CubColtPacer

They added Volstad, Maholm, and possibly Wood. That could be over half the rotation. There are three big reasons the rotation will be quite a bit better than last year. First is the depth. 49 starts combined last year between pitchers that people knew were not major league caliber starters and proved that last year: Russell, Lopez, Ortiz, Coleman, and Davis. This year, unless you think Samardzija will crash and burn miserably, the number of starts from pitchers like that should be under 10. That's a whole season's worth of starts from one starter plus a little bit. Second is that of the pitchers remaining, based on past history and peripherals Dempster and Wells have more room to go up than down while only Garza has more room to go down than up. Maholm and Volstad don't have huge hurdles to cross to be equal or better than Z and Wells were last year. That leaves Samardzija/Wood to replace all the horrible starters the Cubs threw out last year. Third is the defense. The Cubs made two defensive upgrades (3B and RF) with only one downgrade (1B). They have two upgrades that will likely come up midseason (CF, 1B). Byrd should continue to decline defensively in CF, while Castro will likely improve at SS. Overall, the defense should be better, especially in the second half of the year. That will help the rotation, especially the pitchers without huge strikeout rates. Could the bullpen be bad? Absolutely. It should be better when the starting pitching goes deeper in games which will test the middle relief less, but they also have downside risk especially if Samardzija moves to the rotation. That one is a lot harder to project than the rotation though because of the few innings and the rotating cast that will likely be in the bullpen this year.

For the type of player Cespedes is projected to be, 6/36 was a good deal, but 4/36 really wasn't. Especially considering the higher-than-average bust risk he holds. He only has to be worth about 2 WAR/year to be worth that contract. Not guaranteed but it's not a big risk. That just doesn't seem realistic to me. That would mean someone like Coco Crisp is worth that contract, and I think that's absurd. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/linear-dollars-per-win-again/ http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/a-retrospective-look-at-the-price-of-a-win/ The counterpoint is this. The 5 million/WAR is for free agency. So a better way to say it is a 10 million player producing 2 WAR is about what you should expect on the free agent market. Whether than player is actually worth 10 million to that team is based on a whole lot of other factors. In the Cubs case, their park being so small makes having 3 good defenders in the OF not be as important. That combined with the players they already have locked in (specifically Jackson+Dejesus for 2013) make Cespedes a little less valuable to them. The Cubs also have internal options that can play above replacement level for the minimum, which makes Cespedes a little less valuable again. There are also payroll, roster space, and playing time constraints to consider. Adding another 2 WAR outfielder who's locked in at a non-discount price over the next 4 years probably hurts the Cubs more than it helps. They are forced to trade DeJesus and probably get less value than he's worth if they want to develop any OF besides Jackson. They are also forced to trade him if they want to sign a free agent or make a trade to acquire an elite OF. It's a perfectly fine free agent deal if you look at just it alone, but it would be a disappointment for the Cubs is that's what Cespedes would give them.

I have no doubt they'll get there. The only tough games left are @ATL, @OKC, vs MIA, @MIA, vs DAL, @IND. I'm looking forward to the OKC game. I hope we can at least have Rose healthy by then, if not Rip. The two games vs the Knicks should be interesting as well. A possible first round playoff preview, and the Knicks look like a completely different team with their new coach. It's too soon to tell if it's just the momentary bump you get when you fire a coach midseason, but they look like they're finally playing defense and could be scary if so. Of course, if they play really well down the stretch they could catch teams like Boston or Philly.

If you would like to continue the costed discussion, please start a thread for that purpose. Let's keep this one on topic please.

I'm going to go ahead and move this to site suggestions so Tim can hopefully see it.

I think he'll be a more athletic Pritchard as a freshman. Some rebounds, some garbage plays around the basket, will challenge some shots but also be foul prone. I do think Watford leaving wouldn't hurt that much because of Sheehey and Oladipo. Their ability to play multiple positions makes Zeller pretty much the only one who would be concerning if he left. If Watford leaves, IU can still go big (Perea, Zeller, Sheehey, Oladipo, Hulls) or small (Zeller, Sheehey, Oladipo, Hulls, and Yogi). Either way, those six plus Hollowell and Elston will be the top 8, and then some possible good options behind them to fill out the rotation. Obviously, it will still be better if somebody else leaves, but I don't think any of the freshman will have to be spectacular even if one of the better players leave. Another year of experience plus the freshman being a little better than the current seniors will be enough to improve.

