CubColtPacer

Agreed. If no arm is added, then it clearly becomes a bad deal. If the Cubs get another option for the back end of the rotation, then it probably is a pretty good deal in large part because the Cubs probably wouldn't play either Marshall or Cedeno.

Lieber wasn't on the 1998 squad. He was traded to the Cubs for Brant Brown after that season. you get my point though. first Trachsel, then Leiber....let's stop tripping down memory lane here and get a pitcher who has actually been good in the last 5 years I don't think Lieber's a particularly good option, but he's been remakably consistent in being right about an average starting pitcher, and he has had to pitch in Philadelphia the last 3 years which has hurt his numbers. Philly also has had him pitch some innings in relief in both 2005 and 2007, and that hurt his numbers He'd have an ERA between 4.5 and 5.0, but he wouldn't have much chance to be truly terrible like Dempster might be. I'd prefer Marshall over him, but we don't know right now if Marshall is going to be on the roster in March or if he's going to be given a chance if he does. It really depends on how much he costs. If he came in and won the job though, I don't think that would be too bad. He wouldn't be a huge asset, but he wouldn't be a huge hole either.

Lieber wasn't on the 1998 squad. He was traded to the Cubs for Brant Brown after that season.

The only way the NFC wins the SB is if the Titans or Steelers make the game. The Cowboys and Packers have enough firepower to make it very interesting for whoever they meet. They probably only have between a 35-40 percent chance of winning, but the NFC's representative should be more dangerous than they have been in a while.

That would be amazing if the AFC did the same pattern 3 years in a row. Win homefield advantage and a ton of games 1 year Lose before the Super Bowl Then, be a highly thought team at the beginning of the next year, but lose some games during the season and expose some serious flaws Then, have nobody pick you during the playoffs and of course go on to win the Super Bowl. That happened to both the Steelers and Colts. Could it happen to the Chargers and be 3 for 3? I doubt it, but I'm sure that's what was said about the other two as well.

Those aren't the packages offered for Bedard, but some of the names mentioned in different packages offered for Bedard. As for Bedard being better than Buerhle, the statistics are reasonably close, but the most telling statistic is innings pitched. Buerhle averages 70 more innings pitched per season. Since both pitchers are the aces of their teams, having your best pitcher on the mound for an extra 70 innings a season is significant. In other words, Buerhle pitches 43% more innings per season. General managers give a ton more weight to the last season or two when looking at trades than they do career marks. In those two years, Buerhle has only pitched 26 more innings combined than Bedard has. Their statistics are not similar at all if you look at the last year, or the last two years combined (any more than that and Bedard was still trying to break into the league). Plus, Bedard is coming off his career year right now. His value might not be that much higher than Beurhle's on a normal basis, but it's artificially higher right now coming off his career year. Finally, the huge strikeout total this year for Bedard adds value as GM's love high K totals. Some team will overpay for Bedard this offseason coming off of his career year. His value should be higher than Buerhle's (Buerhle's inconsistency costs him, and Bedard should slide from his career year but not put up any years even close to Buerhle's 2006), but right now it's much, much higher.

That would be interesting. Cubs seemingly have 2 guys who would be good for the #2 spot (Fukudome and Lee if his power stays in 06-07 range), 2 guys for the #5 spot (Ramirez, Soriano), 2 7th hitters (Soto, Derosa) and 2 8th hitters (Pie, Cedeno/Theriot) I think you're possibly underrating our hitters a little bit. If we truly had two 7 hitters and 2 8 hitters and no legitimate middle of the order hitter, then we would have a well below average offense, and we had an average offense last year. Ramirez and Soriano have been top 30 hitters each of the last 2 years. That at least deserves a #4 ranking for each even if it doesn't deserve a #3 (Ramirez more than Soriano). Fukudome is a #2. Lee is either a #2 or #4, but remember he has only showed a lack of power in 1 half of a season. Soto is a #6 or #7 depending on performance. DeRosa has been an average #6 hitter the last 2 years. Pie could be a #6, #7, or #8 depending on what he does this year (probably a 7 or 8). Theriot is a #8.

