CubColtPacer

So, 1 fantastic game, 2 great games, a decent game, and 2 bad games against good defenses. Curious what that averages out to overall, but Brady Quinn wasn't the reason ND looked bad in 3 games this year. There are college football QB ratings, not NFL QB ratings. Other games in 2006: Michigan State: 113.3 Purdue: 117.9 Stanford: 116.0 Navy: 150.8 UNC: 136.1 Air Force: 148.5 Army: 112.9 Actually, no they are not. You just posted what his performances would be on the NFL QB scale. For example, the Navy game he had a 210.72 on the college scale, and for Air Force he had a 234.67. You can find all his actual college ratings here: http://cfbstats.com/2006/player/513/60149.html

They are now reporting that the Houston-Denver trade doesn't exist. It wouldn't have made sense for them to have traded simply draft picks today anyway-that trade wouldn't come until it actually came to the Houston pick and Denver had a player in mind, but the report is now that there haven't even been serious discussions of a swap. Strange.

I feel sorry for the person that does if either QB ends up in Oakland. Neither of them are sure enough that if either one ends up in a system like that, the chances of busting go way, way up.

I would also send Ronny down. Lou won't stand to only have one utility IF for long, so one of the OF's will have to be moved. At that time, then I hope they pick Fontenot over Cedeno, and have Fontenot and Izturis on the bench at the ML level with Ronny as the starting SS at Iowa. I don't understand why they don't just send Murton down now, even if it's just until they get a chance to trade Jones. He's worthless on the bench and it's killing his value and learning curve. Ronny has a little upside, but I don't think enough so that it's worth sending him to AAA. I think his best value to the team is as a cheap utility man. I'd be all for the release of Izturis, if he can't be traded, and calling up Fontenot. But none of this is going to happen. If they were going to send Murton down, they already really missed their chance. Starting next week, even if he only plays against LHP he is going to play a good amount in May, as many of the teams that they face have multiple LHP's. There's no reason to send him down now, as he is going to be valuable to the team in the weeks ahead (and then of course he will get even more PT when Jones is traded).

um why? DFA Izturis and get someone useful on the bench. Fontenot can at least get on base. There is no reason for Izturis to be on this team when Ronny can be just as bad for so much less. Even if you sink the cost of Izturis, you are helping the team by removing him from the roster. Ronny has actually been worse, and if it is just for this season, the difference between their contracts doesn't really matter at this point. Besides, there are going to be injuries at other points in this year, and Theriot will be needed to fill in other places at times. Ronny has upside and a possible future. Plus, he has some power. Izturis has . . . well, nothing. Fontenot can fill the utility role just fine with Ronny at SS in an emergency. Actually, I would send Ronny to AAA and see if he can remember how to hit. I would also send Ronny down. Lou won't stand to only have one utility IF for long, so one of the OF's will have to be moved. At that time, then I hope they pick Fontenot over Cedeno, and have Fontenot and Izturis on the bench at the ML level with Ronny as the starting SS at Iowa.

um why? DFA Izturis and get someone useful on the bench. Fontenot can at least get on base. There is no reason for Izturis to be on this team when Ronny can be just as bad for so much less. Even if you sink the cost of Izturis, you are helping the team by removing him from the roster. Ronny has actually been worse, and if it is just for this season, the difference between their contracts doesn't really matter at this point. Besides, there are going to be injuries at other points in this year, and Theriot will be needed to fill in other places at times.

Wow, AAA? Well, if you're going to send him to AA what are you going to send Cedeno to, rookie ball?

Because if it's fake, then that game simply becomes another random game. It's like if you suddenly said that Kirk Gibson wasn't hurt when he hit that home run for the Dodgers-it still would be a big home run, but the fact that he was hurt while doing it made it much more memorable. And again, so what if it become just another random playoff game during an unprecetended comback down 3-0? Does there have to be some stupid legend attached to it to lend his performance more gravity? Or, better, why should a Chicago Cubs message board, or anyone else outside Boston or New York care about the lastest salvo in the idiotic hype war that is Boston vs New York? If he faked it, wow, big deal, he's a drama queen, and Boston still wins the game and series. If he didn't, this writer's an idiot and Boston still won the game and series. This is a big steaming pile of who gives a crap. A lot of people love sports stories, and the best story is always a person overcoming the odds to perform. Sometimes that is a team that is not very big or talented but finds a way to win (this is not as much in pro sports, but more in high school and college-pretty much every team on the pro level is seen as talented). Sometimes it is the individual overcoming odds to win, and part of that is dealing with injury. Examples of teams (most of these have been seen in movies) Milan High school (Hoosiers) 1980 U.S. Olympic team N.C. State 1983 basketball Examples of players Willis Reed coming on to the court Kirk Gibson home run Michael Jordan flu game Schilling's performance etc. There are so many games, so many winners every year. Most of them are unremarkable. There were in fact 2 better games in that Red Sox-Yankees series, but nobody remembers those. It's all about the story-the one that grabs your attention and captivates your emotion. Maybe it doesn't do that for everybody, but this is a national story because games like that do that for a lot of people, and to hear now that our emotions might have been played with for the last few years would make me upset if I actually believed that the charges had any validity.

