CubColtPacer

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.

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?

Good luck Tony. It's been a wonderful run. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3827058

He wants more lefties in the lineup and with Soto, Soriano, Lee, Aramis and Theriot entrenched at their positions, 2b is one of the few spots where he can do that. I'm not saying I agree with it, but that is his rationale. I could be hallucinating, but I seem to remember Hendry saying this exact thing, before Derosa was traded (or was it someone attributing it to Hendry?). So I was not in the least bit surprised when he was traded. It was guaranteed. He did say that, but the extra lefty in the lineup is Bradley in LF and Fontenot at 2B instead of DeRosa in LF and Fontenot at 2B. It has nothing to do with Miles. From everything I have seen Miles was brought here to play against RH, as an insurance policy in case Fontenot can't handle the more regular playing time and to replace some of the versatility DeRosa had in his ability to play so many different positions. Bradley is not an extra LH bat. The Cubs had Fukudome and Edmonds in the OF last year. They aren't anymore lefthanded by adding Bradley while losing Edmonds. And how much of an increase in PA do people think Fontenot is going to get? He was already up near 300 PA last year. I see very little chance for him to get past 400-450. Taking DeRosa out and adding Miles is what the Cubs have done to become more left handed than they were last year. Looking at other platoon players around the league, it doesn't look like 450 plate appearances for Fontenot is out of line in the slightest. That's 165 more plate appearances from the left side than last year. Do you really think Miles will get more than 165 plate appearances as a left-handed batter? I don't know where all those will be coming from. He'll get a few random starts at 2B against a right-handed pitcher, possibly a few at SS, and a few at third. Almost certainly not enough to hit the 165 mark. And the whole point of this left-handed obsession by Hendry is that the Cubs were supposedly not left-handed enough in the playoffs. The Cubs playoff lineups only had 2 left-handers in the starting lineup each game. This years version has 3. That is why Fontenot is the key component and not Miles, because this year in the playoffs both Fontenot and Fukudome will be starting instead of just 1 of them.

I've only seen Leftwich once this season, and that was last night. And he threw a laser that should have been hauled in. I was impressed, though it was only a single pass of course. Orton hasn't thrown a ball like that...that's for sure. Leftwich has a great arm. The problem with him has always been twofold. He always throws a laser beam, no matter if the receiver is 2 or 20 yards away from him. That led to a lot of busted screen plays when the RB's would drop the ball that was hammered into their chest. Second, he has a very long throwing motion. So that means he fumbles quite a bit more than the average QB and also tends to take some terrible sacks.

I can tell you that this call was correct dew. He had gotten his right foot down to start, but he was bobbling the ball. By the time he caught it, his right foot clearly came down out of bounds. One angle showed it quite conclusively. My guess is that they didn't show that angle at the stadium. I'm sorry that you had your first Titans game experience go that way. I'm glad you had a good time anyway.

Was it all FT's? I was following this one on Gamecast, and they had it as a putback off a missed 3 and the foul with 1 second left in the second OT. They finished the 3 point play to tie the game.

Trading DeRosa was more about making room for Aaron Miles than saving money. Hendry's absurd infatuation with left handedness over actual production is what motivated him on that move. That's a pretty ridiculous suggestion. There's no way the Cubs traded away Derosa because they wanted Aaron Miles that badly. The Cubs saved money from trading Derosa, and didn't use it all on Miles. They clearly did it to free money for a starting pitcher. They saved $2m. That will barely help in the search of a pitcher. The primary motivation was getting more lefthanded, which they accomplished by replacing DeRosa with Miles. Bradley replaces Edmonds, they aren't getting more LH that way. The #1 goal of Hendry this offseason has been to get more LH, and the only way they've done that is by replacing DeRosa with Miles. You are naive if you think my statement is ridiculous. 3.3 million, and even if DeRosa was traded to get more LH that would be because they have confidence in Fontenot, not Miles. It sounds like Miles is going to get most of his starts when he is batting from the right side.

