CubColtPacer

Are you asking me this question? Where did I say that? You said it was in the best interest of both parties to come to an agreement. How is it in the best interest of Santana to compromise with the Mets?

Uh, there's been at least 3 IU fans just in the last page say that IU is a deeply flawed team. How is that arrogant or delusional? I do think IU basketball fans can be very arrogant at times, but that was the wrong time to put that comment in. Most of the posts lately about IU have been anything but arrogant.

I only see one sucker lined up. As for examples, the Renteria one is one that clearly showed this is a stupid deal. Renteria has produced offense at a greater rate than Roberts the last two years. He plays shortstop, a more important position, shortstop vs. second base is like comparing left field vs. center field, and Renteria wasn't caught lying about using steroids. This is crap. You know damn well if a Cubs player was caught using steroids we'd have to sell him for a quarter of the price. But Roberts, no, it's supposed to be like nothing happened, and our price is so fair, no other GM wants to get in on a deal for this magnificent, magnificent player? No way. Look at what the Twins traded originally to get Luis Castillo. Roberts' package = way more. Second base offense does not come at a premium. If you look at what All-Star 2b have been traded for lately, it's nothing like the Roberts' deals. Why don't we factor in Roberts' 2nd half was more like his career numbers, like people do with Eric Byrnes's 2007? This is stupid. There is no reason to trade more for a lesser player at a lesser position. I would argue that the Renteria trade is a huge outlier from what is expected. Renteria was one of the best SS's in the league last year, and is only signed for 1 more season (with an option that supposedly Boston has to pay the buyout if it's declined). The Braves accepted almost nothing for him, and also agreed to pay a 1 million dollar bonus and part of Renteria's salary in 2008. Could the Braves have recieved better offers? Certainly they could have. And yet they made this deal just 24 hours after the World Series ended. That deal cannot set market value, because it screams that Atlanta had to desperately get Renteria off their roster immediately for some strange unknown reason. There's really no other explanation for why a SS that they refused to trade 2 months earlier for the starting pitcher they desperately needed to make the playoffs would suddenly be dumped for nothing, and in a huge rush to do it too. The Luis Castillo trade? I agree with you that the Twins gave up certainly less than what the Cubs did. They traded a good relief prospect and a live arm starter who was trying to harness control problems. At the same time, Castillo never approached what Roberts did 2 of the last 3 seasons (and Roberts was hurt most of 2006). Plus, Castillo was the last piece of a firesale in which the Marlins had to get rid of him whether they got good prospects back or not. As for your other points, they are fair points that I don't have the energy to address at this time of the morning. I don't disagree with much of it other than the conclusion, and the fact that the Cubs are the only team after Roberts (the Indians have also tried to push their way in a couple of times). In your mind, what would be fair value for Roberts? The Orioles aren't desperate to give him away, so the Cubs don't have that working for them. They're going to have to pay full price if they want to get him. So what's a fair full price?

I know why - because Hendry is the only one who will pay such a ridiculous price for Roberts. I noticed you mentioned comparables at second base that were traded that got worse packages. Can you help me figure out who those are? Second basemen who have had one great year, one very good year, and one average year over the last 3? Second basemen who still have 2 years left on their contract at a reasonable rate? Second basemen who are in the late prime of their career? Now I don't want for you to read the last paragraph and think that I believe that Roberts is this amazing player. He's not. Quality 2nd basemen at this stage of their career just don't get traded very often though, and I'm having a hard time finding any comparable situation for the Roberts deal within the last 5 years, let alone the last 3 years. Maybe I'm missing some obvious ones, but I just can't find any.

I agree with pretty much all of this. However, I don't think the 3rd scorer is a huge problem. The problem, at least personnel-wise, lies at the PF position next to D.J. The Stemler-Thomas-Mike White triumvirate is an absolute zero. I definitely agree with that. Those 3 haven't played much offense or defense lately. I was screaming for them to get Mike White out of the game early, as they were just exploiting him time after time. Stemler was a little better, but he got dominated on the boards way too easily and couldn't hit more than 1 open 3 pointer out of the few he took. You're right that those 3 are probably the main problem. Teams can collapse on any Gordon drive because they know that Mike White may not catch the pass, and if he does he probably can't hit a layup.

