CubColtPacer

Please...list these "facts" for me. * Offensive and defensive statistics (you can look them up). * The Cubs winning percentages with Theriot starting/Cedeno starting. All the "mathmeticians" that want to say that Theriot "sucked" in 2007 - I don't really know what to say. I am sure he will improve, and I am sure there was a reason why he started at SS most of the year. I know he was inconsistant at best offensively, and didn't play SS like Ozzie Smith. I can appreciate that the 2007 Chicago Cubs were a hell of a lot better than the 06 Cubs - and they got almost all the plays from SS because of Theriot. I watched a hell of a lot of games this season, and we definately had a better team when he was in the lineup. I love players like Theriot, and hope he is our SS/2B for as long as he plays like he did in 07. I'll bet you if you asked any member of the team they would agree with me too. The Cubs finished 65-62 with Theriot starting, and they were 20-15 when Theriot did not start. They were 8-6 when Cedeno started this season. If you want to make the winning percentage argument, you're arguing for Cedeno because his winning percentage was a lot higher than Theriot's. The Cubs scored 4.496 runs per game when Theriot started. They scored 5.17 runs per game when Theriot did not start. They scored 5.07 runs per game when Cedeno started.

They were close in the AP poll, they're 26th this week in that one. Penn State is ranked in the coaches poll, 25th this week. They slipped in ahead of Michigan in that one.

The only reason that I wouldn't do that is that if you put OSU behind Oklahoma and LSU now, they wouldn't move ahead of them if everyone won out. Considering they have Michigan State, Penn State, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Michigan left, if OSU wins out they deserve to be in the national title game over a 1 loss LSU or a 1 loss Oklahoma.

Isn't the "relatively speaking" = the "less resources"? not really, the "relatively speaking" would more equal "less time at his job". Well then, the comparison is flawed if it just means that. Schuerholz has been there 17 years. In those years, his teams have won 14 division titles and 1 WS. They appeared in 4 other WS's and lost in the NLCS 4 other times. His teams won 100 games 6 times, and over 90 games 7 other times. In those 17 years, his teams had a total of 1 losing season, a 79-83 mark in 2006. Beane just finished his 10th season as the Oakland G.M. In that time, the A's have won the division 4 times and the WC once. They have won 100 games twice, and over 90 4 other times. They have had two losing seasons: 1998 (74-88) and 2007 (76-88). They went to the ALCS once, never making the WS. You cannot compare the two without considering factors like lack of resources that would help Beane. Scheurholz's teams have made the playoffs 82.4% of the time compared to Beane's 50%. Schuerholz's teams have had losing seasons 5.9% of the time compared to Beane's 20%. They aren't even close even before you consider success in the playoffs which Schuerholz's teams have been a lot better at.

i guess we'll find out how bad they are when they play in a bcs bowl later this season I don't think you will. I am looking at a couple of the computer rankings right now. While it's still early for the computers and they'll have to shake out a little bit once they get more data (which is the biggest reason they don't release the BCS standings in September because the computers have some wacky stuff the first few weeks) here are the rankings currently for Hawaii in the 4 computers who have released their rankings for this year: 34, 54, 30, 32. It's still early, but it's going to be a long road for Hawaii to be able to climb into the top 12 of the BCS. In the polls, they are 16th, but once they start getting in the top 15 they really won't rise much higher unless they destroy Washington the final week of the year and everyone else loses. Now-if a BCS automatically qualified team is lower than 16th in the rankings and Hawaii is able to get in by just being in the top 16 of the BCS, I believe they get in.

MLB's spending spree has flourished in recent years even without the Yanks and Sox leading the charge... or even really getting very involved at all. Aside from Clemens, who is obviously a special case, the Yanks haven't had a bigtime signing in years. The Sox? DiceK is again a special case. JD Drew fits. Anyone else? Andy Pettitte for $16M after the 2006 season, Johnny Damon after the 2005 season for 4/$52M, and Carl Pavano after the 2004 season for 4/$40M. Sheffield was signed the year before that. Pettitte wasn't a bidding war, it was simply a manner of how much the Yankees decided to pay him. I don't think you can really call signings like Pettitte (or Bonds last year) part of the free agent market because they were heading to one and one team only. I agree with the Damon and Pavano signings though being pretty big.

