CubColtPacer

I'm sure they said that in '69. And in '84. And I remember how there was no possible way we'd lose both Games 6 and 7 at home with Prior and Wood starting. It's the Cubs. If there's a way to screw it up, they'll find it. The Cubs don't screw up any more than any other team, for Christ's sake. This losing stuff sucks, but give me a break, every single team around for any length of time has epic choke jobs in their history. I hate the "It's the Cubs" crap and would die happy if I never heard it again. Name me one other team, just one, that has blown it as many times as the Cubs have since 1969. I count 4: 69, 84, 2003, 2004. Are you serious? Completely. Go on, prove your point. Prove to me that history doesn't prove me right. The Red Sox. 1978, 1986, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003. All had either a 90% chance of making the playoffs during the season and didn't, or had a big lead in the playoffs and blew it.

Pretty much how I feel. With about half the combinations of hitters up/hitters due up, I'm ok with bunting the winning run over to 2nd. When your hitter is a better hitter than he is a bunter, that's an automatic non-bunt situation though. If Soto was good at laying down bunts, I wouldn't like the call but at least I'd understand it. That just didn't make much sense.

Counsell will reach on a gritty infield single, Kendall will homer. For his 2nd HR of the year? No way. Actually 3rd if he did it. It would be his 2nd of the night.

Well, they definitely have options now. They can cut him and bring up another player with his 40 man spot. They can DL him, and then sneak another player onto the playoff roster using his spot. Or, they could decide they don't need either of those things and do nothing. That wording of that sentence is really strange though. He returned home and "informed" the general manager that he couldn't pitch anymore? That screams that something is going on behind the scenes.

Timeouts, drops, mass confusion. It's not the Colts team I've seen for the last few years. But the Bears team that was rumored to come out wouldn't have been able to take advantage of those mistakes. This Bears team is a lot better than advertised. And that's pretty cool. I wish their coming out party didn't come at the expense of the Colts, but that's how it goes at times. It's much better on here when the Bears are good though, so I'm glad that it looks like they'll be very competitive this year.

They were going to try to catch the Bears with 12 men on the field. But the Colts should go for it here. Possessions are scarce, and the Colts have a good chance of picking up a 4th and 1. If you don't get it, you don't get it. But you can't meekly punt the ball away down 2 scores. Sure go ahead. GO FOR IT. That's fine. The math says to go for it every single time in that situation. 1st quarter, 4th quarter, it doesn't matter. Stupid play call though. If your math includes the "Bears offense sucks" factor, then may I suggest you recalculate? The better the offense (either yours or theirs), the more likely it should be that you should go for it. At the rate the Bears have moving tonight, that makes it a very obvious decision that the Colts had to go for it. OK. Just checking. I'm pretty sure disrespect for the Bears offense had something to do with that call though. Nah..probably not. It's actually the ultimate sign of respect to the other team's offense. It says that the Colts didn't feel like they could get the ball back quickly if they punted so they had to take a risk in order to keep the ball. It's the same philosophy as an onside kick. You do it because you don't think that you can stop the other team and force a 3 and out, so you have to risk field position in order to maintain possession.

They were going to try to catch the Bears with 12 men on the field. But the Colts should go for it here. Possessions are scarce, and the Colts have a good chance of picking up a 4th and 1. If you don't get it, you don't get it. But you can't meekly punt the ball away down 2 scores. Sure go ahead. GO FOR IT. That's fine. The math says to go for it every single time in that situation. 1st quarter, 4th quarter, it doesn't matter. Stupid play call though. If your math includes the "Bears offense sucks" factor, then may I suggest you recalculate? The better the offense (either yours or theirs), the more likely it should be that you should go for it. At the rate the Bears have moving tonight, that makes it a very obvious decision that the Colts had to go for it.

They were going to try to catch the Bears with 12 men on the field. But the Colts should go for it here. Possessions are scarce, and the Colts have a good chance of picking up a 4th and 1. If you don't get it, you don't get it. But you can't meekly punt the ball away down 2 scores. Sure go ahead. GO FOR IT. That's fine. The math says to go for it every single time in that situation. 1st quarter, 4th quarter, it doesn't matter. Stupid play call though.

They were going to try to catch the Bears with 12 men on the field. But the Colts should go for it here. Possessions are scarce, and the Colts have a good chance of picking up a 4th and 1. If you don't get it, you don't get it. But you can't meekly punt the ball away down 2 scores.

Looks like a Bears TD to me. Of course, it seems like it takes 23 steps and a jump at times the way they've done replays the last couple years for it to be a catch, but according to the rules this should be a catch and fumble.

I can't really tell on that side of the ball. The Colts offense has definitely shot themselves in the foot several times tonight, but the Bears have also made some good defensive plays. On the other side of the ball, I can tell you a little more definitively. The Bears offense is definitely better than reported. They played really well in the first half. They will never be a juggernaut, but they have weapons and can move the ball. That wasn't a Colts defense issue. The key is obviously turnovers for that offense, but they looked really good. Forte's ability to burst changes everything.

