CubColtPacer
-
Posts
13,869 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Joomla Posts 1
Chicago Cubs Videos
Chicago Cubs Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
2026 Chicago Cubs Top Prospects Ranking
News
2023 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
Guides & Resources
2024 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
The Chicago Cubs Players Project
2025 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker
2026 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker
Blogs
Events
Forums
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by CubColtPacer
-
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.
-
It's in his ESPN stats. Here are the numbers: 2004: 3.97 2005: 3.69 2006 (with Mets): 3.96 2006 (with Col): 4.04 2007: 4.02 Those numbers are surprising to me. That's well above average in P/PA, and yet he has an average to below average walk rate.
-
Just think about how big DeAndre looked tonight, and then add in the fact that he's lost 55 pounds since July. Seriously. As for Crawford, it's good to get this out of the way early. He's a freshman who apparently made some kind of a mistake, and 3 games is a pretty big punishment for a rules violation. Hopefully this makes him think twice before ever doing it again.
-
Santana to Yankees?
CubColtPacer replied to Backtobanks's topic in MLB Draft, International Signings, Amateur Baseball
The only reason the Twins are willing to offer that type of deal is: 1) He is the best pitcher in the game 2) Because he is the best pitcher, they have to show the fans that they care about keeping him. 3) The Twins know he won't accept such a low deal. There is absolutely no way that they can devote such a large percentage of their payroll to Zambrano. That would stop the deal even if they consider Z at his highest possible value. -
Mulder is much closer to pitching again vs. Prior. I'm not so sure of that. From varying reports, Prior could be pitching in the early half of next year (certainly not opening day, though), while Mulder, according to that link, isn't expected to pitch until AT LEAST midseason 2008. At worst it looks like their current timetables are similar, with Prior's being slightly ahead. That Mulder link was from January of last year talking about how he wouldn't pitch until midseason 2007, not midseason 2008.
-
Just to throw this link in talking about possibly trading Prior: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3129805 Of course you would have rather traded Prior at a higher value. At the same time, trading him might be the best move even now. The bigger the contract he wants the more the risk, and trading him would at least get some value back for him and is a much more preferable option to simply non-tendering him.
-
League Settings: 1 point per 10 yards receiving 6 per TD 1/2 point per reception Somebody offered me Wes Welker and Chris Cooley for Hines Ward and Dallas Clark. What do people think? It should be known that I'm in great playoff position right now, so the most important thing to have good playoff numbers in week 15 and week 16.
-
I'm not saying we shouldn't keep Prior, but it has nothing to do with being pot committed. All that money the Cubs spent in the past is sunk cost now. The Cubs can't get that money back, and so they can't think about all the money that they've invested in him. The decision has to be made solely on the money the Cubs would have to invest on him going forward and the production that he would give you going forward. That being said, his possible benefit probably outweighs his possible cost, but it depends on what type of contract he's demanding.
-
I don't understand why the Cubs would rather lock him into a deal that guarantees him 2 years and 12-14 million (and if he pitches well than it's 2 years and 20 million) when they can have him pitch this year for 2.2 million and then sign him to a deal for a lot of money if he pans out at the end of the year. That's way too much money guaranteed when the alternative is having the first year being only 2 1/2 million guaranteed. The Cubs are going to want much, much lower base salaries than 6-7 million per year if Prior is to come back. Also, for Prior to be good value with your contract, he has to come back and be the old Mark Prior at least 75 percent of the time. I think Prior has a reasonable chance to come back and be very good, but certainly nowhere near 75 percent.
-
Remember also with a 1 year deal the amount of money means less than if it were a multi-year deal. Not overpaying on multi-year deals is very important because it's so hard to project needs and payroll a year or two down the line, and you never know when you might need an extra 5-10 million lying around to make a big move on a productive player. If the deal doesn't work out also then you have an unproductive player on your roster that you don't want to cut because you will have dead money on your payroll for multiple years. With a 1 year deal, there's very little forecasting. They know what needs they're trying to fill this offseason, and they presumably kept enough money back to fill those needs (it doesn't matter if that money could have gone to a legit SS if they weren't going to try to find one anyway). When you're looking at 1 year deals then, the usage of the roster spot and the production is more important than the money spent. There probably won't be many if any better relievers than Kerry Wood that sign for 1 year, and so this is a good deal. If there was any evidence that unspent payroll this year would roll over into increased funds for next year's budget (as with a family's personal budget) then money for a 1 year deal would also become important. However, there is no real sign that this goes on in major league front offices.
-
0-16 is more likely. NE has a couple decently tough games left. Also, the cold weather sites they're playing at should keep the overall score closer, which means one bounce of the ball could give them a loss. Third, who knows how hard they will play at the Giants even if they are 15-0. I'd put New England's chances of going 16-0 at around 20 percent. Miami has about 3 games left they could possibly win, and I think their chances of going 0-16 is probably around 30 percent.
