CubColtPacer

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.

My only answer to 1 would be that MacPhail feels like he needs the support of Angelos when it comes time to possibly be the commissioner (or his sons when Angelos hands the team off) but I'm not sure that's worth how bad the job must be right now. As far as the second question, I've been wondering that for quite a while now. The same thing happened with Tejada for years before he fell out of favor with Angelos. It just doesn't make sense why people would negotiate with the Orioles for their big players if Angelos isn't willing to give them up.

So let's review the news from today on this. Seattle team official confirms that Jones is flying back to the States, but declines to answer for what reason Seattle writer says this morning there is a deal, that it is very close despite protests to the contrary from Baltimore's side Seattle beat writer claims to recieve e-mail from Jones still in Venezuela and that he was "misquoted" ESPN says that Jones and Sherill have confirmed physicals, Sherill quickly denies it. ESPN says that Angelos is unavailable today and will look to approve the deal tomorrow Andy MacPhail says there is "no deal, and that he doesn't expect anything soon" Seattle writer listens to tape recording of Jones's statement, and it very clearly says everything that the original quote had in it and he was not misquoted Bill Bavasi claims that Jones was returned to the States during the middle of the championship series because he had "accomplished the goals of winter ball, so it was time to come home" Rosenthal says that the deal is held up, and that sources indicate that Angelos nixed the deal Orioles blog writer says that the deal is held up because Angelos is furious about leaks Orioles insider adds that his source says that Angelos nixed the deal after initially approving it. Anything I missed? This is 10x stranger than the Roberts trade. I'm not sure I've ever seen a near trade like this where so much different information is coming from every which way. Who really knows what to believe right now, but it seems to be 1 of 2 choices. 1) This is one of the greatest misinformation days there has ever been, and the physicals are due tomorrow and the trade will happen later this week. 2) Angelos nixed the deal. I don't buy MacPhail's story that there was no agreement or Bavasi's story that Jones had accomplished his goals. You don't pull Jones out of the championship and right off the roster unless you have an agreement. You don't tell him he's being traded for Bedard without an agreement. So either that agreement is still there, or it was taken away by Angelos. With that said, due to the track record of Angelos and the fact that #2 is a much simpler explanation, I have to be inclined to believe that he nixed it. The evidence points more to that then it does to any other conclusion.

I love the quote from Bavasi on Jones. This is from the Baltimore Sun: There are possible excuses other than a trade that you might have been able to say Bill. I'm pretty sure that's not one of them :D http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/baseball/bal-bedard0128,0,7989634.story

they can afford it? If you know the name of the new owner please share it with the rest of us. i'm saying that the Cubs as a business creates enough $$$ to afford it. We know nothing about the new owner's desired time horizon to recoup his investment. If an owner blows $800 million on a sports team he might not want to wait 20 years just to make his $800 million back. All these huge salary commitments have the effect of directly increasing the time it will take to break even on the investment. Of course an alternative would be to dump payroll or even blow up the team and rebuild with a good GM who can create a competitive team without a giant payroll. If I bought the Cubs I'd probably do that, since I think the Cubs roster is really pretty lousy on a bang-for-the-basis, and it's only going to get worse in the next few years. If the owner is truly looking it as a business and more about recouping his investment then winning baseball games, there's now way he would ever blow up the current team and rebuild. Are they the most efficient team? Absolutely not, not even close. They are marketing gold though. The PR loss in Chicago by trading the current star players in Chicago would be absolutely immense. Even if the team started winning 95-100 games a year in 5 years, it wouldn't make up for the economic losses they'd suffer in between. The Cubs are selling out, have good merchandise sales, and a good television deal. No owner who just looks at it as a business would ever attempt a total rebuild and potentially mess with that. I do agree with you though that the Cubs going up to 140 million in payroll right now would not be the best for the new owner. New owners don't want to see it go up that high because then they are expected to have to keep it that high. The Cubs could rebuild and still make money while doing it. The 2006 Cubs were absolutely horrible and expensive, but they didn't lose money. I'm sure most fans would sooner pay to watch a developing team win 66 games than watch that putrid overpaid 2006 team win 66 games. Attendance fell throughout the year in 2006 (and the reselling of tickets was a joke by August, you just have to look at the many threads on this board of people who couldn't give their tickets away), and TV ratings fell even faster. The only reason as many people even came as they did is that tickets were sold when many people thought the team still had a shot. It was really the end of the false hope from the 03 teams. If they hadn't made the moves they did in the winter of 06, they would have lost a lot of potential money during that season. And I'm not saying the Cubs wouldn't make money. It seems fairly obvious that no matter what they do they'll make a profit. They make more money by having lots of marketable players and at least the appearances of the chance at the playoffs ever year rather then have 2-3 years where there is no chance at the playoffs and some great teams. It's been shown lately that a .500 Cubs team will sell out every game. A team that before the season was projected to win 70 games? It probably wouldn't. A team full of youngsters? Maybe more television ratings, but not nearly the same merchandise sales. An owner has a right to expect a reasonable profit. We could sign Santana and other expensive players and reduce the Cubs' annual profit to 100 bucks. Technically the Cubs could "afford" to do this, even though the team's entire annual profit would only buy several nights worth of pizza and beer for the owner's family. If you just went $800 million in the hole to purchase the team you might want it to make more than pizza money. I completely agree with you on that, which is why a new owner wouldn't want to rebuild. That's not the best way to make the highest profit, even if it may be in the best long-term interests of the team.