He wasn't ever an easy out? The only position players who averaged less pitches per plate appearance than Theriot were either demoted or traded (Izturis, Moore, Fox). Everybody else saw more pitches than Theriot. Theriot made an out 67 times on the first pitch. 67 times! The only other Cub above 50 is Aramis Ramirez with 57 times. On the second pitch, Theriot made an out 69 times. That's good for 2nd on the team behind Soriano (77 times). On the third pitch, Theriot made an out 90 times. That's good for 2nd on the team again behind Soriano (94 times) Theriot has made the most outs on the first 3 pitches on the team (19 more outs overall than 2nd place Soriano). Soriano also had 42 more overall at-bats then Theriot, so Theriot had a much higher out percentage on the first 3 pitches. The leader in making outs early in the count should never be a non-power hitter, and Theriot is way in front in that category. A non-power hitter should also never see the least number of pitches on the team. He certainly isn't what you described when you said that he was never an easy out. Good job with the work on this CCP. I have a question that maybe you could answer. Did this get worse as the season progressed? It seemed early in the year he was doing a good job of working counts. Was I just thinking this compared to Cedeno and Izturius or was it true. After his little hot spell in Aug he really looked like a first pitch hacker the rest of the year. Sorry I didn't see this until now. I can sort through the pitches per plate appearance numbers, but not the outs without exhaustive research. Here are these: P/PA by month: April: 3.39 May: 3.99 June: 3.48 July: 3.59 August: 3.44 September: 3.30

Sorry, that's what happens when you try to snip quotes quickly :D. It's fixed now.

He wasn't ever an easy out? The only position players who averaged less pitches per plate appearance than Theriot were either demoted or traded (Izturis, Moore, Fox). Everybody else saw more pitches than Theriot. Theriot made an out 67 times on the first pitch. 67 times! The only other Cub above 50 is Aramis Ramirez with 57 times. On the second pitch, Theriot made an out 69 times. That's good for 2nd on the team behind Soriano (77 times). On the third pitch, Theriot made an out 90 times. That's good for 2nd on the team again behind Soriano (94 times) Theriot has made the most outs on the first 3 pitches on the team (19 more outs overall than 2nd place Soriano). Soriano also had 42 more overall at-bats then Theriot, so Theriot had a much higher out percentage on the first 3 pitches. The leader in making outs early in the count should never be a non-power hitter, and Theriot is way in front in that category. A non-power hitter should also never see the least number of pitches on the team. He certainly isn't what you described when you said that he was never an easy out.

The value for Nathan is high enough that only those who desperately need a good reliever back there could have enough of an improvement with Nathan to make the traded players worth it, and even that's debatable. For a team like the Cubs who simply would be upgrading a strength, the cost in prospects would be too much and could be better used to try to go get a very good guy on offense rather than a great guy in the bullpen.

Unless your Juan Pierre, who was widely disliked and whose 2006 was better than Theriot's 2007. Pierre wasn't widely disliked. There were a lot of general fans who were upset when the Cubs decided not to sign him. It just got washed away pretty quickly with the Soriano signing, and it wasn't as fervent as it otherwise would have been because 2006 was such a horrible year that many people tuned out of after a month or two.

If signing Wood allows you to trade Dempster though, you save money and add talent from the trade. That's one of the only 2 ways I'd sign Wood. The other way would be if Wood came for less than 2 million, which I don't see as likely but I guess it's possible.

No worries about that, the Tigers picked up his 13 million dollar option today.

Bingo. GMs should never be judge on a year to year bases. They should be judged on how well the team has performed over a period of time and how are the positioned to do in the future. Giving Hendry a lot of money this off season and while only having a year left on his contract probably was not a wise move from Upper management. Truth be told if I had the available funds that Hendry had this off season I probably could have signed Soriano. I dont think anyone is talking about hiring me as GM. 1) Hendry had 2 years left on his deal, not 1. 2) This is exactly what upper management wanted. The last thing that the Tribune wanted before selling the team was to have another sub 75 win team, and they were willing to do anything (including hurting the future) to drive up the sale price. It's as much upper management's fault as Hendry's for telling him to make a splash no matter how much money it took. I did say it was unwise move by upper management. Agreed. I just read your statement as the biggest reason that there was a lot of money thrown around was because Hendry was just trying to save his job, when it was more likely that the money was thrown around because of the ownership change. Sure, Hendry appreciated all the money, but with the way he tended to spend money before (even when he only had a year left on his deal in the winter of 2005, rather than the 2 left in the winter of 2006) it seems unlikely that he would go on a complete spending spree to save his job without a directive from above that they needed to spend and buy as much talent as possible.

Bingo. GMs should never be judge on a year to year bases. They should be judged on how well the team has performed over a period of time and how are the positioned to do in the future. Giving Hendry a lot of money this off season and while only having a year left on his contract probably was not a wise move from Upper management. Truth be told if I had the available funds that Hendry had this off season I probably could have signed Soriano. I dont think anyone is talking about hiring me as GM. 1) Hendry had 2 years left on his deal, not 1. 2) This is exactly what upper management wanted. The last thing that the Tribune wanted before selling the team was to have another sub 75 win team, and they were willing to do anything (including hurting the future) to drive up the sale price. It's as much upper management's fault as Hendry's for telling him to make a splash no matter how much money it took.