-
Teams do not have to win their conference to play for the national championship. See Oklahoma several years ago. It was OK? I thought it was Nebraska but you're probably right. If Georgia played LSU I'd have less of an issue with it but they didn't. It was both Nebraska (in 2001) and Oklahoma (in 2003). Nebraska didn't even play in the conference title game, and Oklahoma lost their title game.
-
The Big 10 would love that, but Notre Dame isn't joining a football conference anytime soon. It just isn't feasible for them, and I doubt the Big 10 will ever accept them in the same deal that the Big East is currently giving ND.
-
Now that's a good deal. Good job Hendry, and thanks Wood for not insisting on multiple years.
-
Well, the options for the Big 10 on adding another team are limited. They are looking for a good academic school that also would have competitive athletics. I've heard names like Pitt, Rutgers, and Missouri thrown around, but the question becomes why would any of those schools want to jump conferences? There's simply no school that fits the Big 10 well enough that would probably be willing to join right now.
-
Why would it be criminal? It's hardly the first time that a team has made it over a similar team despite getting beat head to head. The Florida State/Miami/Washington controversy in 2001 was a lot worse than the Va Tech/LSU one would be.
-
The only thing I question is the thought that you should win your conference to go to the title game. 1) Wildcard teams have won the title all the time in other sports. Winning the division/conference is not a necessary first step to winning the national title. 2) People are talking about this scenario specifically with teams such as Kansas and Georgia. The thing is, if their conferences had no championship games, then this wouldn't even be talked about. Both of those teams actually shared their conference title, but didn't get to go to the conference championship game due to tiebreakers. Conference tiebreakers shouldn't determine if a team gets to go play for the national title. Personally, I think Georgia or maybe Kansas should get their shot if both WVU and Missouri lose. Georgia shouldn't get passed over just because a 3 loss TN team won their last game. If the voters have determined that they have the best resume to be ranked #4 before this weekend, they shouldn't get passed over just because people don't want to put them in the title game.
-
Matt Garza
CubColtPacer replied to KingCubsFan's topic in MLB Draft, International Signings, Amateur Baseball
what part of hill's numbers don't look dominant? and he may be older than crawford, but he's got a lot less service time, so he's considerably cheaper. How long will Hill be considerably cheaper? How much money is he going to get in arbitration for the 2009 and 2010 season? The 2008 season Hill will make about 5 million less, but I question how much less he will make once he hits arbitration before the 09 season. Suppose Hill gets $3 his first season of arbitration (if he gets more than that, you're going to be very, very sorry you traded him for Carl Crawford). By that time, Crawford will have either forced you to trade him or forced you to sign an extension of more than $10 per season, possibly closer to $15 per. I don't really understand how Crawford is going to force a trade with 2 years left on his deal. He may want an extension, but he'll have to wait until during the 2010 season to get it. -
Matt Garza
CubColtPacer replied to KingCubsFan's topic in MLB Draft, International Signings, Amateur Baseball
what part of hill's numbers don't look dominant? and he may be older than crawford, but he's got a lot less service time, so he's considerably cheaper. How long will Hill be considerably cheaper? How much money is he going to get in arbitration for the 2009 and 2010 season? The 2008 season Hill will make about 5 million less, but I question how much less he will make once he hits arbitration before the 09 season. -
I heard before the bucket game that he was likely to get a new deal. After the bucket game, it was a done deal. Even the fans (who were mostly skeptical of him) won't let IU change him now. He's the guy who lead them to their first bowl bid in 15 years, and he's also an "Indiana guy" through and through which is important to many fans. I worry about his coaching abilities, but at the same time the turmoil might have been too much if somebody else had been hired because so many of the fans would not have agreed with the move. There was really no other move to make besides giving him an extension.
-
I understand what meph is trying to say. At the same time, most fans want the BCS to be like other sports. Other sports don't crown the best team, they crown the most deserving team. When you're talking about who is deserving to play for the national title, it has to be about wins and losses first, then schedule second, then margin of victory third. Sure, Florida might be one of the best 5 teams in the nation. They aren't one of the 5 most deserving teams though, and I believe most people would rather have the most deserving teams than necessarily who is the best in BCS games. Otherwise, the point of the games in the first place is lost. If rankings aren't based on wins and losses first, then the drama of a close game becomes almost nil, and that's what people love about college football. For example, the LSU-Arkansas game on Friday. If you're going to rank LSU about the same either way (because they've played a hard schedule and it was an OT game), then there is no reason for fans around the nation to really care about the game.
-
good thing some guy in USA Today's rankings have no actual effect on the real world As Meph said, Sagarin does have an influence on the BCS as he is one of the computer rankings. Of course, in the formula that counts for the BCS Florida's only 9th. Again though meph, you're willing to accept that Florida is 2nd using pure points, but at the same time that formula has Kansas 6th and Missouri 9th after last night's games, while you have Missouri 2nd and Kansas 17th. So it's pretty obvious you don't put much weight in that formula except for the high ranking of Florida.