CubColtPacer

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.

I think the list at the end is more of if things break right, these people could contribute for your fantasy team. Notice they list Colvin as well as a platoon outfielder, and the chances of him coming up for the Cubs for a significant period of next year is low. Of course, what they don't understand is that why other teams might start Patterson at 2nd base if they get an injury to their second baseman, the Cubs hate his defense to the point that they probably wouldn't/

Young does not compare to Vick. Vick's name was everywhere for 2 years. Young's only appeared late in his last year. You don't think Young's name was out there after his amazing Rose Bowl performance the year before? The fact that he was one of the leading Heisman candidates from the beginning of his last year? I think it was quite the opposite. Vick wasn't a household name until mid-way through the season that he went to the title game. Young was a huge name the day he ran all over Michigan in the Rose Bowl, and then just continued to get bigger through his national title game winning season until it culminated in his huge win over USC (in a game that a lot more people cared about than the title game that Vick was in).

They've actually showed a couple of his pre-game pep talks on ESPN Classic from time to time during a Notre Dame season retrospective. They are awesome. The speeches I've heard from him recently aren't as good.

That's an odd sentence. It was expected for him to be bad, hence the strong running game. What does that even mean. I think he meant that the Titans built the team around the strong running game, including spending 2 2nd round picks the last 2 years on runningbacks because they knew that Vince was going to struggle.

I knew Vince Young was bad, but I just didn't realize he was that bad. I'll never understand why they put him on the Madden cover. Should be obvious why... Seems like the first choices should have been (and might have been) LT, Brees, or Manning. The silhouetted cover that EA released a few weeks before they announced who it was looked alot like Brees to me: Next year it is going to have to be Tom Brady or Randy Moss. Although if either of them pass on it, it'd be cool if it was Brett Favre...sort of as a goodbye or something. If he really is retiring then it would break the Madden curse. I'm pretty sure LT declined to be on there, and Manning is ineligible to be on there (he signed a deal with a minor company a couple of years ago). Young was more marketable than Brees in August, although anyone could have known he'd probably be terrible this year. The AFC South finishes as the best division in the history of the NFL by winning percentage (42-22 overall, a .656 winning percentage). I never would have expected that at the beginning of the season, and I'm guessing they'll regress significantly next year, but it's been quite the year for the division.

These AFC playoffs are going to be brutal. Let's say San Diego and Jax advance in round 1 (those have to be the two favorites). That sets up a NE-Jax and Colts-Chargers divisional round. Those both have the potential to be absolutely fantastic games. Then a possible NE-Colts rematch in Foxboro? Talk about great TV. The weather should impact it a lot as well. The Jaguars have a much better chance against NE if there's wind that day (which isn't unusual for that time of year). I think the Colts have about as good of a chance in good weather as in bad weather, but the way the game is played could be severely affected by weather.

The 2 quarterbacks in the Mississippi State-UCF game so far combined: 3 for 16, 15 yards, 0 TD, 2 INT

That's hilarious. The bolded is the most ridiculous, however. The way the guy rolled it into the Coach K being the best ever is awesome though. It needed to be done to get that authentic Dickie V feel to it. Except Vitale is also obsessed with Knight. It would have been authentic Vitale if it had said that IU could never live up to Knight's legacy, ramble for a couple sentences about how IU should re-name their court after Knight (using all 3 names in every sentence) and then transition it back to Duke again.

It should be noted that BC's kicker is only 11 out of 17 on the season, and only 4 out of 9 on kicks between 30-40 yards. A 37 yarder for him is not exactly a chip shot. The right decision is to go for it. They have about as good of a chance to make the first down on 4th and 1 as making the field goal with their kicker (studies show that making a first down on 3rd or 4th and 1 is well over 50 percent). Getting the first down ends the game, while kicking the field goal just makes it harder for Michigan State. Plus, if you make the field goal, you have the kickoff to worry about. Michigan State returned every kickoff in the game to the 30 or better and broke one to the BC 18.

Without being a Bears fan, I'll take a stab at this one. There are 5 main reasons why the Bears regressed significantly: 1) The age of the offensive line was seen as a concern in the offseason, and they have been absolutely terrible for most of the year. 2) Injuries (especially on defense) 3) The defense hasn't been as dominant as last year. Part of that is because of injuries and part of that is because defense is so hard to remain dominant from year to year (Only 3 of the top 10 scoring defenses in 2006 were in the top 10 in 2007. The other 7 all clocked in at 16th or worse this season). 4) Grossman didn't progress, and taking him down for Griese or Orton hasn't helped in the least. 5) The schedule was one of the worst in the NFL last year and one of the best in the NFL this year.

Two quick bits of Colts news to start off this thread for the final week of the regular season: 1) Bob Sanders was signed today to a 5 year, 37.5 million dollar deal taking him off of the free agent market. 2) Marvin Harrison will likely start Sunday night's game against the Titans. That also means Manning will play a little longer into the game (most likely sometime into the 2nd quarter), and it might mean that the Colts will want to be a little pass happy during that time.

I don't think that the 2006 deadline was badly managed even with the debacle that was Maddux for Izturis. The Cubs managed to get both Ceda and Harben during the 06 season as part as their firesale, and instead of trading Pierre for small value they held onto him and got Josh Donaldson in the draft because of that decision. Obviously the Izturis thing was a huge flop, but Donaldson and Ceda is not an awful return for the players the Cubs had to trade.

What on earth are you talking about? He solved the leadoff hitter problem and found the much needed left handed power bat. And how about all those bullpen arms....... This is why I didn't put 2006 at the bottom because I thought that fake optimism we were talking about was coming from the fanbase as a whole. There were definitely expectations coming out of many fans in 2006 because of Pierre, Jones, and the relievers that simply wasn't there in 2005 with Burnitz and the Sosa trade being the major moves. Now the 2006 debacle could have been easily predicted from many fans on here, but the general fanbase loved the Pierre trade and really thought that it was the answer to the problems of the team.