The Cubs started Trachsel over Marshall at the end of last year. For some reason, they don't seem to have confidence in him. It may be because they thought he had a dead arm though. Of course, if they feel he is injury prone that won't help his case whatsoever as Lou seems to value starters that have the potential to throw a high number of innings, but it does give him a shot to at least hold the job for a while next year.

yucky Cal, any idea what the league average line was? Didn't one of the newspaper articles in Chicago actually point out that Pie was slightly above league average despite that awful line? I remember reading that on the board a couple of weeks ago, but now I'm not sure where. I found it. It was on Phil Rogers blog dated the 17th of December, so it may have changed slightly since then. http://blogs.chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports_hardball/2007/12/fast-food-for-1.html

Eh, it's an interesting idea but I don't know if I'd really care if there was no ultimate championship to root for. Yay, you won the Big 10. Here's your trophy, go home. Then everyone would be arguing ad infinitum: the Big 10 sucks anyway! Who cares if you won it, you'd never beat the other conference champs! And yada yada. I don't see it solving much, just creates a whole bunch of hypothetical arguments that would never cease. Not to mention that's essentially what the system was like before the BCS, and yet that didn't stop people from declaring national champions every year. The BCS just added a more objective and standard way to do that.

And on the other hand, I'm not convinced a longer tournament is going to solve anything. There will still be controversy. And quite frankly, I don't go into college football season dying to know who the national champ is going to be. I just love watching college football games. I know it's against accepted behavior, but I think the NCAA tourney is an unwieldy beast of a joke that doesn't come close to rewarding the best team in basketball. Sure it plays well on tv and is a cultural icon, but it's not the greatest thing out there. I'm the same way with NFL overtime whining. Why anybody thinks the college way is the right way is beyond me. If you don't win in the first 60 minutes, and you lose without getting a chance in OT, too freaking bad. You should have scored more when you had the chance. If you lose an early college season game and get left out of the hunt despite thinking you are the best team, oh well, don't lose next time. Championships don't really crown the best team, they crown the winner of a handful of games at most. It's awesome to win one and sucks when you lose, I'm not claiming otherwise. But the fact is that no matter the system, people are always going to be clamoring for it to be changed. I'd rather enjoy watching the games. Basically how I feel, which is why I am arguing the way I am. Except the NCAA tourney is the greatest thing. And the reason the NCAA tourney is the greatest thing is for the exact reason that goony is describing. Who wins the NCAA tourney is a secondary concern The greatest part of the tournament (and the conference tournaments) is that there are lots of fun games to watch going on at the same time, and that creates many close finishes. The first 4 days of the tournament are the absolute best, as it goes on the tournament becomes less interesting. Well we both got 2 different things out of that. Yeah, I focused on the bolded parts, while you probably focused on the italicized parts. Finding a champion is somewhat important, but having great games each week is more important to me. The NCAA tournament does a terrible job of finding the best team or even the most deserving team (there's a lot of luck in it). However, it is the most fun because of the amount of games between equally matched teams.

And on the other hand, I'm not convinced a longer tournament is going to solve anything. There will still be controversy. And quite frankly, I don't go into college football season dying to know who the national champ is going to be. I just love watching college football games. I know it's against accepted behavior, but I think the NCAA tourney is an unwieldy beast of a joke that doesn't come close to rewarding the best team in basketball. Sure it plays well on tv and is a cultural icon, but it's not the greatest thing out there. I'm the same way with NFL overtime whining. Why anybody thinks the college way is the right way is beyond me. If you don't win in the first 60 minutes, and you lose without getting a chance in OT, too freaking bad. You should have scored more when you had the chance. If you lose an early college season game and get left out of the hunt despite thinking you are the best team, oh well, don't lose next time. Championships don't really crown the best team, they crown the winner of a handful of games at most. It's awesome to win one and sucks when you lose, I'm not claiming otherwise. But the fact is that no matter the system, people are always going to be clamoring for it to be changed. I'd rather enjoy watching the games. Basically how I feel, which is why I am arguing the way I am. Except the NCAA tourney is the greatest thing. And the reason the NCAA tourney is the greatest thing is for the exact reason that goony is describing. Who wins the NCAA tourney is a secondary concern The greatest part of the tournament (and the conference tournaments) is that there are lots of fun games to watch going on at the same time, and that creates many close finishes. The first 4 days of the tournament are the absolute best, as it goes on the tournament becomes less interesting.