Are the rules different in the pros than in college? Last week, in the UCLA-Tennessee game, all the ball had to do was break the first part of the line to be in the field of play. It definitely did that.

That's what was ruled, but that's not why the play wasn't overturned. They "couldn't" overturn it because the refs stopped paying attention and therefore couldn't prove that the Bears recovered the ball. It was laziness with a hint of incompetence at best. That's what the announcers speculated was the reason the refs might have a problem overturning it, but all the ref said that the play stood as called. He could just as easily have been ruling that he was actually down by contact as anything to do with which team recovered. Many times on complicated plays like this, you hear the announcers go on and on about how the referee is checking this, when actually they ruled something completely different. I wouldn't base anything on what the announcers believe is the reason. No, they said they confirmed it with the replay official during the following break. Hmm..I didn't hear that. Wow. That is terrible. If there is no clear winner going into a scrum, then you award the ball to the person who comes out with the ball. That was clearly the Bears who came out with the ball. And Madden does it again..he says that last year they liked to play Gonzalez in the slot and Wayne on the outside. The Colts have been playing Wayne in the slot frequently on 3 WR formations for years. It's not any different this year.

One of the most ridiculous things John Madden has ever said. Everybody runs 3rd down draws against the Colts. That's been one of the absolute biggest weaknesses of the Colts defense over the last 5 years.

A ton have..but Forte looks great for you guys. Quick burst and good agility. He looks like a great draft pick.

That's what was ruled, but that's not why the play wasn't overturned. They "couldn't" overturn it because the refs stopped paying attention and therefore couldn't prove that the Bears recovered the ball. It was laziness with a hint of incompetence at best. That's what the announcers speculated was the reason the refs might have a problem overturning it, but all the ref said that the play stood as called. He could just as easily have been ruling that he was actually down by contact as anything to do with which team recovered. Many times on complicated plays like this, you hear the announcers go on and on about how the referee is checking this, when actually they ruled something completely different. I wouldn't base anything on what the announcers believe is the reason.

The only thing I can tell about that call that maybe the ref saw is that even though Roby tripped all by himself, when he fell down a Bear had one hand touching his back. As soon as Roby hits the ground with the Bear touching him, the play is dead..right before the fumble. It's a stupid rule to call that down by contact, but that's what the NFL rules say.

Trust me..it is. It got really loud in that stadium during the high school games a couple of weeks ago. And when the Colts fans are fired up (for any big game) they yell on every play. There is absolutely no piped in noise. Of course, if the Colts keep playing like this, the fans won't be yelling for long. That was a great run for Forte..I wish I had started him on my fantasy team today.

I think most people are watching the Bears play right now, which is why the interest in the minor league games are not as much as normal. From looking at the box though, Daytona's guys are looking great. Good hitting up and down the lineup, and Jackson dominating.

I know, I was waiting... if he shows before first pitch, mods can feel free to implode this thread and let him put one up. He won't be here in time today to make it. Laura did say that he will be ready to do it tomorrow with a win or a loss today. We'll just have to win it without him for a day.

"Blowing resources" implies that Roberts is a bad player and that anyone would have been able to predict that the Cubs would have been able to trade for Harden like they did AND that DeRosa would have a career year. No, it doesn't. The rumored offer was Gallagher/Veal/Ceda/Cedeno and one other (can't remember who...Patterson?) Trading your top 3 pitching prospects plus 2 others for a minimal upgrade at a position that doesn't need it is a waste of resources, especially when you consider that those parts would be needed later on to upgrade positions that actually need upgrading. Of course we didn't know we'd be able to get Harden, but I think it was pretty much understood around here that we needed another frontline starter and trading 5 guys for Roberts would hurt our chances of getting that done at any point during the season. The deal never got quite that hot. The original deal that people liked was Gallagher/Murton/Patterson. In December, when most of the discussion of the deal took place, the deal was Gallagher/Cedeno/Marshall. People were mostly ok with this deal, but not quite as happy as the first one. Then, it morphed into Gallagher/Cedeno/Murton/Veal,or sometimes instead Gallagher/Cedeno/Murton/Patterson. Those 2 deals received at best lukewarm support from the board. Some jumped ship then, and others stayed in but said absolutely no more. I remember the thought of 5 players, and Orioles fans wanting that, but I don't think there was a lot of serious consideration on this board for a deal of 5. As for the frontline starter, I don't think the need was as apparent as you make it sound during the offseason. Most people thought that Hill would make another step up and be that #2 starter. Lilly was fine as #3, Marquis is ok as a #4, and people thought one of Lieber/Dempster/Marshall could fill the #5 slot. The pitching was considered to be in a lot better of shape than the offense. It wasn't until the hot start by the offense and Hill blowing up for suddenly the need to shift very quickly to a frontline starter.

