredibly poor at any other position (Ward/Hoffpauir) 2) A platoon CF that hits left-handers (Pagan/Johnson) 3) A backup SS (Izturis and Cedeno) 4) A backup C (Blanco/Hill/Soto/everyone else in 07) 5) A backup second baseman (Fontenot) As you can see, the Cubs had no options on the bench to legitimately backup either corner OF or 3B. They moved DeRosa to other positions because that got one of their best bench hitters into the lineup and their only other legitimate hitter on the bench couldn't play defense. I also don't see how it cost the Cubs runs. Are you saying that having Cedeno play 3B when Ramirez goes down, Johnson/Pie playing LF or RF last year, and DeRosa playing 2nd would have been better than DeRosa playing those positions and Fontenot playing 2nd? It cost them runs by having him play out of position. DeRosa is not an outfielder. But I really have no idea how Hendry or Lou think. It makes little sense to me to value "versatility" I also don't think that Fontenot is going to hit enough to be an every day player and by June Miles will be starting and they'll be in the market for a 2nd baseman, but that remains to be seen. His reputation and defensive metrics both indicate that DeRosa was an average OF defensively. Just because that's not the position he was slotted into originally doesn't mean he can't play it. And even if DeRosa was below average defensively, the Cubs gained a lot at the plate by having him move around the last 2 years. They consistently got the best hitters they had into the lineup. Isn't that offensive advantage worth one player defensively, especially when the Cubs didn't exactly have other good options there? As for versatility, I thought the Cubs did right with it last year. If you can find a productive versatile player, that means that you can structure the rest of your team to fit the holes. The Cubs last year were one of the least versatile teams you will ever see. Their bench was filled with specialists, people who did one thing well and didn't fit into anything but very specific roles. The Cubs were able to hide the weaknesses of many of their players last year, and DeRosa played a huge role in that. If Miles being on the team allows the Cubs to keep Hoffpauir, then his versatility will also provide a little bit of value. Even then though, the versatility of Miles is mostly wasted because he's not a productive player. It doesn't do you much good to be versatile when you only provide any value at 1-2 of the positions you play. As for Fontenot, I think he has a good shot at being average (.740-.750 OPS) even if he isn't going to be special.