I think it would be tough for Angelo to make the original deal considering he already rejected it. If he can convince Snyder to throw in Mcintosh that would be ideal. It really all depends if he thinks Briggs is bluffing or not. I really believe that during the recent meeting between Briggs and Angelo, Jerry promised to continue to listen to trade offers and so I think he will do so. But I think it's important to remember that, according to league rules, Briggs is supposed to be "worth" 2 1st round picks straight up. I believe Jerry has that in the back of his mind --- a straight-up swap of 1st rounders, while it might be the best we can get, is way less than what the franchise rules say we should get. Two things with this argument: 1)The franchise rules were designed to protect the absolute best of the best. It makes sense-design the rules so that teams can get fair compensation if another team signs the very best free agent, and then teams can bargain down from there through trades for less than the best of the best. There are a lot of questions about if Briggs is great (many people think he's just very good) but even if the point is conceded that he's great, I don't think anybody would put him in the category of the top 3 or 4 players in the game, and those are the players who two first rounders are supposed to be fair compensation for. 2) Taking some draft economics, the Redskins offer is just about equal to two first round picks. One of the teams that has been very interested in Briggs is the Patriots. So what are the differences between this Redskins trade and the Patriots just out and out signing him? Redskins 6 pick (1600 points)-Bears 31 pick=1000 points. Patriots 24 pick (740) plus Patriots 60 pick (a first rounder next year is equal to a second rounder this year=300)=1040. There's not much difference, and the Redskins offer would have actually been better than the Patriots signing Briggs if the Patriots hadn't received a higher first rounder from Seattle this year that they would have to give up.

Because if it's fake, then that game simply becomes another random game. It's like if you suddenly said that Kirk Gibson wasn't hurt when he hit that home run for the Dodgers-it still would be a big home run, but the fact that he was hurt while doing it made it much more memorable. But we know Schilling was hurt. The amazing thing was that he pitched at all. The question is whether blood actually soaked onto the sock, not whether or not it was a great performance following an impromptu surgery. And all evidence suggests it was real anyway. Oh, I would agree-there is absolutely no basis for the claims. It's ridiculous to even think that it could be paint-people are going into game 6 of the ALCS, and they are going to be worrying about painting a guy's sock? If the very small chance happened and it was true though, I'd feel quite deceived and angry-but thankfully, I know that's not going to be the case. It was an absolutely amazing performance-the visual evidence though just seemed to make it a little more memorable than for example T.O.'s miraculous comeback and great game in the Super Bowl (of course, the fact that the Red Sox went on to win the series helps a whole lot in that as well).

Because if it's fake, then that game simply becomes another random game. It's like if you suddenly said that Kirk Gibson wasn't hurt when he hit that home run for the Dodgers-it still would be a big home run, but the fact that he was hurt while doing it made it much more memorable.

Where are you finding inning by inning P/PA data ?? I calculated them by going to the play by play of each game-it actually didn't take as long as it sounds to do. They really should have something where you can find inning by inning P/PA data though-if you already have pitch by pitch (and all the major sites do), it's not that hard to see up a connecting data set.

I decided to test this theory out-so I am going to go back and look at the last several games where the Cubs where the game was either close or the Cubs were trailing, and then look at the P/PA numbers from the 7th inning onward. I'm going to do this going backwards-from the most recent date back. 4/24-5.0 P/PA 4/23-4.0 (12 innings) 4/22-3.1875 (10 innings) 4/20-4.0 4/18-3.64 4/17-4.38 (14 innings) 4/15-4.5 4/13-4.416 That's probably enough of a sample right there-that would take us all the way back to the first game after the snowed out game. It looks like the Cubs are not seeing less pitches overall in these close games late-they are actually seeing a little more.

There's no salary cap in baseball. You may be thinking of the luxury tax instead. No, I was more using salary cap as another term to refer to the limits of the Cubss budget-I edited out the word cap for clarity.

