CubColtPacer

I'd treat it like a normal start. Don't overthrow him, but there really isn't that much need to be overly conservative either.

Wait... what? Why would the playoff schedule change? If there are two days between the end of the season and the start of the playoffs, that would be fine. Not likely, but you could end up with a 4-way tie 89-73. Mets Phillies, Rockies, Padres. That still would only require 2 days though. The games for the division titles would be on Monday, and the losers would play for the WC on Tuesday. I think the playoff delaying tiebreakers all had to have 3 teams in the West in it, be it a 4 or 5 team scenario. Now that Colorado and Arizona cannot tie, those are out the window.

On that single to right, the Reds color announcer was talking about how Floyd was unwilling to leave his feet or dive for the ball and how that ball was easily catchable. I'm not sure why Floyd would dive for a ball that he would have ended up 10 feet short if he had, but whatever I guess.

That's 7 straight times Floyd has been on base. 2 hits, 4 walks, and a HBP.

The Reds announcers said that they appealed to see if Jones left 2nd early or not. If that is true, I have no idea why-you can clearly see on the replay that as the throw is coming in to the plate Jones is standing on 2nd base. Maybe they meant DeRosa and 3rd base?

Floyd's now gotten on base in his last 6 PA's.

At the same time, Soto replaced Blanco as the backup in September and got 10 starts, which is a lot more than anybody would have expected at the beginning of the month. The right-left-right lineup while not sound hasn't hurt because Floyd has been so good in September. Starting Trachsel was definitely a mistake. So he has been far from perfect, but moves like changing a young catcher's status from 3rd catcher to splitting time in September of a playoff race is a significant step from the past.

The same would be true if they both lose tonight, but I'd prefer winning. I'm actually hoping for that scenerio, because not only would the players be able to properly celebrate, but we'll be able to see all the postgame coverage on WGN (I'm sure there would be an extended 10th Inning show if they clinch tomorrow). Completely agree. I'd like to see the Cubs and Brewers match each other tonight (preferably the both winning since it would mean the Cubs actually got a win) for that very reason. I'm not willing to bank on that, especially because tomorrow is probably the hardest game of the series. I do think it will end tomorrow (I'm not sure if it will be with the Cubs win or the Brewers loss) after getting to a magic number of 1 tonight. If I had my preference though, I'd like to finish it tonigh.

The Cubs didn't have many great hitting prospects there most of the season. Colvin was likely to be there, but he skipped right on to Daytona at the beginning of the year, and then they didn't really have some good prospects there again until the last couple weeks of the year. Their pitching prospects were better there, but most of the intriguing ones got hurt for a large part of the season.

I don't know how you could possibly justify saying that except for blind homerism. The 2007 Cubs are as mediocre as the 2006 Cardinals. I also believe they are a worse put together team. Why? Because they are? Last year the Cardinals won 83 games. The best the Cubs can do is win 87. There is not a whole lot of difference there. In 2006 the Cardinals fifth in RS/game in the NL and 8th in pitching. In 2007 the Cubs are 8th in RS/game and 2nd in pitching. There's not a whole lot of difference there. Now, on being put together worse. The Cubs spent a lot of money this offseason and at best they will have 4 more wins to show for it. You still haven't explained why the 2006 Cardinals were a better put together team then this year Cubs? Well they had a CFer for one. They had a SS who got on base. They had the best player in baseball at first. They had a catcher who shut down the running game and hit. Aramis and Rolen are about even. But most importantly, THEY SPENT $88 M DOLLARS TO DO SO. ABOUT $40 M LESS THAN THE CUBS THIS YEAR. Or to put it another way the Cards spent 1 M/win. The Cubs have spend 1.45 M/win The Cardinals payroll was 88.89 million last year. The Cubs payroll is 99.67 million this year. That's hardly a difference of 40 million. The quote I found was 120 million, well 118 million. http://www.cubsnet.com/node/790 That is very inaccurate in places. First, look at Kendall's line. That site has him listed as the Cubs paying him 7.5 million when the Cubs are actually paying 900k. Although the site does have it in the notes that the 7.5 is incorrect for what the Cubs are actually paying. Also, that site is adding all the contracts of people on the 40 man, not just the 25 man. The Cardinals figure of 88.89 million was only for the 25 man roster. Here are the payrolls for the teams in April. The Cubs haven't changed much in payroll since then. They saved about a million on Barrett, and then spent about that much on Kendall. They saved some on Izturis, and spent that on Trachsel. http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/salaries/totalpayroll.aspx?year=2007

I don't know how you could possibly justify saying that except for blind homerism. The 2007 Cubs are as mediocre as the 2006 Cardinals. I also believe they are a worse put together team. Why? Because they are? Last year the Cardinals won 83 games. The best the Cubs can do is win 87. There is not a whole lot of difference there. In 2006 the Cardinals fifth in RS/game in the NL and 8th in pitching. In 2007 the Cubs are 8th in RS/game and 2nd in pitching. There's not a whole lot of difference there. Now, on being put together worse. The Cubs spent a lot of money this offseason and at best they will have 4 more wins to show for it. You still haven't explained why the 2006 Cardinals were a better put together team then this year Cubs? Well they had a CFer for one. They had a SS who got on base. They had the best player in baseball at first. They had a catcher who shut down the running game and hit. Aramis and Rolen are about even. But most importantly, THEY SPENT $88 M DOLLARS TO DO SO. ABOUT $40 M LESS THAN THE CUBS THIS YEAR. Or to put it another way the Cards spent 1 M/win. The Cubs have spend 1.45 M/win The Cardinals payroll was 88.89 million last year. The Cubs payroll is 99.67 million this year. That's hardly a difference of 40 million.

