CubColtPacer

BTW, a new Cubs source on the Orioles board (no idea on his reliability) says that his source says the deal is close. Acccording to him, the 3rd player will either be Marshall or Fuld, although his source believes it will be Marshall. Boy, I know it's not likely (that his source is correct, and even if he is correct that the unlikely even that it's Fuld happens) but if the deal is Cedeno/Gallagher/Fuld I'd be very, very happy with it.

I remember him having good stuff, but unfortunately for Beltran the thing I remember most about him was Sexon hitting that monster homerun off of him that broke part of the scoreboard.

I went to college in SEC country, and I remember one year talking about how there were a lot of good games on that weekend to a guy who had grown up in Georgia. He asked "what games?" I said a few games, like Texas-Oklahoma, Oregon-USC, etc. He looked at me strangely and said "Oh. I thought you meant games between real teams." Now, that's an extreme example, but I ran into that type of thinking over and over again.

I'm confused. This analogy would make sense if Roberts weren't better than DeRosa. He is. I expect better from you, SSR. It's more my annoyance that we(ot we we, the royal we, the idiot we) have been trying to marginalize DeRosa all offseason just for this purpose of making him our new Jose Macias. It's another sign of Cubs management fixing a hole that isn't there. Must get a leadoff hitter. Must get shiny happy clubhouse people. Must get a Japanese guy. Must get a lefty. Again, as I mentioned Roberts is better than DeRosa. Probably by a couple wins. But IMO, Gallagher and Marshall are better than Dempster and Marquis. Cedeno is better than Theriot. The original trade I wasn't that upset with(Marshall, Murton, Patterson?) Giving up 2 major league ready starting pitchers when you have holes in your major league starting rotation is nutty unless you're getting a huge upgrade in return. We are not. The Cubs not playing Cedeno or Marshall is a mistake. The Cubs not recognizing that they won't play Cedeno and Marshall and not getting value for them is an even bigger mistake. Maybe the absolute best Cubs team has Cedeno at short, Marshall in the rotation, and DeRosa at second. If the Cubs don't get another starter after the Roberts deal, that alignment would almost certainly be better. If the Cubs do get a starter, then it becomes a much tougher equation. If the team makes one mistake though and have given up on them, does it make any sense to keep them in limited roles just to hope for the small chance that they may get back in the good graces of the manager? I'd rather they get value now rather than sap any value they have by not playing them for another season or two. Then the Cubs would finally deal them, and the complaints would begin that the Cubs dealt them at their lowest possible value.

The only way it would be comparable to the Myers situation is if the Cubs said they were going to have Mike Fontenot start in order to have DeRosa move around. The main part of the problem was not that they were minimizing Myers impact, but they were letting vastly inferior players get the extra playing time. In the Roberts case, the Cubs limit DeRosa's personal impact a little bit, but they get better both at second base and get better on the bench. The one good thing about Cedeno leaving is that if Theriot bombs, Lou might get more desperate without Cedeno backing him up, and that might lead to DeRosa getting time there or a trade during the season. Last season showed that if Lou doesn't have an obvious option in front of him, he tends to get creative. And I don't see how DeRosa is a bad corner outfielder backup. His bat isn't terrible for the position and his defense is pretty good there (remember Texas thought that RF was his best defensive position).

This team more than any other team in baseball should be concerned with rotation health risks. I do like Burnett, but he's a health risk. Plain and simple. A team that should be worried about acquiring pitchers with health risks are those who already have pitchers who have health risks. The Cubs aren't that team. If Burnett was acquired, he'd be the only pitcher in the Cubs rotation who has pitched less than 180 innings in either of the last 2 years. That's a great durability rating for a rotation. Sure, the remaining innings probably won't be great production (either Dempster, Hart, or Mateo would be the next ones in line) but there's a shot that Dempster won the starting job anyway if a starter isn't acquired. If Burnett puts up 150 innings next year (which is reasonable) than the last 50 innings would have to be absolutely awful for the overall spot to be worse than league average. The replacement pitcher would probably have to have an ERA around 6 just to make the overall rotation spot as league average.

I think we're stuck with that anyway if we don't pick up someone else. Those two would have to be Wade Miller-esque to lose their jobs to the kids, IMO. Hell, we had Steve Trachsel taking Marshall's starts in the middle of a pennant race. I could definitely see Dempster losing his starting position to Hart. Lou has been a lot more optimistic when talking about Hart then when he talks about Dempster.

I'll echo what's been said: if the conditions are nice, the Pats will likely roll over the Jags. Agreed, and we won't really know until Saturday about the conditions. I remember in 2004 when the Colts went up to play there, and it was supposed to be perfect conditions for the game as was reported all week. Then they showed a shot of the field 15 minutes before gametime and it was snowing. The 2 teams only attempted 2 passes over 15 yards all day long, and 1 of those was a heave on the final play that didn't come anywhere close to its target. That's the type of conditions the Jaguars will need on Saturday. They are physical enough to keep up with the Pats in tight spaces, but they can't let the Pats space them out which the Pats could easily do in good conditions.

At the same time, they can't stand Cedeno or Marshall. Most of the Orioles fans over there do not like the deal nearly as much because Murton and Patterson were taken out and in their opinion two substantially inferior prospects were put in instead.

Pagan started over Pie around 4-5 days when both were on the team. That's hardly a significant chunk. Even if Pie had been the starter, Pagan would still have gotten exactly the time he did. Pagan was brought onto the team for a very specific role, to play CF against left-handers. He would have done that if Jones or Pie was the starter.

I think that last part is the only reason people are giving the Jaguars a chance. The Jets did it in horrible conditions because Brady couldn't pass the ball well at all. If the conditions are even decent for passing, New England will blow out the Jags. If they aren't, it could be interesting.

Eric Patterson doesn't have much trade value right now. While Marshall isn't a prospect anymore, his value is really high...it's quite a bit to give up for an improvement at an already steady position (giving up two potential starters and our only hedge against a full year of Theriot at SS). You don't think Beane might take the slightest of interest in Murton or Patterson (considering they might deal Ellis, and Beane isn't crazy about defense)? Yeah, they've kept Mark Kotsay around for his awesome bat. I'm sure teams were dying to add his 8 million salary to their payroll. I'm sure you've read the book, Beane will sacrifice defense for certain hitting characteristics. Beane has also come out in interviews and said that his recent teams have been specifically built around starting pitching and defense. I don't think Beane ignores defense that much. At the same time, if Beane thinks Patterson can be had for cheap, I'm sure he'll come calling. He's willing to sacrifice defense if he can get somebody for less than he thinks they're worth.

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.