CubColtPacer

A .740 SS isn't replacement level. That's an average SS around the league. I can see Theriot having .750 years, but I think normally he'll average closer to 700.

I'm not sure we can devote 3 of our 5 bench spots to our backup catcher and two backup first basemen that don't play OF very well. That would be my worry with signing Shelton when the Cubs already have Ward.

Peyton Manning lost his first 7 games in Foxboro (from 1998-2004, so not all those games were when New England was great) and the exact same things were said about that place. Since then, he's had 2 victories there. Those sorts of streaks occasionally happen. It's not like Green Bay ever lost to bad Dallas teams there.

Why would the Padres do that? The Cubs would have to throw in somebody like Pie in order for them to even possibly accept it.

A .296 OBP, not throwing anybody out last year, a little injury prone at the worst position for that, and making at least a couple million dollars? Plus, he got a little violent with his manager last year (although some fans may view this as a positive concerning Yost, MLB executives don't). I can see why very few people would want him.

What would Minnesota do with Jeff Clement? I don't understand the mention of him here. Play him at catcher. Uh huh. Yeah, you could do that. Mauer would really improve their bench :roll: Minnesota doesn't start Mauer at C nearly as much as some other teams. He made 119 starts there in 2006, and 88 games there in 2007. Part of that is due to injuries (Mauer has played a decent amount of DH both seasons and been hurt the rest of the time) but the point remains that the Twins need a very good backup. Plus, many of Mauer's injuries got worse because he was playing catcher. If they had Clement, they could let Mauer DH most of the time.

Just like how Favre was undefeated when the temperature was less than 34 degrees and we had the Falcons at home in the playoffs when it was freezing. We all know what happened then. Yeah, Michael Vick raped the Pack's defense. You aren't really going to argue that a Packer failure that broke a weather trend is the same thing as winning a game in a building where the Pack has never won, against a version of the opponent that is better than any version the Pack has ever faced in that building? Are you? I like this year's Cowboys team, but I'm not sure if they are better than the Aikman-Smith-Irvin version. Well -- latter day version, sure they are. The Pack weren't really a winning club until mid-late '90s, of course they were going to lose to the Boys in the early '90s. Those 9 losses for the Pack came in: 2 in 93 (Dallas won the title) 2 in 94 (Dallas 12-4, Green Bay 9-7) 2 in 95 (Dallas won the title) 1 in 96 (GB won the title) 1 in 99 (both 8-8) Those are the 8 I can find during Favre's tenure before last night. As you can see, 6 of them were in Dallas's glory days. The game in 96 was the only game in the entire Favre tenure that you can say that Green Bay had a better team in (and Dallas was still pretty good and playing at home). That 0-9 in Dallas Stadium means pretty much nothing when 7 of the 9 games were over 10 years ago, and 6 of the 8 games during the 90's were against the great Dallas dynasty. Home field advantage doesn't mean all that much for Dallas. If GB is going to lose, it will be because they failed to cover the pass like they did last night.

The only team he may be playing for is on Mike Vicks. There's no guarantee of that. Of course, there's no guarantee he won't be. But if you're looking for a power-hitting lefty, it's pretty hard not to include Bonds in the conversation. After all, the guy slugged .565 last year. The MLB front office already said they saw no point in suspending him because they thought he would be forced to retire this offseason. If Bonds does sign a contract with a team, he may immediately be suspended.

What kind of record? A New York franchise record? Because I know there have been at least 2 teams in the NBA who have scored less points then that in a game.

the bigger problem that i have is that a ticky-tack call can allow a team to move the ball 50 yards down the field. make it a maximum of 15 yards, like in college. Then you have like college where every defender who is beat just mugs the receiver in order to not give up the 50 yard bomb. I'd rather have it the pros way. There really aren't that many PI calls deep, and I'd rather not make PI a strategy.

Richie should be a backup in Iowa, just like last season. He's behind Soto, Blanco and Koyie Hill, I'd guess. Some guys who might be taken are Josh Kroeger, Justin Berg (even though he has awful control), Grant Johnson. Hell, maybe Ryan Harvey. Are you sure about Kroeger? I thought he was a ML FA and resigned. My understanding is that if you are a signed minor league free agent, you are still eligible for the rule 5 draft. At the same time, if any club wanted him they would have just signed him to a deal in free agency rather than have to abide by the rules of the rule 5 draft.

