CubColtPacer

Nobody keeps numbers based on who is defined as the #1, etc..because on most teams, those definitions are pretty grey and can change throughout the season. However, if you want to talk about what a typical team gets out of their best performance pitcher that year, what they get out of their 2nd best performance pitcher, etc. there is that available, although the latest one I've found is a couple of years old. Here is the raw data: #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 3.60 4.14 4.58 5.10 6.24 But as the article explains, that can be misleading because of injuries. So he redid it based on how the top 6 starters to begin the year fared and came up with this as the average numbers: ERA GS IP #1 Starter 3.91 28.5 181.2 #2 Starter 4.61 26.6 165.7 #3 Starter 4.74 27.6 167.5 #4 Starter 4.82 20.8 123.4 #5 Starter 4.96 20.6 126.8 #6 Starter 4.77 15.5 95.1 That makes a lot more sense. As you can tell, pitching ERA's have inflated more than people would like to believe most of the time (which is why people are frequently surprised when Cubs rotations are near the top of the league every year even as they're calling the rotation a problem). At the same time, there's no way a #5 starter can maintain an over 6 ERA and keep his job, so the 4.96 number is a much more logical average. It's still not a foolproof way to look at rotations, but it will get you in the ballpark. http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/another-look-at-starting-rotations/

The NFL would have to redo their entire scheduling philosophy to redo the Super Bowl. Any random AFC team against an NFC team will happen only once every 4 years, so that particular matchup wouldn't be likely to happen unless it happens to hit one of those years. The NFL is in a little bit of a quandary here. As much as people complain about the Lions on Thanksgiving, it also is good business for the NFL to put bad games on Thanksgiving. Everybody is already watching anyway, so there is very little incentive to waste one of your best games that could get great ratings at a less desirable time slot.

Oklahoma got essentially the same thing. One less year of probation for Oklahoma, but otherwise almost exactly the same. Oklahoma and IU's situations were close to the same. IU gets hit with extra for hiring Sampson, but the committee found that Oklahoma got quite a bit of benefits from the phone calls (several players went to Oklahoma from all those extra calls, plus there were a lot more calls than at IU) while IU ended up getting almost no benefit from the cheating. I would have been fine with IU getting monetarily punished. They have already paid millions for this mistake, but I'm always in favor of a school getting punished with their pocketbooks, because that actually hits the people who authorized the mistake. Yeah, the APR thing is silly. IU took 2 additional scholarship reductions this year as a preemptive move with the APR. So they're down 3 scholarships this year, but they weren't that likely to need them.

You don't think Indiana got hit hard? well, technically they hit themselves with the self-imposed restrictions on recruiting and scholarships. the ncaa basically said that was good enough (plus 3 years probation). i believe those restrictions are still in effect on Crean until next summer or something. The self-imposed scholarship thing was a joke. Oh you've got 13 scholarships to fill in one year and you're only going to allow yourself to fill 12? IU's self-imposed restrictions were worthless. Those restrictions were put on the team when that scholarship was a major loss as were the recruiting restrictions. The fact that the team blew up after that, which made the scholarship issue a much smaller deal because they couldn't possibly fill them, shouldn't take away from that fact. The joke was that the NCAA rules allowed IU to take the APR penalty in advance this year, but the scholarship restriction in November was a huge deal. There's very little the NCAA could do here. The facts of the case were that the school has two things wrong. The fact that they hired him, and the fact that they got a small benefit from the illegal phone calls. In contrast, the school did many things right. Without the school self-reporting, none of this would have happened. Then the school imposed restrictions, and they did buy Sampson out (although credit for this is lessened significantly because they didn't do it immediately). Their compliance standards were actually found to be stricter than most schools, which was partially what enabled them to find the problem in the first place. If you put something like a postseason ban on IU, then you have no room to go up in punishment when a school pays players or does many other worse things than the violations they were found to be guilty of. You also have no incentive for imposing strict compliance standards, because if IU had been more lax in their compliance this isn't an issue at all. There's only so many penalties that the NCAA can give out especially major penalties. You have to save the worst of them for the worst offenders, and the facts of the case would indicate that is not IU.