Haha, ridiculous. What is so ridiculous? They cannot compete year in and year out. How long has South Florida been Division 1? 7 years? And they are already competing this year. Louisville competed the prior 2 years, Cincinnati and UConn were top 25 teams this year, and Rutgers was top 10 last year. So yes, ridiculous. They cannot even compete for a conference title year in and year out. They are mostly below .500 teams with an occasional good season. As soon as Louisville and Rutgers lost their coaches they became also-rans. Rutgers didn't lose their coach. And as someone else said, the ACC already has 12 teams and has had 12 for a few years now.

Haha, ridiculous. What is so ridiculous? They cannot compete year in and year out. Two of those teams (South Florida and UConn) have made great strides despite being in Division 1 only 5 years or so, including both of them being ranked this year. I don't see how they have proven they can't compete year in and year out. Another one (Louisville) has been one of the better college football teams in the nation most of the last few years. And does the Big 10 now have to add ND for basketball as well? It's not like ND can join the Big East for football now that you've disbanded it. I assume you're kicking the other 3 independent teams down to 1-B and making them join conferences as well? Plus, if you're going to kick out teams for poor play, then some of the teams in the other conferences should go down to 1-B as well. I don't know why the Big East teams would get singled out when teams like Indiana, Vanderbilt, Baylor, and Stanford have been as bad or worse over the years.

In the extremely unlikely event you can make that happen, do it. That's about the way I feel. Of course I'd love to have Greene or Peralta more than Roberts. San Diego and Cleveland are going to demand a lot more talent than what is being offered in the Roberts deal though. The only reason the Cubs can get Roberts for that price is that Baltimore can afford to play all 3 players and see if they develop. That adds value to all of them, while in San Diego and Cleveland they'd be role players and only 1-2 of them might have a chance to develop.

His word is the thing that landed him on the Mitchell report in the first place. What reason would he have to lie to his friend that he tried them once and then stopped? I can understand why he would lie to the press, but he told another ballplayer that he had stopped them back in 2004. If he wanted to lie, he didn't have to admit to the guy that he used steroids at all. It seems likely that whatever his other faults, right now it is only reasonable to believe Roberts at his word that he stopped taking steroids several years ago. The evidence doesn't make sense if you believe he's lying. What difference does it make if you are lying to a friend or the press? The end goal is the same: to save face by making others believe you stopped when you may actually not have. I don't see how telling it to another ballplayer somehow makes it truthful. I find it far more likely that a guy who used PEDs in the past kept using them, regardless of what he said. Again, though. I'm not condemning the guy. I'm just saying -- he's a known user. That elevates the risk considerably. I don't see any way an argument can be made against that. We're talking about giving up quite a load of prospects right now. Given the guy's past, I don't see why the price isn't now lower. Roberts didn't have to save fact though. There was absolutely no accusation or evidence against him at the time he made his admission. Why would Roberts admit to steroids at all? Why wouldn't he just keep quiet? It doesn't make sense why he would admit something like steroid use in a conversation, and then say he stopped if it was a lie. If he wanted to lie, he could have never brought it up, and nobody would have ever known he took steroids. Plus, the difference between a private and a public conversation is a huge one. He was talking to another steroid user at that time. There was absolutely no pressure of condemnation, and so there was absolutely no need for Roberts to save face.

His word is the thing that landed him on the Mitchell report in the first place. What reason would he have to lie to his friend that he tried them once and then stopped? I can understand why he would lie to the press, but he told another ballplayer that he had stopped them back in 2004. If he wanted to lie, he didn't have to admit to the guy that he used steroids at all. It seems likely that whatever his other faults, right now it is only reasonable to believe Roberts at his word that he stopped taking steroids several years ago. The evidence doesn't make sense if you believe he's lying.