It probably would, although it does deprive the Cubs of pretty much their 2 CF prospects in the entire system, and the Orioles really don't have a need for either one of them, let alone both. Gallagher would have to be pretty special to prefer the Cubs resort to finding stopgaps to play in CF for the next 5 years. I love Gallagher's potential and put him right up there with Pie now as far as value, but he's the more expendable piece if we have to give up one of them. I have to imagine the O's will want pitching first and foremost, especially after dealing Bedard. Well, the Orioles could actually use some positional prospects. They're getting 4 pitchers back in the Bedard deal, and they already have some young pitching. Of course they always will take back pitching, which is why they want Gallagher. What they really could use is some good infield prospects, especially middle infield. The Cubs don't necessarily have that, but they may have pieces that the Orioles can flip later for what they need. Murton may be useful to them as a 1 season piece that they then trade. Patterson is useful if they think he can handle second. Most of the other players the Cubs could potentially be offering aren't very useful to the Orioles.

It probably would, although it does deprive the Cubs of pretty much their 2 CF prospects in the entire system, and the Orioles really don't have a need for either one of them, let alone both. Gallagher would have to be pretty special to prefer the Cubs resort to finding stopgaps to play in CF for the next 5 years. I love Gallagher's potential and put him right up there with Pie now as far as value, but he's the more expendable piece if we have to give up one of them.

I'm very torn on the IU-Wisconsin game. I was hopeful for this game, but I had this as the absolute most certain loss from the beginning of the season. At the same time, I'm very frustrated at how they played for most of the night. IU's going to be a very hard team to project come tournament time. If Gordon is hitting the outside shot early, nobody can guard him and IU is incredibly dangerous. If he's not, they'll be lucky to make the Sweet 16, and could have trouble in the 1st round depending on what seed they get. IU needs to learn and grow from these last 2 games, but I'm not sure they'll ever shake the inconsistency. They just don't have that 3rd scorer they can reliably count on, and I doubt at this point of the season that the 3rd scorer will magically show up.

Nowhere that I know of. It's too bad, I was really hoping he would make it to 50 playing. Maybe somebody will pick him up for the stretch run and make that happen.

Someone on Orioles Hangout said that Pie wasn't in the deal. I think he had a source too, but I'm too lazy to check. If it was 2 for 1 without Pie, maybe its Gallagher/Colvin. It was a Cubs fan, and apparently it was Rosnethal who said that last night. Oh, that was me. And yes, I have heard something from somebody I trust that said Pie wasn't involved. But he was going out on a limb based on what he had heard. It's one of those ugly friend-of-a-friend-who-is-close-to-a-guy things. Nah, you're still RobH over there right? This is from JimboHendry, who said that he heard it from Rosenthal on Comcast last night.

Someone on Orioles Hangout said that Pie wasn't in the deal. I think he had a source too, but I'm too lazy to check. If it was 2 for 1 without Pie, maybe its Gallagher/Colvin. It was a Cubs fan, and apparently it was Rosnethal who said that last night. I honestly don't know why they would want Pie or Colvin. They can't get full value from them, because their only OF position left open is LF, and even that has Luke Scott already in it. At the same time, if it truly is a 2 for 1 with Pie not being involved, Gallagher/Colvin is the only deal that makes sense. To me, it would fit the Orioles needs better to take either Murton, Patterson/Thomas (Thomas as a PTBNL), Cedeno, or Ceda. Those seem to be the guys who fit in the Orioles areas of need and are young enough to maybe be around when the rebuilding is complete. Who knows what their exact plan is though, I'm not even sure they know.

Apparently Rosenthal said the Cubs/Orioles deal was only a 2 for 1 deal. That's not good news.

25 million for a pitcher? I'll probably be 6/110 when it's all said and done. I don't know why Santana would agree to 6/110. Some team will be desperate enough and pay more for him next year.