Defensive replacements aren't necessary in every single game. If you can afford it, it doesn't hurt, but doing things like removing Barrett in the 8th inning of every game is the definition of insanity. This may be off topic, but is anyone else a little puzzled about how Lou has handled our bench in several of our closer games this season? In both of our extra innings games, it seemed that Lou burned through our bench a little too fast, leaving nobody to pinch hit (besides marquis) in crucial spots later on. I understand that Soriano was out and our bench was a little thin, but having no one on your bench in two different spots was interesting to me. I just think there were some strange circumstances in a couple of those games. There were 3 games that emptied out the bench-the SD 14 inning game, the first Atlanta game, and the Milwaukee extra inning game. A lot of Lou's moves have been to protect pitchers because his starters have not gone very long into these extra innings games. SD game-Miller goes 5 innings. Izturis pinch-hit for him in the 6th. Cotts then pitched for 2 innings. After Blanco hit last in the 7th, Lou double-switched so Wuertz could also pitch multiple innings-and Wuertz did do that. 2nd substitution was in the 9th-Eyre had come on to replace Wuertz, and Floyd pinch-hit for him with 1 out, 1 on in the 9th. Howry then came in and pitched a couple of innings. When it came time for the 12th, Howry was done-but the pitcher's spot was due up in the bottom of the 12th, and the next pitcher in Dempster had to pitch a couple of innings. So rather than waste an out Lou double-switched again and put DeRosa in. Dempster then pitched a couple of innings, and when he was done Ohman was the only guy left-so Lou did one more double-switch and put Daryle Ward in so Ward could bat in the bottom of that inning. When Ward doubled, they pinch-ran with Marquis only because they desperately needed the run to tie the game at that point. I won't go detailed through the other couple because that was really, really long. I really don't see anything wrong with Lou's moves in the game I outlined above. The Milwaukee game had a couple bad things against it that Lou had to contend with at all. Floyd against a left-hander, Blanco, and Izturis were all in the game, and they all happened to bat with runners in scoring position late, and it made sense for Lou to replace all of them in the late innings. When no runs were scored in either of the situations, Lou ran out of players in the 11th. I don't think the team will have as much of a problem with this with Theriot at SS, because that's one less player that you have to pinch-hit for. On any days with Theriot at SS and Barrett catching, I doubt they will almost ever run out of players.

Did Sammy throw you into one? So was Ernie Banks. In fact, the Cubs were much worse during his career than they were during Sosa's. The Cubs were a bad team during Sosa's career with them. The Cubs have been a bad team during everyone's career with them since WWII. To create some sort of connection of Sosa's time with the team being the reason the Cubs lost is akin to blaming Hendry for letting Paul Bako go when all he did was average 88.5 wins in his time on the north side. I don't think he did that-I interpreted what he said to mean that even though Sammy was that good, the teams were so bad that they'd even get blown out on many of his great days.

-doesn't have great tools -too many walks Then why did Theriot make it over him, and then they were planning to bring up Augie Ojeda before him? I was willing to believe that explanation until those two things happened.

Did we ever figure out what the organization hates about Fontenot? Was he one of the ones who was not even invited to ST this year? If they are not going to play him at the majors ever, I wish they would trade him before he gets too old to have any value whatsoever. He has the most confusing story-they traded for him (so they must think something of him, but he gets passed over and over again, even for slightly worse players in the same season like Theriot.

Guzman's final line: 4.1 IP, 4 H, 2 R, 2 ER, 5 K/0 BB, 76 pitches/50 strikes

Guzman is done-he left with 2 runners on, so his line isn't complete yet. He threw 76 and was pulled in the middle of an inning after a strikeout, so my guess is that he was on a 75 pitch limit. What's the pitch count on Tuesday-85-90 maybe? The team really needs to try to protect the bullpen for that day, as I can't see Guzman really making it past 5 innings with that strict a pitch count, and the game the next day will start 13-14 hours after that game ends. This was definitely a much better outing for him though.

When Colvin is ready for the bigs, he will over-ride Murton IMO (but I highly doubt he'll even be with us by that point). murton or colvin? I think Murton will be gone by the time that Colvin is ready. Even if Murton is still here, he would probably take a back seat to Colvin. you don't think if murton is still with the cubs in three years that he will have established himself enough to not be overtaken by a rookie? For a college player, wouldn't 3 years be a little much anyway? That would mean he spent a whole year in Daytona, Tennessee, and Iowa-if he turns out to be a great prospect, won't it be more likely he'll do it in 2? I'm not sure about the Murton/Colvin thing. There's simply too much to project to really know much for sure even next year, let alone 2 years from now.

Mathes, O'Malley, and Walrond. None of those guys are prospects. Not so sure I'd say that about Walrond, he's a lefty and he's been throwing well. There's always room on a ML roster for a lefty reliever that can throw strikes. In fact, I can think of a team right now, in Chicago, that plays in the NL, that could probably use one..... Walrond is 30, he's never been able to throw strikes with any kind of consistency, and his AAA numbers haven't been stellar the last few years or his two cups of coffee in the major leagues. The chances of him turning it on at this age and sustaining it for any length of time is very low.

I'm not sure about the pitching/hitting for his park, but here are his stats so far: Colvin: 55 AB's, .309/.333/.491, 5 2B's, 1 3B, 1 HR, 2 BB, 11 K, 4 SB/1 CS. I'd like to see him walk a little bit more, but I think that's a pretty good line so far for somebody who skipped a level.

I was just thinking that. How would the Panthers radio announcer take it if they drafted Steve Smith? How could he call passing plays?

It makes no sense (that he tried to dump Jones for nothing and nobody would take him) because that fact isn't necessarily true.