Sorry, I just dont see it. They wont be able to compete for the big free agents. their bullpen is horrible. Their starting pitching is mediocre at best, and Sheets has proved he cant stay healthy. They will definitely provide some healthy competition, but 90 wins is stretching it. Bullpens are fickle, Gaurdaro is probably the future ace and Capuano will probably rebound. Also what free agents do they need? They could probably use a LFer since Mench is no good and Jenkins is probably leaving. The Brewers are a young team getting better. The Cubs are a older team whose star players are probably only going to decline in the future. The Brewers young hitting reminds me of the Cubs young pitching in 03. Sure, they are great and they will cause the team to be in contention by themselves for years (without injuries). The same thing is true for both teams though-how does the Brewers hitting get better? Many of their young hitters are already great, so are they really going to develop that much more? For example, Braun. He had a 1004 OPS this year. Do you see him consistently going over that? Gallardo for their pitching also had a #1-#2 like season already although only in 110 innings. Braun and Gallardo for a full year will help them, but I honestly don't see how their young players are going to get better because they already have broken out. Some of them might get better, but some of them also might have just had career years. The chances seem about equal both ways.

Blast me if you will, I completely understand, give Cedeno a shot. I still think he's a solid contributor to the MLB club. That's certainly possible. The problem is, if we give Cedeno a shot, it's at the expense of 1 of Soto, Pie, or Murton. We have to get an upgrade at 1 of those positions, and SS seems like the best one if they could do it.

My God, what the hell is going on out there? UCLA is playing a third string, walk-on redshirt freshman QB with backup RBs. Still no reason to be losing. Ack I just saw the update. Horrible turnover. Should know the only way ND gets a win will be when a team hands it to them. That won't be the only way ND will get a win. They are getting better every game, and should have a good shot to win each of their last 4 games legitimately. The next two weeks are going to be rough though. The way freshman keep stepping up for ND every week though, next year should be much better. They won't be great, but they should be above average next year the way players are developing. Doesn't matter, UCLA would be up by double digits if Cowan or Olson were playing. You're up because you're facing a third string walk-on who has fumbled a 40-yard TD and thrown a pick that was returned to the 5. I never said that ND would be winning otherwise (although I think it would be closer than that). I'm just saying that ND's only way to win is not if the opponent hands it to them. They're getting good enough to win on their own now, but tonight UCLA is handing the win to them.

My God, what the hell is going on out there? UCLA is playing a third string, walk-on redshirt freshman QB with backup RBs. Still no reason to be losing. Ack I just saw the update. Horrible turnover. Should know the only way ND gets a win will be when a team hands it to them. That won't be the only way ND will get a win. They are getting better every game, and should have a good shot to win each of their last 4 games legitimately. The next two weeks are going to be rough though. The way freshman keep stepping up for ND every week though, next year should be much better. They won't be great, but they should be above average next year the way players are developing.

Damn, two TD's for Notre Dame? I feel for you...well, except in the NFL world :wink: It's ND's defense. Their 2 TD's were a defensive TD and another drive that started at the UCLA 6 after an INT.

USF and Ohio State might very possibly not lose. Either of those clubs could/should be #1 if LSU goes on to lose. Who else could it be? I think USF should be near the back of the top 5 after barely squeaking by Florida Atlantic today (5 point game in the final couple minutes). I'd put it: Cal Ohio State Boston College USF Florida I really don't think South Florida can make it through the Big East undefeated. I feel the same about Boston College and the ACC. Cal and Ohio State are the best teams that are still undefeated, but I'm not sure either of them can go the rest of the way. Cal has the USC game, and Ohio State still has a couple interesting tests left.

Now South Florida and Boston College will both probably be in the top 5. Amazing. The chances for 1 or 0 undefeated teams at the end of the year seems very high now.

There could be a lot of new blood in the poll this week. Looking at the AP poll #19 lost #20 and 21 are playing each other, so that's one team out #22 lost #23 is losing #24 lost #25 is losing A few teams receiving votes lost as well. I definitely think Illinois and Kansas will be in. I'm not sure about the others though.

Personally I think USC should drop to #4 after tonight (#3 if LSU loses). There is absolutely no way that USC has a better resume than Cal so far, and taking the scores tonight into account I would say Ohio State deserves to be over them as well. I know they won't, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't.

Yup, and Stanford has the ball on USC's 1 yard line (it's 16-7, not 15 btw). The other score I'm laughing at is that Arkansas is only up 24-15 after 3 quarters on Chattanooga, who just happens to be a 1-3 IAA team.