He is tenacious on defense. He also has teeth that would make Gary Busey jealous. I really think that E'Twaun Moore will be the type of kid who has a good frosh year then will explode by at least his junior year. That kid is oozing talent. I've been more and more impressed with both Moore and Hummel as the season has gone by. There's no question that Moore is an incredible shooter. I was really high on Martin early in the year, but he's been very inconsistent and can't seem to stay out of foul trouble. A freshman in the big ten is going to be in foul trouble if they get to play. our refs are easily the worst in america. Not IDKWTI. I don't think Tisdale, Davis, McCamey is that far off as a whole compared to McClain/Bradford. Unless you were talking about ability right now. As far as potential, I think I'll take this year's class(including Legion) over that one. Of course I'm an unabashed optimist. Still. Gordon got 3 fouls in the first half in both the Michigan and Minnesota games (2 in the first 2 1/2 minutes against Minnesota) and 2 in the first half of the Iowa game. He's been in foul trouble a lot more since Big 10 conference play started then he was in non-conference play, and he certainly hasn't been immune to calling touch fouls on freshman phenomenon that is rampant in the Big 10.

I doubt the Angels would have signed Santana to what he wanted. They are pretty hesitant in giving out huge deals like that.

You don't undertand how much defense means if this was a serious post. Most sources have him listed as an .800+ OPS C which makes him top 5 or so in the NL even if his defense doesnt' show up. As for the pitching, Zambrano is in a clear downward spiral over the past 4 years and I don't think last year was fluke. Lilly had a career year that I don't see repeating. Marquis and the #5's are all worse than they pitched last year. The real difference is i don't believe in the Cubs defense from last year, I don't think they are a top 5 defensive team. I would tend to agree that if the Cubs brought back the same defensive squad from last year, they likely weren't a top 5 defensive team. In many ways, that's where the current Cubs starters have upgraded the most though. Jones had a fluke good defensive season in CF last year, but he's being replaced by a guy who is legitimately that good. RF had horrible defense from Murton/Floyd/Ward, and Fukudome is supposed to bring very good RF defense. The catcher position had Barrett and Kendall back there for most of the year providing awful defense behind the plate, and now they have Soto, and the one thing we really know for sure about him is that he is a good defensive catcher. 7 of the 8 Cubs regulars are average or better defensively for their spot, and 6 of the 8 could be considered above average for their spot. I'd call that a top defense. As for the pitching, here's how I see it: Z: wildcard. could go back up, could stay the same, could continue to slide down the hill Lilly: likely to go down a little bit Hill: could stay the same, could go up a little bit Marquis: could stay the same, could go down a little bit, could go down a lot 5 spot (5.10 ERA last year): depends on how long Lieber can go. Probably an improvement, maybe around the same. So I'd expect a slight regression from the starting staff. The bullpen is shaping up to be possibly better than it was last year though. Overall the pitching staff shouldn't be that much worse than they were last year if at all.

Then that must carry over to the Tournament as well as games involving Big 10 teams are traditionally lower scoring. Purdue held Arizona to its 3rd lowest point total of the year. Florida was held by Purdue to it's 2nd lowest score of the tournament (only Butler was better). I didn't look at all at their year because of 6 tournament games to judge on. Michigan State held Marquette to easily its lowest point total of the year. They gave up 81 to NC, but NC scored 80 or more 3 out of 4 tournament games, so that isn't too bad of a mark against MSU Illinois held Virginia Tech to its 2nd lowest point total of the year. Indiana held Gonzaga to its 2nd lowest point total of the year. Indiana then held UCLA to its 2nd lowest point total of the year. The Big 10 is ridiculously physical in league play. The refs allow way too much to happen (I still remember the Indiana-Illinois game a few years ago where the tooth of an Illinois player got wedged into an Indiana player's forehead, and it was more or less shrugged off by the announcers as regular Big 10 play). That's not the only reason the Big 10 has a good defensive reputation though. The Big 10 is always a lot better when it comes time for the tournament then they are in November/December/January. If that's caused by the physical play or team defense needing time to gel, I don't know. What I do know is that the games with Big 10 teams in them will tend to be lower scoring and more of defensive struggles then other tournament games. That will especially be the case for Michigan State, Wisconsin, and Purdue this year and might be the case for Indiana and Ohio State as well. I would agree though that it's not aesthetically pleasing to watch. If you don't have an emotional tie to any of the teams, I have no problem if you call it boring either. The Indiana-UCLA game was a great/frustrating game to watch if you were a fan of either team, but I'm sure it was an absolute snoozefest for the nation. I doubt the Big 10 will change anytime soon because they are still having a good amount of success in the tournament overall from year to year even while playing that slow brand of basketball.

