CubColtPacer

One thing that I haven't seen posted yet. Roberts is being devalued because he is only a slight upgrade over DeRosa. This is a very true statement in itself. At the same time, look at this: Cubs 2B had 623 AB's last year DeRosa had 502 AB's last year DeRosa only had 292 AB's at 2nd base last year! He was moved around so much last year that 341 AB's were taken by inferior players. Even if the Cubs don't get Roberts, DeRosa is not likely to get much more of the second base AB's this year because he'll again have so much time playing other positions. More than half the at-bats that Roberts will be taking away are Fontenot's and Theriot's from last year, and at-bats that would all be Fontenot's this year. Roberts may not be that much of an upgrade specifically over DeRosa, but Roberts+DeRosa getting all of the at-bats is a significant upgrade over DeRosa and Fontenot splitting the at-bats.

That was Jim Duquette, not Steve Phillips.

Wow, has this been an interesting thread or what. It's got a little bit of everything in it. First, the Marquis thing. I don't think it's absurd at all to be happy with his production from last year. 1) Yes, he was only good for a couple of months. Does that really matter? He helps the team win a certain amount of games by pitching at an average level if he's inconsistent all season or if he's incredibly streaky as he showed he was last year. The overall numbers are what matters, and just because Marquis has proven that he's a first half pitcher over the years doesn't mean anything. The games in the first half mean just as much as the games in the second half. 2) Yes, he was only right about average as a starting pitcher (probably a little above if you give the proper weight to the 1 inning side session out of the bullpen he threw on the last day of the season to get ready to possibly pitch in the playoffs). If you had to sign a free agent though in the 2006 offseason, Marquis was about the lesser of evils. The only other effective pitchers that were signed were either refusing to sign with a non West Coast team (Maddux, Wolf) or Hendry tried to get but just missed out on (Meche) Would you have been happier with Zito? Schmidt? Padilla? Suppan? Mulder? Adam Eaton? Woody Williams? All of those pitchers recieved multi-year deals at 6 million or more per year. There was simply very little value to be had. If Marquis was in the top half of free agent pitchers and was not in the top half of contracts, I'd consider that to be better value than other teams received. 3) There are some who argue that the Cubs didn't need to go into free agency, that they could have just filled that with a rookie and saved the 7 million. My question is-who? Last year in spring training, that would have left the rotation as Z, Lilly, Hill, Guzman, Miller. Marshall wasn't ready to come up to the major leagues until the middle of May because of injuries. If Marquis had not been with the Cubs, Wade Miller would have been starting games for the Cubs until mid-may, and Marmol would have likely also been in the Cubs rotation for most of the season (to replace Guzman)). There was nobody else at Iowa that could reasonably start for the major league team until Gallagher later in the year. Marquis did what the Cubs asked him to do. He was an average pitcher who made every start and didn't miss time, which the Cubs would have had to fill with a pitcher who was not major league quality. As for the general Hendry discussion, Hendry doesn't get enough credit for his overall success with trades during his tenure here. He has rarely given away anything of real value (how many ex-Cubs have had any kind of sustained major league success during his tenure?) and he has picked up many of the productive players on the team through trades. At the same time, it is understandable why Hendry doesn't get the credit he deserves on trades, and that is because of his dismal free agency record (mostly before 2007). He did so little good in free agency that it was expected of him that he find difference makers through trades, and he really hasn't done that at any kind of consistent pace. I tend to think that some of his smaller trades and free agency moves are given too much importance in the bad column, but at the same time they are magnified because of the inconsistent record of the team over the years. I can't blame anyone who says that there is good that has been done, but it simply hasn't been enough so far. Land another difference maker, and then the discussion could be re-visited.

I've turned the radio on at 4 different times today, and every time (on different shows, some national and some local) they've been discussing this trade. Same with turning on the TV this morning. At least from my experience, I don't really think this trade is receiving little attention.

How the hell does an incredibly unproven 21 year old end up with a no trade clause? The guys college stats weent even impresive. Most players don't have the leverage of a 10 million dollar NFL deal sitting there if they don't sign with the Cubs.