I absolutely would rather have Blanco up there against a left-hander than Fontenot or Edmonds. 3 year splits against left-handers for each: Fontenot: .247/.305/.370 Edmonds: .169/.233/.293 Blanco: .287/.321/.420 Other than 2007 when he was playing with a major injury, Blanco has been better than a .700 OPS against left-handers every year since 2004. He had a .759 OPS against them in 2005, an .870 in 06, and .771 last year. The danger is that you lose Edmond's superior bat for the rest of the game. But if you're in the 8th or 9th facing a left-hander, Blanco is a much better option for that at-bat.

Isn't their draft spot safe due to finishing in the bottom half of the league (top 15 in the draft)? It really doesn't matter to them, except for Minny's comp pick pushing SF's picks down one spot. Being in the top 15 of the draft just means that the Giants will lose their 2nd round pick for Renteria instead of losing their 1st.

It was addressed on the previous page. The deadline is Dec. 1. Actually, that's a slightly different question. The Cubs have until December 1st to offer arbitration. If the Cubs do offer it, Wood has until December 7th to accept it.

They do have a deadline..December 1st is the last day the Cubs can offer arbitration to Wood.

Kind of disagree with this simply because of how much the North sucks. It won't happen anyways unless Texas Tech runs the table then loses the Big XII Title. Plus Florida would need to lose again, then beat Alabama in the SEC Champ Game. Well, I'm certainly not disagreeing with that. And it's highly doubtful to happen. But it would suck major ass if Mizzou finally won the conference championship but because of the strength of the Big 12 got left out of a BCS game. In any BCS selection rules I've read, the 3 teams rule doesn't come into play until after the title game and conference champions are both put in. I would be surprised if that would leave Missouri out in the cold (and if it did, that rule would immediately be changed to make sure it never happened again). But I really think that would be the one and only way for 3 teams to make it from one conference.

:banghead: I never understood what the big deal about this was. 1) If a team is in the top 8, they should be in a BCS bowl, considering there are 10 teams who make BCS bowls. 2) Notre Dame actually has a tougher road to automatic qualification than the minor conferences. 3) While Notre Dame cannot be excluded in the top 8 like other major conference non-champions, Notre Dame cannot sneak in during a bad conference year ranked 19th or 23nd like the likely Big East and ACC winners are right now. If Notre Dame joined the Big East right now, would their appearance in BCS bowls be more or less frequent using the conference rules to get in? Probably more. 4) Even if Notre Dame didn't automatically qualify, the bowls aren't going to pass them over anyway. That's the one time that it potentially could be a problem, although it hasn't really happened yet that a deserving eligible team got passed over for ND (at least according to my recollection) So conference teams will sometimes get left out if they have a great season, but will sometimes get in if they only have a good season. Notre Dame has to have a great season to get in, but they will always get in if they have a great season. There's advantages and disadvantages both ways.

PPR league, but to counterbalance it also has 1 point per every 5 carries for a RB. Pick 2 RB's, 2 recievers, and a RB/WR Portis, Addai, Forte, Andre Johnson, Bowe, Boldin. I just can't figure out who to bench this week.

NO NO NO! I'm sure it's nothing but speculation, but still. It depends if they are talking about a full-time starter or not. If the Cubs sign Furcal, they are very likely to not go after a RF. So that moves DeRosa to RF, which leaves Fontenot to play 2B. Fontenot's biggest problem is that he cannot hit left-handers, and sliding Theriot over to 2nd in a platoon with him handles that situation nicely. That leaves the lineup as: Against right-handers: Soriano, Furcal, Lee, Ramirez, Soto, DeRosa, Fontenot, Fukudome Against left-handers: Soriano, Furcal, Lee, Ramirez, Soto, DeRosa, Johnson, Theriot I doubt that happens, but mostly because I doubt the Cubs are unhappy enough with SS to spend big money on Furcal.

Anybody can beat Indiana this year. They are another mid-major team right now. Pretty good talent, but at the same time with severe deficiencies in size and not many unbelievable athletes. Don't get me wrong-I expect IU to beat most of the small schools on their schedule. But any of these schools can beat Indiana because IU can't dominate the paint like a normal major school can do.