I'm sure they didn't realize it was going to be a huge game when they scheduled it. Dallas was supposed to be good and Green Bay decent, but neither one was supposed to be close to this good. Personally, I don't quite understand the hatred for the NFL Network games. It's not like the BTN controversy. The NFL by moving 8 games to Thursday night have actually expanded their audience instead of limited it. Think about what would happen if it was on Sunday instead. It either goes into regional coverage, or it bumps another good game off of national TV. Now there are 6 games that a person can watch instead of 5 (Thursday night, two games at 1:00, 1 game at 4:15, Sunday night, Monday night). It's not like you were seeing these types of games for free and now they require payment. You only get to see a certain number of games in the past without ordering Sunday Ticket (which many people cannot do). Now, there is another avenue to receive more games. Only for people with NFL network though. My apartment complex doesnt allow dishes so Im unable to get the NFL network. The NFL made the NFL network and their ratings were terrible. So what do they do? They decide to put games on the network to try and gain ratings(make money). This is all about the money for the NFL, plain and simple. If this game was on Sunday like it should be, the NFL would have been able to do the right thing and move it to the Sunday night game, thus making it available for everyone to watch. Instead we get Cincinnati vs the Bengals, yay. I think Steelers-Bengals will be a good game, so I don't really want to lose that game either. I couldn't get a dish with my apartment complex either. I'm paying 5.00 a month extra for NFL Network along with some other sports channels (unfortunately no BTN though, that's not available pretty much anywhere on cable). I thought the same way though when I lived last year in an area that didn't offer NFL Network on cable and had to watch all the games through play by play on the internet. Sure, very very occasionally it may cause a game not to get flexed. More often though, all it does is take a regional game and make it a national one that people can watch. Now, it is at least partially the NFL's fault that they haven't settled with the cable companies yet. There is no reason to need to charge that much for NFL Network.

I'm sure they didn't realize it was going to be a huge game when they scheduled it. Dallas was supposed to be good and Green Bay decent, but neither one was supposed to be close to this good. Personally, I don't quite understand the hatred for the NFL Network games. It's not like the BTN controversy. The NFL by moving 8 games to Thursday night have actually expanded their audience instead of limited it. Think about what would happen if it was on Sunday instead. It either goes into regional coverage, or it bumps another good game off of national TV. Now there are 6 games that a person can watch instead of 5 (Thursday night, two games at 1:00, 1 game at 4:15, Sunday night, Monday night). It's not like you were seeing these types of games for free and now they require payment. You only get to see a certain number of games in the past without ordering Sunday Ticket (which many people cannot do). Now, there is another avenue to receive more games.

As Bruce just said in the other thread, Matsui and Fukudome go way back. Matsui is the left-handed bat that allows for versatility (lets DeRosa move around) plus being the enticement for Fukudome who is supposed to be the LH OF bat. That's at least the plan, no matter how flawed it may be.

The one thing that really sticks out at me looking at the two polls was that the ACC was severly underrated at the start of the season. 2 teams in the top 25 to start the season, 4 at the end of the year. Especially if Oregon loses this week, the Pac 10 will have struggled to live up to expectations despite ASU's emergence because of USC, Cal, and UCLA. The Big 10's a mixed bag. Michigan is a major disappointment. Wisconsin and Penn State are disappointments. Ohio State is definitely a surprise, while Illinois is a major surprise. So probably a little worse than pre-season for the Big 10. The Big East is probably slightly disappointing, while Missouri adds a huge, huge bonus to the Big 12. The SEC is right about where they are supposed to be. Auburn over South Florida in the polls is a joke though.

Maybe the radio report was true. Crap. I don't see how that adds much to the equation. He's just taking a radio report from last night and running with it. He even admits he has no source on it. The fact that it's been 18 hours since that radio report started and there is still no report from anyone else makes it seriously questionable.