Actually, everyone has won one more recently than the Cubs. :mrgreen: Not true. Nobody has waited as long as the Cubs, but the Padres, Astros, Brewers, Mariners, Rangers, Nationals, Rockies, and Rays have not won more recently than the Cubs because they have never won a WS.

Above average. He's way too aggressive to try to get turnovers at times (just like the rest of his game) which leads to some breakdowns, but he has quick hands and good awareness on the court.

Prichard is their best player. Dumes is an out of control guard, he's not much of a loss on his own, but if he can't come back today, their already shallow depth is gonna be a real problem. Bruce won't run up the score. He has no beef with Crean. Dumes is not a good player. If I were starting a championship caliber team, he'd probably be the 5th or 6th player on IU I'd pick (Pritchard, Williams, Story, Roth would be my top 4). But Dumes is hugely important to this IU team. He's the guy IU turns to when in shot clock jams. He's the only person who can get Roth open by breaking down the defense on the pick and roll play they like to run. He shoots low percentage shots, but he hits enough of them to often be better than any other type of offense IU can run. This team needs him badly. The first half was about 1/4 Illinois playing well (good 3 point shooting), 1/4 Indiana playing poorly (Dumes being out, missing several 2 footers), and 1/2 Illinois just being a whole lot better than IU.

I don't think Edmonds would have taken a bench role, and even if he considered a bench role it likely wouldn't be with the team who wouldn't offer him a starting spot after he performed so well. Plus I could see it being a disaster PR wise. If Edmonds is on the team, it's going to be really hard for fans to see that Fukudome, who was getting booed for large parts of the 2nd half of the year, should be the starter over Edmonds. And honestly for 2009 he probably shouldn't. But the Cubs have to start Fukudome for the purposes of 2010 and 2011 and so Edmonds really couldn't be a part of the team. I don't know. I think Jim knows his limitations at this stage. I think there would have been plenty of ABs for him between the 3 OFs missing time. I'd rather those ABs go to Edmonds than Miles, Hoffpauir or Gathright. He would save the Cubs having to play Aaron Miles ever in the OF. He doesn't effect the playing time of Johnson, who would still play vs. all LHPs. Edmonds could also get time at 1B to rest DLee. Oh, I definitely see the advantages of having Edmonds on the team from a baseball perspective. And I think there would have been a decent amount of at-bats for him. I just have a very hard time seeing Edmonds and the fans being convinced of that. If this rumor is legitimate at all, I think it shows how much Edmonds wants to start somewhere if he's even considering to both go to the Orioles and change positions (although that can only be implied since the article is written from the side of the Orioles).

I don't think Edmonds would have taken a bench role, and even if he considered a bench role it likely wouldn't be with the team who wouldn't offer him a starting spot after he performed so well. Plus I could see it being a disaster PR wise. If Edmonds is on the team, it's going to be really hard for fans to see that Fukudome, who was getting booed for large parts of the 2nd half of the year, should be the starter over Edmonds. And honestly for 2009 he probably shouldn't. But the Cubs have to start Fukudome for the purposes of 2010 and 2011 and so Edmonds really couldn't be a part of the team.

they won 3 of the 8 games you listed above. Actually, they won 4 (Philadelphia, New York, Sacramento, Phoenix) They've been a lot better the last week and a half, but that has been a sharp departure from the rest of the season. They've already lost all 4 OT games they have played this year and have a losing record in close games that are decided in regulation. When you've already played between 15-20 games that are decided by a possession, you think you could win more than 35 percent of those games.

That makes two of us. I hate WGN. it's the worst. any news on whether WGN America is going HD this year? What a joke that station is. WGN America went HD a little over a year ago. Currently Dish Network, U-Verse, and Fios have it. I'm not sure about anybody else, although I'm pretty sure that DirectTV is one of the ones that doesn't have it yet.