Yeah, that's the only thing that fits the evidence for me. First, Marshall starts getting pulled earlier and earlier in games, even games he's effective in and in strange spots. He didn't break 85 pitches once in August despite a couple effective starts, which is very unusual. Add to that a generally ineffective August, and suddenly they trade for Trachsel. Then in the doubleheader game, Marshall again struggles. He's only been anywhere near this number of innings once (last year) and last year he was also ineffective as his innings grew. I think his arm isn't used to the workload and is pretty dead right now.

That's exactly what I mean. It should've cost a little bit of cash, not two players, one of them still a Top 10 Cubs prospect. Even if they didn't have a future with the Cubs it doesn't mean you give them away for nothing. Moore was not a top 10 Cubs prospect. In fact, a few of the minor league experts on the board didn't have Moore on their top 30 list. I think the Cubs did the trade because Marshall's arm was dying and to clear 40 man space for the offseason with 2 guys they didn't want anymore. The fact that they weren't planning to call up Moore or Cherry for September callups said exactly how the Cubs felt about them. At the same time, they paid too much in a sense as well because Trachsel ended up being worse than either Hart or Gallagher would likely do.

We need to win 1 game, and the Brewers lose 1. And that's all. If the Pads were to take 2/3, which THEY will need or they're in trouble, then we could get swept and still win it. If they lose tonight....then, if we win ONE game, or they lose ONE game, then we are guaranteed at least a tie, correct? No we would clinch the division. No...I said "OR"...I don't think we win if its just OR....if we win one, and they sweep, its a tie...if they lose one and we get swept, its a tie....right? Yes, that's correct. It's a tie if it's or, and the Cubs clinch if both happen (or if they win 2 or the Brewers lose 2).

We need to win 1 game, and the Brewers lose 1. And that's all. If the Pads were to take 2/3, which THEY will need or they're in trouble, then we could get swept and still win it. If they lose tonight....then, if we win ONE game, or they lose ONE game, then we are guaranteed at least a tie, correct? Yes. Magic number would be 1 to make sure of a tie and 2 to clinch after tonight if the Brewers lose.

He couldn't have. He was thinking about the playoffs just like he said he wasn't. I don't think it was that. He had to start a 5th starter Thursday, Friday, or Saturday-that was certain. The coaching staff thinks that Hill is more effective when given more than normal rest, so the 5th starter spot was moved to Thursday. Then Lou had to decide who to start-Trachsel, Marshall, Hart, or Gallagher? That's where he messed up, not in thinking about the playoffs. He should have started Hart or Gallagher instead of Trachsel (I personally believe Marshall's arm is in bad shape right now).

Yeah, this was the game the Brewers had to win. Maddux, Young, and Peavy against Capuano, Bush, and Suppan is going to be tough for the Brewers to win 2. Now let's hold on Padres tonight...don't let them back in now.

Lord help the Cubs if they ever get a competent manager and coaching staff. I think as a whole, Lou is pretty competent. I think he left his brain in Chicago for this Marlins series, but on the whole, I think he's competent. On that particular comment, I think he was talking about the Brewers and how good they would be if only they had the right coaching.

This is why I don't think it's that horrible of a decision when Yost takes Braun out of the game, provided it's the 8th or 9th and they are leading. Sure, they miss his bat when his turn in the order comes up and the other team has tied the game, but he also is a candidate to help the other team tie the game everytime he touches the ball. 26 errors now in 3/4 of a season, and how many more would he have had if he wasn't taken out of all those games?

I also would start Pie considering Jones's absolutely awful numbers against Arroyo, but I'm already resigned that it's not going to happen (and I'm not sure it would make that much difference anyway).

The Reds series is one series where Lou seriously has to re-think starting Soto. Let's cast all the other debate about who is better in a normal situation aside for the moment. The thing is, the Reds are missing their 2 biggest power hitters. A team that usually relies on the long ball and less on the stolen base (they are 8th in the NL in stolen bases) suddenly finds itself with most of its power gone and using more of a speed lineup. They will be trying to make things happen on the bases. Now, Z is pretty good at holding runners on, so Kendall is fine with starting tomorrow. If you don't start Soto paired up with Hill and Lilly though, the Reds will run all day long.

I'm convinced he's either injured or has a dead arm. There's no rational explanation for why he and Sean Gallagher haven't pitched this month beyond that. Yeah, I think Marshall's arm is gone. He was pitching shorter and shorter outings (hadn't broken 85 pitches since July) and was starting to lose command in the starts he made. As for Trachsel, I think they'll try to squeeze him one more inning if his spot in the order doesn't come up all the way around this inning.

I think Murton has to have some sort of minor injury today. This doesn't fit Lou's pattern at all, either his left-handed lineup (which Soto is in today, so Murton would be the only change from normal, and remember that Murton has batted ahead of Monroe the last few games they've played together), or the batter-pitcher matchups. Maybe his back is acting up again?

All those teams only have 4 left to play, not 5. I think at least one of the west teams will get to 90 with Arizona and Colorado playing each other this weekend.

Don't cable companies require a minimum service agreement with penalty for early termination? I know cell phone companies do, and so does DirecTV; I assume cable companies do too, but I'm not sure. I think the only way you'd have to sign a service agreement is if you took advantage of a discounted offer. If you paid regular fees, you can have it for as little as one month with no problem.