To be a bit fair, Teahen played against tougher pitching in the AL, especially considering how utterly putrid the pitching was in the NL Central was this year. Also, it was kind of an outlier year for Comerica this year, but since it's inception it's always been one of the ten toughest parks for hitters. Comerica is Detroit. I don't like the comparison because Murton's numbers are probably a bit inflated due to situational hitting (platoon) rather than playing everyday. They are essentially the same type of hitter, with Teahen probably possessing more power. A - I don't think Murton's numbers are inflated because he played sporadically. I think it's rare to have a player who plays better when they start almost randomly (it certainly didn't seem like a strict platoon, and the demotion to AAA didn't help). B - take away all of his PH plate appearances and I think his numbers would actually go up. He had a couple HRs, but his game log shows a ton of 0/1s. If there's one thing we learned in '07, it's that Murton isn't a PH. He's probably saying that Murton's stats are inflated because 38.7% of his at-bats were against left-handers, which is high (to compare, Soriano had 21.8% of his at-bats against left-handers). Add to that his splits in 2007: vs left: .319/.386/.505 vs right: .257/.331/.396 If Murton had an equal distribution of at bats between right handers and left-handers at his current splits, he'd have an overall OPS that was 28 points lower. His PH numbers were down, you're right. He had a .172/.294/.414 line as a pinch hitter. If you take the PH numbers out of his overall numbers, his OPS goes up 17 points.

That was really dumb by the Patriots. Why not onside the kick? At most, you lose 5 yards of field position, and you take a few seconds off of the clock plus you have a chance to get the ball.

That's an incomplete pass right there. That ball moves around in his hands, and by the time he gets full control of it he doesn't get 2 feet in bounds. I fully expect the Patriots will put the TD in anyway, but that should be incomplete. Well, the ref called it the other way.

You can't officially trade the pick before you make it. The Cubs weren't planning to use the pick to draft anyone, and so they agreed to a trade to pick whoever the Reds wanted and then effectively sell that person to the Reds. The Reds gave the Cubs their choice just seconds before the Cubs picked. Then the Cubs picked Hamilton, and then immediately turned around and dealt him to the Reds as they had already promised to do.

I think the last couple weeks have shown that the Patriots are really, really good but they're not invincible as they've been portrayed at times. There are definite flaws that have shown up from the lack of a consistent running game to old linebackers that wear down if you run at them consistently. One thing that should really worry the Patriots at this point is that when their passing game is affected by the weather conditions, their running game still hasn't stepped up like it should. The home field advantage for NE will be a lot less helpful for them than other years because their deep passing game will be severely affected by the cold and the wind.

http://wintermeetings.mlblogs.com/nashvilleconfidential/2007/12/waiting_for_the.html Bout time! Didn't the mets already trade for a couple catchers why do they want another one? They probably had that conversation with the Mets before the Mets made the deal with the Nats.

Technically, Arizona State wouldn't have to go to the Rose Bowl to be in the BCS. They could have picked teams like WV, Hawaii, and either Kansas or Missouri go to the Rose Bowl, and then Arizona State could have gone to one of the other bowls. Remember, the Rose Bowl picked first, so they had their choice of any at-large team. At the same time, I'm not trying to argue that Illinois shouldn't have been picked over Arizona State. Their resumes aren't all that different, and I don't think it's a great problem whichever team made it over the other one.

If I'm being emotional, it's on the side of Prior. He's my favorite player in 2003 and I want absolutely nothing more then to see him silence his critics and re-gain his stuff, and it would break my heart if it wasn't with the Cubs. At the same time, I'm in favor of trading him. The indications are that Prior does not want to re-sign with the Cubs for the 2009 season and beyond (speculation, yes, but the most likely conclusion with the available evidence). If Prior doesn't want to stay beyond next year, then the Cubs should get value out of him now from a team who he will sign with. A couple of those 3 prospects that the Padres were supposedly offering up would be better than paying 3.5 million for maybe 3-4 months of Prior and then seeing him leave in free agency for nothing.

http://wintermeetings.mlblogs.com/nashvilleconfidential/2007/12/monday_whispers.html Ha ha, did you guys see this from that link? Finley, "Bus" making the rounds Among the handful of free agents in Nashville looking for jobs was Steve Finley, who was spotted roaming the lobby at the Opryland Hotel. Finley, 42, played in 43 games for the Rockies in '07. "I wouldn't play if I thought I was going to embarrass myself," Finley said. He hits left-handed, used to be fast. Do we have to worry here? Nope. Finley begged Hendry to sign him last year for all of January and February and Hendry refused to, and remember that Hendry was looking everywhere for a CF at the time. I doubt a year off for Finley is going to do much to change that.