Yes. He was only playing spot minutes before that. But with the Jones injury, Indiana is down to 10 healthy scholarship players and everybody but Etherington has been playing.

I didn't mind the first 2 point attempt but even on that one, the defense was collapsing and there was an open player on the wing to the guy's left. Would have been an easy pass to make. I don't even like the first 2 point attempt. Reasonable best case scenario is that he makes it with 5 seconds on the clock, team fouls, other team makes 1 of 2, and then you rush it up court for an ok look at a game tying 2 or game winning 3. Look at how many ifs there are in that scenario vs just passing it out for an ok look at a game tying 3. Under 10 seconds left, IMO the only 2 you can take in that situation is a dunk or open layup.

That would fall under being a fan which IMO is perfectly fine. Being a homer (when used negatively) is IMO completely different from that.

I chuckled that Syracuse was almost allowed to shoot 3 free throws the last time they went to the line. He made the first two, and then everybody stood there and he was about to release the third one when somebody finally woke up (I don't know if it was a ref or the scorers table) and told them he couldn't shoot any more! That was a fitting finish for those last few minutes.

they can't suspend him without a conviction. look at big ben, never been suspended. That might be a bad example since Ben was suspended for the first four games of the year in 2010 (of course you may have been joking and I completely missed it).

Ridiculous. Nobody was dumber than Ron Santo. And saying "homers have no place broadcasting" or whatever is even more ridiculous. The Comcast games are local broadcasts; why the [expletive] shouldn't there be a homer color commentator saying ridiculous things? There is a difference between rooting for a team from the booth and being a homer. I don't think anybody thinks local announcers to be neutral. But I personally don't want to listen to an announcer for 2 hours straight that is saying ridiculous things, just like I'm not a fan of listening to a fan next to me that complains about every call and continues saying they're right even when the replay clearly shows they're wrong. And the local broadcasts are becoming increasingly less local with people watching on NBA League Pass, the games that are on NBA TV, etc.

Wouldn't that depend on if the shot clock expired before the foul / while the shot was in the air? The shot clock definitely didn't go off before the foul. But it definitely was before the shot was released, and it was close on whether it was before the referee actually called the foul (you can see his arm start to go up as the clock hits zero). Just a very strange play.

The issue becomes that while the Cubs have players they can send to the minors, it clouds the future for them to do so. Travis Wood for example has one minor league option left. If the Cubs are convinced that he's a valuable starting pitcher right now, then he should be pitching for the Cubs. If they're not, then using the last option and getting maybe 100-140 innings out of him in the major league level if things shake out well is not that much of an audition. Then they're left at the beginning of next season having to decide what to do with a player who is out of options and hasn't even had one full major league season in his career. Do you guarantee a starting spot to a player in that situation? Volstad and Wells are both already in their arbitration and would also have to clear optional waivers. It's not clear that either of them would clear, and are the Cubs really going to pay them 2.5 million to stay in the minors? Samardzija of course if out of options, so he'll be either in the rotation or in the pen. Having depth is great, but there is a definite downside to sending any of them to the minors. Having a 6th starter primarily pitching out of the pen is fine. But where does the 7th one go? And is it worth the downside just to have a 7th starter available?

I said his production and efficiency are down. Two posts up you said he's the same player he was in Utah. Either he is or he isn't. He is the same player. When did I say he is not?? Just because his production and efficiency are down does not mean he is a worse player or he has lost his skill or whatever people are trying to argue. He's the same player, just not as good. Got it. Banedon, he's saying that Boozer hasn't actually declined, but that his numbers are down because of the team change and an offense that doesn't suit him as well. He's the same player, but placed in a bad situation that has caused his efficiency and productivity to go down. If he changed teams, he would return to the player he was in Utah. I have no idea if it's actually true or not (some people have posted some very good counterarguments that suggest his team isn't the problem), but it's a logically consistent argument.

yes, they should replace their injury-prone SG with .... eric gordon Well, I was just asking if they would. But at least one of his injuries was incidental and unless his latest is chronic, it shouldn't stop any team from going after him. The amount of even good 2-guards in the league is razor thin. Unless the Bulls get creative with their cap space, even after losing Howard, I don't think they would have enough room to go after Gordon. They'd have to basically gut the rest of the team to make any kind of a serious effort, and that certainly isn't worth it for a restricted free agent who might get matched anyway. And they certainly don't have any room with the team they have now.