The Pacers are hilarious. Just since December 20th, they've had games that look like this: Philadelphia: T.J. Ford hits jumper with 3.9 seconds left, Pacers win by 1 New Jersey: Devin Harris hits jumper at buzzer, Pacers lose by 1 Memphis: Pacers miss a 3 pointer at the buzzer and lose by 3 New Orleans: David West hits a 17 footer with 2.5 seconds left, Pacers lose by 2 New York: Jarrett Jack hits jumper with 0.9 seconds left, Pacers win by 2 Sacramento: Kevin Martin, who had 45 points that night, misses 2 different 3 pointers with 15 seconds left that would have tied the game. Phoenix: Danny Granger makes 3 pointer at buzzer, Pacers win by 3 Lakers: Kobe makes jumper with 3.9 seconds left, Pacers lose by 2 If I went further back in the season, I could find at least half a dozen more. I'm not sure if it's good or bad that they play so competitively and yet lose so much. But I've never seen a team like this that might as well just play the last minute of a game because the first 47 don't seem to matter.

2 bench spots are already filled by two backup middle IF's (Miles and Cedeno, or possibly another guy if Cedeno is traded). Then you have Reed Johnson and your backup catcher (Bako/Hill) as two others. That makes the final bench spot up for grabs among Pie, Gathright, and Hoffpauir. Only 1 of those 3 can really make the squad. I'd lean towards Hoffpauir for that final spot, but I'm not sure the club is thinking the same way.

So Marquis's contract ends up being 16 million for 2 years of Marquis and 1 year of Vizcaino. That ended up being a decent contract..certainly not one that Hendry will (or should) ever get praised for, but it was still one of the better pitching contracts of the last 3 years. It could become better if they are willing to dump Vizcaino if he struggles, but I'm not sure that will happen.

[puts on tin-foil hat] The powers that be in MLB and the govt. made sure that Cuban wouldn't own a baseball team.[takes off tin-foil hat] But seriously, the timing of the decision to move forward with his insider trading allegation is really suspicious. I don't think you're in "tin foil hat" territory with that one. That seems to be exactly what happened, and I don't think they would be apologetic about it. And they forced Cuban to write a long blog entry about how he voluntarily pulled out because of credit concerns? I might consider believing it if Cuban hadn't come right out and told us why he is no longer in the bidding, and it had absolutely nothing to do with the Cubs or anybody else forcing him out.

Bako is going to essentially make major league minimum. It doesn't cost them anything more to have Bako be on the major league squad and Hill on Iowa then to have Hill on the major league squad and another minor league player on the 40 man. It doesn't cost them anything in terms of dollars, but it's a roster spot filled by a horrible player. He asked why not just go with Koyie Hill. He already was assuming the Cubs would go cheap and really bad in that spot. If the Cubs wanted quality for their backup catcher, they should have accepted Blanco's option. Instead, they decided to go cheap for their catcher. There is no real difference between Hill and Bako. They are going to get paid about the same amount (in fact, the payroll estimate thread would say that Hill would make slightly more if he makes the team than Bako would if he does) and they have about the same skills.

Bako is going to essentially make major league minimum. It doesn't cost them anything more to have Bako be on the major league squad and Hill on Iowa then to have Hill on the major league squad and another minor league player on the 40 man.

I agree. It seems he caught the Texas lightning in a bottle. He'll be fairly productive when he's healthy, but probably not nearly as good as he was last year. Anyone else sick to their stomachs knowing that we now have approximately $70 million tied up in Fukudome & Bradley for the next 3 years? Due to contracts, our offense will remain nearly exactly the same for the next 3 years. It better be good again. The offense could potentially change dramatically after 2010 with Lee and Ramirez likely both becoming free agents (if Ramirez does the expected and uses his out clause). I would agree that the rest of the core will stay the same unless either Fontenot or Theriot flops in which case the Cubs would likely try to find the money to upgrade one of those 2 spots. But if neither one of them flop dramatically, this should be a very good offense so there will be no problem taking the same offense into 2010.