Something wrong with Georgia-Hawaii being only -11 while USC-Illinois is -14. Why? cus hawaii is an awful team who can barely beat nevada Ooo, this is fun. I can play this game too. Illinois is an awful team that LOST to Iowa. See, it works both ways. Hawaii played 2 teams all season with a winning record and had 5 games decided by 7 points or less. Compare that to Boise State the year before who played 5 teams with a winning record and only had 3 games decided by 7 points or less. I think Hawaii could compete with most teams because of their unique style of offense, but I don't quite get how a top 15 team could struggle with so bad of teams such a large percentage of the time.

Two of the players you mentioned aren't really that good on getting on base. Iguchi has only been slightly better than Soriano in the OBP department. Figgins was only marginally better before last years great OBP year. Neither of them are much more than average OBP players, and they certainly aren't great examples of players who "understand the art of getting on base".

Maybe your TV is on mute. My feed has Michaels and Madden announcing the game just like normal.

Most of the computers have Ohio State and Oklahoma having almost the exact same strength of schedule. Before Oklahoma lost to Texas Tech, I didn't hear anybody complaining about their schedule like they do about Ohio State's.

Gee, I wonder why is that? who knows, but anyone who thinks that record is meaningful needs to work on their analytical skills. im pretty sure a good portion of those games occured over 15 years ago Really? Then what conference was Florida in? the WAC? Gimmie a break. If there is a Big 10 school, matching up aganist a SEC school, almost 75% of the time, a SEC school is going to win it. The talent in the SEC > the talent in the Big 10. Go check the Big Ten vs Sec in bowl games since the BCS system. B10 has the slight advantage. For now. Just give it time. It'll slant over to the SEC eventually. That covers a period of 10 years! How long are we supposed to wait before the SEC gains this 75 percent advantage?

It depends on which bowl is picking. The Fiesta Bowl has already come out and indicated that they'd rather have Kansas than Missouri.

Apparently the coaches poll has LSU at #2, which virtually assures them of going to the national championship.

Not anything that hasn't been heard before when other teams have done the same thing. Personally, I don't really care about the conference champion label. LSU had 2 conference losses, Georgia had 2 conference losses. The fact that LSU played in the easier division doesn't mean in my mind that they should be given more consideration. Now if you say that LSU had the better resume, that is a different story, but I'm not sure that can be proven.

It probably won't make you feel any better, but at least those schools just aren't getting picked ahead of you. Kansas will probably get up to #4 in the BCS which will give them an automatic bid, and that shuts Missouri out of consideration. I agree with you though that if they put the 10 teams with the strongest resumes in Missouri would be there.

technically no, but their final game vs Michigan was for the title Right, but in every other conference they would have had to win that game plus another and look how that's working out for Missouri. Big East, Pac-10, and Big Ten all need conference championship games...... At least everyone plays each other in the Big East and Pac-10. Conference championship games sometimes matchup teams that played each other during the regular season. It's one more hurdle that Big 12, ACC, and SEC teams must face. I don't exactly feel sorry for those 3 conferences that created a championship game for only one reason: money. Then they complain that it's an extra hurdle, but it's a self-imposed hurdle. I also don't see why its fair that the other 3 conferences have to have championship games just because the other 3 conferences were greedy.

If you're going to add South Carolina for LSU, you need to add Oklahoma State for Georgia. In just about every computer ranking, Georgia had a slightly harder schedule then LSU did coming into today. The SEC title game should probably tilt that to make LSU have the slight edge in the schedule, but it will be close.