I'm thinking there's some misreporting going on there. That deal is a dream for the Bulls. That would be a major, ballsy move by Gar. If Howard won't commit to an extension then you face the real possibility of giving Howard's (formerly occupied by Deng-Boozer-Asik) cap number to two guys like Gerald Wallace and Eric Gordon, unless you think you can sign-and-trade (still viable under the new CBA?) Howard to LA for Gasol and someone else. You can sign and trade, but Howard would still have to leave the 30 million behind in that scenario. He doesn't get to use his Bird rights and also do a sign and trade. And while that deal would work this offseason, after next year teams like the Lakers won't be able to acquire sign and trade players because of being so far above the luxury tax.

As people have said all season, this Indiana team is very reminiscent of both the 2001 and 2002 versions. Both got 4/5 seeds, and one flamed out in the first round while the other made the championship game. Depending on how the dice fall, both are possible for Indiana. But I don't think getting blown out by Kentucky will really hamper Indiana. Maybe in another year it would linger a little longer, but I think the focus would quickly shift to next year and the huge recruiting class if that were to happen. Although it would be tougher if they decide to cancel the series, and Indiana didn't get the chance to get revenge in December. If I had to guess, I would guess that Indiana would get knocked out in the 2nd round, but it's so hard to project with them. They're one of those chameleon teams that can play well against any style, but don't really have a style of their own or players they like to go to when things get rough.

If I am reading this rule right, I don't think Kansas can drop to a #2 in favor of Michigan State/Ohio State: The Big XII only has three teams on the 1-4 lines, so Kansas and Missouri can't end up on the same line. The same goes for North Carolina/Duke in the ACC. So that basically ensures that one of Kansas/Missouri will get a 1, and the same for North Carolina/Duke (as long as nobody falls to the 3 seed line, which is unlikely and in the case of the Big XII Baylor is sitting there already anyway). Am I interpreting that correctly? Actually, what it's saying is that you can't put two 1-4 teams from the same conference in the same region unless there are more than four 1-4 teams from a conference (so, the Big Ten). There can be two of the same seed in the same conference, though. Thanks for the correction. I had a feeling I was reading it incorrectly. Although it is actually 4 or more (instead of more than four), so apparently they give themselves a little bit of wiggle room on that.

If I am reading this rule right, I don't think Kansas can drop to a #2 in favor of Michigan State/Ohio State: The Big XII only has three teams on the 1-4 lines, so Kansas and Missouri can't end up on the same line. The same goes for North Carolina/Duke in the ACC. So that basically ensures that one of Kansas/Missouri will get a 1, and the same for North Carolina/Duke (as long as nobody falls to the 3 seed line, which is unlikely and in the case of the Big XII Baylor is sitting there already anyway). Am I interpreting that correctly?

He certainly couldn't have been mistaken for an IU homer today, that's for sure. But I don't mind anything he said either. The main things I want out of an announcer are to come prepared, not spout off conventional strategies with no awareness of time/score (like the thousands of times you hear an announcer say that a team has to go for 2 down 5 with 10-15 seconds left), and not repeat the same opinion over and over again. Dakich has his opinions on things, some of which I agree with and some of which I don't. But I know his opinions are not coming out of left field, and I think he's a good announcer. I am a little surprised it wasn't mentioned here though when he said that Big 10 refs don't like to call fouls on Zeller :-)

I actually kinda like Xavier's resume more than St. Louis'. I don't get how St. Louis is being considered a lock or for a 9 seed. St. Louis is an interesting case. Look at their schedule: their non-con SOS is made up entirely of either terrible teams from major conferences (which boosts the opponents-opponents winning % component of RPI) or good teams from terrible conferences (which boosts the opponent winning % of RPI). Add in that the Atlantic 10 was made up of about 10 decent teams, with one good and one terrible team, and their overall numbers look fantastic. And then of course they do say the committee looks at metrics like the Pomeroy ratings, and it loves St. Louis (has them 12th in the country actually).

Oh well. I'll take that level of play from Indiana every game. That was one of their best 5 played games of the year (probably better than both Kentucky and Ohio State). Just got beat by a guy who was on fire.

Wisconsin's doing the same gameplan as last time. Guard the 3 point line tightly, force IU to drive past them, and then either play good defense at the rim or hope for no calls. IU only attempted 8 3's in the first game.

If Sheehey misses time, that will severely test IU's depth. 2 injuries on the wing in two days. And of course going into the season they thought Creek would be taking some of those minutes, so it gets really thin on the roster really quickly. Hopefully they tape him back up and he's out there in the second half.