I would disagree that he was just a defensive catcher. He was better than the average catcher offensively 7 out of the 11 years he was in the league, and several of those 7 he was significantly better. He was certainly never anything special, but in his prime he was both an above average offensive and defensive catcher.

I would guess that's probably more of a dig at what the Twins received for Santana than it is a prediction as to the value of any package the Cubs will give up for Roberts. Here's a later question: Please no Jim. They can have Pie or Gallagher, not both. That's way too much.

Not at all. I would love to do that deal. I don't think the Orioles would take it for these reasons: 1) 8 of the 9 Cubs players would have to go on the Orioles 40 man roster. That's 6 extra spots they would have to find places for, and that's not easy to do. In the Mariners deal, I believe only 2 of the 5 have to go on the 40 man roster, which is a lot better for the Orioles. 2) Most of the Mariners are very young players who have very high upsides, but may never make the majors. They won't be good until the Orioles are finished rebuilding. In the Cubs deal, 6 of the 9 players are decent major league ready players (Dempster, Hart, Murton, Cedeno, Marshall, and Patterson). The Orioles want players who can be impact players in 2010 and beyond, and the Cubs deal doesn't have enough of that, even with the additions of Pie and Gallagher. Most of the value in players like Marshall and Murton are in the fact that they can play now rather than a huge potential impact like the Mariners deal might bring. The overall value of the packages may be similar, but the Mariners package fits a lot better with the Orioles plan to rebuild and now worry about 2008 or 2009.

All offseason I thought the Cubs would eventually get him. It was just a manner of time. If the Orioles are having this much trouble getting rid of Bedard though, I doubt they'll get rid of fan favorite Roberts.

This is a very, very tricky situation for the NCAA. 1) The original penalties were too harsh. Even for the amount of violation, it was still a violation that is of the type that is self-reported by programs all the time. Sampson should have received penalties, there's no doubt about that. The NCAA hit him as hard as they did though because of him being the head of the Ethics Committee at the time in order to set an example to all the other coaches out there to not do it again. All the major sanctions were against him personally and not the school for precisely that reason. 2) Sampson didn't re-break NCAA rules. What he did was break the terms of his sanctions (and Senderhoff did break some of the rules again, but he's already out the door). This is very unusual because Sampson's sanctions to begin with were very unusual. At the same time, he did willingly break the sanctions, and that has to be looked at very badly by the NCAA. So now the NCAA has a problem. They have to make it worse than it was before. However, because they pushed too hard the first time, they don't have very far to go. A postseason ban seems extreme because that is saved for the worst of violations (openly paying players, changing grades, etc.) If you steal twice, they don't give you the worst punishment out there. They just give a worse punishment then there was before. Indiana has already put down the loss of the scholarship, heavy recruiting restrictions, and the loss of 500,000. Indiana if you'll notice what they say in the report says they purposely made the penalties worse than the violation really is in order to show the NCAA they are working in good faith. The NCAA may agree with that, but if they don't a very interesting precedent will be set for future coaches. Make the same mistake twice, no matter how minor the violation, and your school could be set back for years. Maybe the NCAA wants to send that message, I don't know. That's the message they'll send though, and that's a dangerous one because a normal Division 1 program will have around 20 violations of NCAA rules per year.

It's certainly possible they would make the deal without Gallagher. Of course, they would insist on Pie in the deal if Gallagher isn't there. At the beginning of the offseason, I thought Pie was a much better bet to hold on to. Now, with the reports about Gallagher's improvement and another average or worse winter league campaign by Pie, I'm not so sure that's the case anymore.

The funny thing about that is the two teams brought this upon themselves with their timing of the trade. The only reason Jones said anything is because a reporter was interviewing him about why he was leaving the team in the middle of the World Series. Even if Jones had said no comment, as soon as the news had come on Sunday that he was off of the roster in Venezuela, the speculation would have happened anyway. If they really wanted the deal to be a little more quiet, they should have waited until after the winter leagues are over.