For one, it may simply be a question of eligibility. The Big East doesn't have another team eligible for consideration (the only way the BE would have gotten 2 teams in is if UConn had beaten WV). The ACC won't have a great option after the championship game for an at-large spot. That leaves 3 at-large spots (after you give Hawaii it's spot) for 4 conferences. The SEC and Big 12 look like they'll get their maximum of 1 at-large spot. That leaves the Pac 10 and Big 10. The Pac 10 would have gotten 2 in if Dixon hadn't gotten hurt for Oregon. Since he did, Oregon is no longer a possibility. That only leaves Arizona State, and Illinois is simply a more attractive option for most of the bowls than a 2 loss Sun Devil team, and that's assuming ASU gets past Arizona this weekend. Plus, if Washington beats Hawaii, then suddenly there pretty much are no choices. A SEC team, a Big 12 team, Illinois, and Arizona State will be the 4 at-larges/ Why wouldn't the BE not have an eligible team? They have 3 9 win teams other than WV. You have to have a team that is in the top 14 of the BCS. Currently, the second best BE team is South Florida at 21. Even if the Orange bowl wanted to select them they couldn't unless they somehow made up 7 spots.

I think it's simply rematches that are forbidden, not sure. Since we never played this year, that doesn't come into play. Three cheers for imbalanced scheduling! I know you're already a big fan of it. :wink: The writer claims that the BCS games who select before the Fiesta are much more likely to pass over Mizzou in favor of more attractive choices. (Example: Rose takes USC and UI to maintain Pac-10/Big-10 politics. Orange takes, I dunno, Georgia and on't go to the Rose, and they definitely won't last all the way to the Firsomebody?) The writer thinks the Fiesta will pass on ASU because having the local team will hurt the economy. The writer doesn't mention the Orange or Rose Bowls anywhere in his article. While your scenario might generate the most revenue in terms of selecting the most popular teams, I am still under the belief that the best teams will be in the BCS bowls. As such, Missouri will get selected over Georgia (if for no other reason than to avoid the firestorm should Missouri not be in). The BCS bowls have never been about picking the best teams. The controversy for Missouri not being in will be a lot less than say Cal or Oregon from 2-3 years ago. If the Orange Bowl feels that Georgia will make the most money, they will select them in a second.

For one, it may simply be a question of eligibility. The Big East doesn't have another team eligible for consideration (the only way the BE would have gotten 2 teams in is if UConn had beaten WV). The ACC won't have a great option after the championship game for an at-large spot. That leaves 3 at-large spots (after you give Hawaii it's spot) for 4 conferences. The SEC and Big 12 look like they'll get their maximum of 1 at-large spot. That leaves the Pac 10 and Big 10. The Pac 10 would have gotten 2 in if Dixon hadn't gotten hurt for Oregon. Since he did, Oregon is no longer a possibility. That only leaves Arizona State, and Illinois is simply a more attractive option for most of the bowls than a 2 loss Sun Devil team, and that's assuming ASU gets past Arizona this weekend. Plus, if Washington beats Hawaii, then suddenly there pretty much are no choices. A SEC team, a Big 12 team, Illinois, and Arizona State will be the 4 at-larges/

The last news I saw said that he may not decide before the first of the year.

You hate us, don't you Hoops? That's the only reason I can see for telling us this information. :cry: Our SS position is bad enough that Wilson would probably be a bad gamble but not a horrible one. At least he's had a couple years of good production for a SS. His defense is also better than Theriot's. I'm not saying I would want to trade for him, but he almost certainly would be an upgrade and possibly a significant one.

I'd make it a nice club option (say 8-10 million) but that's as far as I would go with Prior. Two other quick things from that article. One, it says Prior hasn't started throwing off a mound yet. That's not exactly good news for his return anytime soon. Also, whenever it says the club would "love to have him back by May", it typically means it will drag into the summer. Two, the Marquis note at the bottom. Look at the way they phrase it: "rumblings that they're listening on Marquis". That implies that teams are offering something, which frankly doesn't surprise me. If you look at the wording on Morris in the next paragraph, it's completely different. That one says they are "actively shopping" Morris, which implies that nobody wants him.

Why must the Fiesta Bowl choose Kansas should Missouri lose? Why not choose some other at-large team not from the Big 12 and let Missouri go to another BCS bowl game. The Fiesta can choose whoever they want. They apparently want Kansas is what the article is saying.

Only because Jim Hendry puts all his cards on the table well in advance. And when did he lay his cards out about Prior? Those executives thought he would be non-tendered because they thought that it was simply too much money for him, not because they expected the Cubs to make some sort of mistake.

If they're looking to trade him, everybody will know that anyway. Remember in the middle of the season the majority of ML executives already thought that Prior would be non-tendered. Any reports coming out the last few days have done nothing to lower Prior's value.