The Cubs are already paying most of the cost of those backloaded deals as of this year. Our free agency players (excluding the arbitration players) received 16.15 million in raises from 08 to 09 (I'm counting each signing bonus in the first year, both in the past and with Dempster's contract). Those same players next year? (now counting Dempster) 4.225 million in raises. A huge difference. Between 2010 and 2011, the players under contract then actually go down by .15 million overall. So as you can see, most of the damage from backloading has already been paid. So unless another several hugely backloaded contracts come around, the Cubs payroll situation isn't really going to get much worse than it is right now, which the Cubs seem able to absorb at the moment.

Depending on how the signing bonus is divided up (and my guess is that it will be put on the accounting books for this year, especially with the ownership change) that is a pretty even deal without too much backloading. Interesting to see that it's actually a 3 year deal with a player option for a 4th.

I've got to wonder how much his bed crapping in the playoffs cost him. Soto not holding onto that tip might have cost Dempster 10 million dollars this offseason (not blaming Soto..just stating a possibility). The perception is completely different if that changed. But I think he might have gotten the same offer from the Cubs anyway..he just might have had to leave even more money on the table from another club.

We should be able to sign at least 2 more A/B free agents, and possibly more than that. It's hard to say for sure because the rules are interpreted in several different ways and hasn't ever really been officially clarified. I can't see the quota being a problem though..the Cubs will still be just fine signing another type A or two (if it be Wood, Howry, or anybody else).

Speaking of that, here's one unnamed executive who believes that Dempster will sign this deal: The rumor from this article is that the Yankees are prepared to offer Burnett 5 years, 80 million. http://www.nypost.com/seven/11182008/sports/yankees/yankees_prepare_a_j__offer_139209.htm

I still don't understand how he could not know this. It's not some obscure rule, like the one fumbled snap that was negated in Philly last year. Everybody knows NFL overtime is 1 15 minute sudden death period. And apparently he wasn't alone in that either. From the ESPN report: Just wow.

Apparently McNabb didn't know there were ties in the NFL until the last play of OT yesterday as shown by this video: http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/Donovan-McNabb-didn-t-know-that-NFL-games-could-?urn=nfl,122568

So the smart money would be on Hill being exposed to waivers some time before the season starts. I would have to think so. If I were placing odds, I'd say 50% that Hill is exposed to waivers, 35% that he gets a spot in the bullpen, and 15% that he wins a spot in the rotation. I'd say the chances are high for a minor trade involving Hill either in the winter or in Spring Training. The Cubs won't want to put him in the bullpen, but they won't want to expose him to waivers either. Someone will give a small amount of talent in order to make sure that they get him.

I certainly hope that isn't true. If it is, IU will have to get better with experience alone. Because they currently only have 1 total scholarship for 2 years from now, and 1 scholarship available 3 years from now. That's after next year where they've already oversigned by 1. The team they put on the floor next year is pretty much the team they will display for 3 years in a row. They'll have all the pieces next year. The question will be if they can grow up fast enough and if all the pieces will fit together next year. But their guards and forwards should both be strengths of next year's team. If the players are as advertised, they should be a tournament team (barring some bad preconference losses before they start to gel, which is certainly probable). But at the same time, with this many question marks, it's hard to tell how many of those players will not be nearly as good as they should be.

Hill has to make the 25 man roster this spring. Every person on the 40 man has to either use an option or pass through waivers to get to the minor leagues. Since Hill doesn't have any options, he would have to be exposed to waivers if he can't make the squad unless they found a way to keep him on the major league DL.

Kerry might have given the Cubs one hometown discount before the 07 season. That one is a little unclear. Last year's deal was certainly not a hometown discount. Kerry took the highest money per year deal that he could, and that was from the Cubs. Other teams were offering a 2nd year, but at dramatically lower money (and the Cubs incentives were attractive, as Kerry proved when he made double his contract this year). I would be very happy with Kerry accepting arbitration, but I don't think there's any way he will. He will take that multi-year deal from somebody else.

Defend not offering him arbitration. There is no defense for that. But there has been no indication that they won't offer him arbitration either. It will likely be a moot point anyway. Wood will likely sign before December 1st, and so the Cubs offering arbitration will be a formality.