Actually, I think 4 of them will make the conference semis :D You could definitely see some ugly football though. I saw all of the Tennesee-San Diego game and part of the Pittsbugh-Jax game, and neither one was pretty whatsoever. I doubt the NFC games will be better. I'm not saying that some of them won't be good games, but this will definitely be old fashioned football weekend for the most part, especially when you add in the rain that's supposed to be in both Seattle and San Diego this weekend. I'll take Seattle, Jax, Giants, and the Chargers.

Jason Kendall is in the NL Central. I'll be pissed if Soto only steals one base all season. :D I don't know if Soto can even steal a base on Kendall. There are a lot of things he's good at, but speed isn't exactly one of them. I'd put him as the slowest player on last year's team. There's a reason that Soto spent 3 years in AAA and in that time stole exactly 0 bases :D Mark Grace could steal a base on Kendall. Grace had 70 stolen bases in 8065 at-bats between the minors and majors. In 1/4 of the at-bats, Soto has exactly 2, and 1 of those was in rookie league ball. Grace stole a base in every year but 2, 1994 and 2003. Soto's already had 5 separate seasons where he didn't steal a base, including each of the last 3 years. There's a possibility that Soto could steal the base if Kendall threw the ball away like he did many times last year, but I don't want to see him try. He is that slow. If Kendall got it anywhere near the bag, Soto would be out by a mile, even with Kendall's bad arm.

Article: http://www.rotoworld.com/content/features/column.aspx?sport=MLB&columnid=3&articleid=29767 Where do I sign for that line??? Jason Kendall is in the NL Central. I'll be pissed if Soto only steals one base all season. :D I don't know if Soto can even steal a base on Kendall. There are a lot of things he's good at, but speed isn't exactly one of them. I'd put him as the slowest player on last year's team. There's a reason that Soto spent 3 years in AAA and in that time stole exactly 0 bases :D

The Pirates get out from under some contracts and end up with a young SS, 3B, CF, starter, and future starter. I don't think that is too bad for a team that isn't going anywhere and has a low budget. They will be loaded with players under their control contractually for quite a few years. I'm sorry if I sounded harsh on my first post btw. I don't like to criticize proposals very often because it's hard to control tone of voice online and I don't want to sound like I'm upset but more just giving my opinion back. If it was that deal or nothing, the Pirates might do it only because of the contracts involved. I think the Pirates could find much better deals though. Snell is going to command at least one star prospect and two more good prospects. Bay will likely land them either one star or two good prospects. Wilson will even land them a pretty good prospect because of the lack of SS around the league. In that deal, you have 1 low star (Headley), 1 good to very good prospect (Gallagher), and 3 good talent prospects with significant question marks (Patterson, Cedeno, Veal). The Pirates will want more star power than that if they are going to give up a good portion of their major league talent. The PR alone from that deal would drive away fans.

That's the most unfair deal I've ever seen. San Diego gets a decent amount of value, the Cubs get a lot of value, and the Pirates...well, the Pirates really don't get much at all. The Pirates wouldn't do Bay for Headley, they wouldn't do Jack Wilson for Cedeno, and they wouldn't do Snell for Gallagher, Patterson, and Veal. So why when you put the 3 deals together would they suddenly do it?

I would do it, but I think the posters were right over there that taking into account perceived value means that the Cubs are giving up too little in that deal and the Angels are giving up too much. Keep in mind (since many of the things we post on here are from Oriole insiders) that this did not come from an insider, but more a regular poster just speculating. Still an interesting idea though, and the teams do match up enough to be somewhat workable if the Angels found another third baseman somewhere.

5 positions? 2B and 3B. Possibly RF. Ward is at 1st. At least 4 (with the Roberts deal, which would mean that Murton was gone) 3B, 2B, LF, and RF. He would get at least some of the at-bats at first (Lou sometimes used DeRosa there, sometimes Ward last year) and maybe some at-bats at SS.

DeRosa got 209 AB's at a position that is not second base last year. He would likely get around 75-100 at-bats at second base (Roberts wears down and according to Oriole fans shouldn't play more than 145 games or so in a season). Then you add in the fact that DeRosa will pinch-hit and come in more games late if he's on the bench most days, which will add in some of the at-bats back in which he was starting this year. If he adds any SS at-bats, he could get to 350-400 AB's.