I'm pretty sure the people who were arguing that Roberts wasn't much of an upgrade over DeRosa were doing so because they saw Roberts as a question mark to put up big numbers. I'd love to see the posts where somebody thought that DeRosa would put up the season of his life, and so that's why Roberts wouldn't be a big upgrade. They might have been right in the level of the upgrade, but they were for absolutely the wrong reason. Of course, things magically worked out for the Cubs this year. But DeRosa would have had plenty of at-bats this year. In fact, the likely scenario is that after Pie busted out, Fukudome and Johnson would have likely platooned in center and DeRosa would have been the full-time RF at least until Soriano went down. Even with the way it played out, DeRosa has more than 200 AB's at a position other than 2nd base this year, and looking through the lineups I could easily find another 80-100 more that would have happened if Roberts were here (mostly when Soriano was out), and probably find even more than that if I took a 2nd look. Plus then you add in another 30 at-bats or so from 2nd base. He would have gotten 350 at-bats or so this year even if the Cubs had kept Fukudome in RF and acquired Edmonds, and more if they didn't. If the Cubs had traded for Roberts, we would have been saying how it was a really good move. Roberts is having a very good year. The people we would have traded for him are having bad years (with the exception of Gallagher, who has been fine for how young he is, but definitely a rocky year). It would have been one of Hendry's praised deals. The fact that everything has worked out to the absolute best case scenario (DeRosa has a year out of line with the rest of his career, Cubs pick up a great OF off the scrap heap, the Cubs manage to luck their way into a great trade that was almost universally labeled as a steal that couldn't have been predicted that they would have to pay so little, the Cubs backup second baseman also has an absolutely outstanding year getting some of the at-bats that DeRosa would have gotten off of the bench) shouldn't change that fact. It should make us happy we didn't do the deal of course. It's obviously worked out better for the Cubs this way. But that's not a reasonable way to evaluate a trade or a non-trade. Most of those were things that nobody predicted. A Roberts trade backer could come back and say the Cubs should have traded for Roberts using the original rumor (Rich Hill and Felix Pie). That would have only helped the 2008 Cubs and the future if they did that. It doesn't make it right though because the reasons for it being a good trade (Hill completely collapsing) weren't really predictable, and nobody did predict it. In the same way, DeRosa being so unbelievable and everything else wasn't able to be predicted either. Roberts has done exactly what the people who wanted to trade for him expected, and what the people who said he wasn't much of an upgrade said he wouldn't do. The other players in the trade also played badly just like the trade backers predicted. It's just that the rest of the puzzle changed dramatically and unexpectedly.

I think he's going to have a tough time finding work because of that. If the Cardinals are going to let him go after the year, they might be better served by him dropping to a B. Is any team really willing to give up 2 draft picks for a pitcher that sat on the free agent market for 6 months just last year? I think if he's an A, it will just end up that he accepts arbitration. Teams don't give up draft picks, do they? They just gain 2 picks in the supplemental round if they don't sign a type A free agent, correct? I mistyped it the first time. The team who signs the type A free agent does lose a draft pick, but only 1. If they are drafting in slots 16-30, then that team has to give up their 1st round pick to the team that lost him. If they draft in slots 1-15, then they give up a 2nd round pick. If they sign multiple type A's, then they give up the first eligible pick to the team with the highest rated type A they signed, then give up their next pick to the one after that, and so on. The team who loses him also receives a supplemental pick. This comes from MLB and not the league. So 1 pick from the other team, and 1 pick from MLB. The reason why I said the Cardinals might be better served to have Lohse be a type B is that if somebody signs a type B, the team that loses him gets a supplemental pick, but the team that signs him loses nothing. So there is no real risk in signing a type B player. But there is a significant price to pay for a type A player (either your first or second round pick). Teams have been more protective of their draft picks lately, and while they will be willing to give them up for players like C.C. Sabathia and Ben Sheets, they are much less likely to be willing to lose that to overpay Kyle Lohse.

I think he's going to have a tough time finding work because of that. If the Cardinals are going to let him go after the year, they might be better served by him dropping to a B. Is any team really willing to give up a high draft pick for a pitcher that sat on the free agent market for 6 months just last year? I think if he's an A, it will just end up that he accepts arbitration.

This is a tough choice. My gut says to lean towards Williams or Harrison. Perry is going to be sharing carries against the Ravens defense. Kevin Smith probably has the most upside of the 4, but I don't think his chance is high enough to reach that upside to risk starting him. I can tell you that every report out of Colts camp says that Harrison is still the same guy he always was. He's being severely underrated right now because of his age and the drama of how last season unfolded. I don't know if the Bears will respect him or Wayne more. Until the injury, Harrison was the one getting the double coverage still. It's close enough that I don't really want to give a pick for fear of bias interfering. It probably depends on how you feel Manning and Pennington are going to do week 1.