CubColtPacer

I count 17 wins in that scenario. I think we have a good chance to significantly improve on that this year. I do as well, but I certainly hope we don't get 88 chances like we did last year.

I count 17 wins in that scenario.

Trade the bum. We should trade him for Choi, and get Kerry to knock the sense back into him that he lost in the first collision. Where the heck is Choi now anyway? Tampa Bay, I think. Yup-he got sent down to the minors from Tampa Bay a few days ago.

I don't for this key reason. During the off-season, the organization had to trade Jones and find a new CF until Soriano agreed to play CF, and then the lineup was set. What would be the ideal lineup? One with Jones in CF and Soriano in RF-so that when Jones is finally traded, Soriano doesn't have to learn a new position again. However, that was never seriously considered by the organization. Why? It says that the organization has absolutely no faith in Jones to play CF everyday, and they are willing to risk Soriano playing there over Jones. So no, I don't see any way that Jones plays any more in CF than occasional duty there.

He's had 3 official errors so far this spring, and has had several misplays besides that. I do think he will get better as the season goes along though. Obviously, Soriano won't be a Gold Glove CF, but misplays in the Arizona sun are pretty common for the best OFs. I would think the Cubs would try Pie in RF so Soriano doesn't have to learn a new position. The Arizona sky is quite famous for making baseballs "disappear" in the air. I'm cutting him a lot of slack for learning another new position this Spring. I actually am too-Soriano has done nothing in ST to convince me that he can play CF, but because of Arizona conditions he hasn't done anything to convince me he can't either-this will just have to be a situation that we'll have to continue to monitor.

He's had 3 official errors so far this spring, and has had several misplays besides that. I do think he will get better as the season goes along though.

Yup-4-0 with 15 or more runs scored 3 out of the 4 games.

Wow-the Reds must have committed quite a few errors-that's 29 outs hit into by the Cubs, and that doesn't even count the pitcher's spot :D

It's the latter (3 division winners and best 2nd place team seeded by record). They are seeded 5th right now, but they would have homecourt advantage over the 4 seed-and if they and the 3 seed somehow reached the conference finals together, they would have homecourt advantage over them as well. So, is it re-seeded at all? If 1-2-3 and the Bulls at 5 all win, and the Bulls have a better record than the 3, who plays the Pistons? It's not re-seeded at all-the Bulls would play the Pistons in that scenario.

It's the latter (3 division winners and best 2nd place team seeded by record). They are seeded 5th right now, but they would have homecourt advantage over the 4 seed-and if they and the 3 seed somehow reached the conference finals together, they would have homecourt advantage over them as well.

The funny thing is also-after this pick, he doesn't even have to make another pick for the rest of the 3 round mock draft-I think with just one pick he's milking this for some face time :D

Surgery is not always the best option for shoulder problems-it's not like surgery would automatically fix everything. Prior and his doctors have chosen the treatment they thought would work best each time-I don't think you can say that just because he hasn't had surgery means that he doesn't have shoulder problems-plenty of people have shoulder problems and choose a non-surgical option for treatment.

Thanks for the report-it will be an interesting case to watch. I think the Padres win this one only because for Walker to win his side has to prove that without contracts being in play, it would not be reasonable to release him. The Padres to refute that can point to: 1) The fact that they didn't release him until the end of ST, which allowed Walker the full time to try to impress the staff and cost the Padres 300k more than if they had released him before March 15th. 2)The fact that the Padres had said in January and February that they were going to take the best 25 players that were with them in ST-they have the discretion to decide if past year numbers are more important or if ST numbers are more important to decide that current year's roster. 3) Then they can point to ST numbers from this year and show that the two backup infielders (Branyan and Blum) had much better numbers during ST than Walker, and that is what made them decide to take those two instead of Walker, not his contract. I'm sure the Padres were at least predisposed to releasing Walker, but I do think they win this case-we will see if that leads to a tightening of the rules in this area or not.

Hill 3/6 Z 3/7 Miller 3/8 I guess Lilly will start the HOU series 3/9 Because Z is going to start every 5 days, he is going to be in a different place in the order as they go throughout April and possibly the season. The order of Lilly/Marquis/Hill/Miller should stay the same, but where Z is in that order will continue to change depending on his pitching schedule.

Wow-nice defense there, and I don't understand what Prince was thinking-he looked like he didn't want to put up the shot when he had the opening, and by the time he had to take the shot he was being covered very, very well. Good win for the Bulls there.

What-the argument that Prior at this point has let some things get to him mentally, and that doesn't make him soft but just human with all the things that have happened to him (he's gone through more scrutiny then most people have their whole careers combined), but there are other people in the majors who are a little soft mentally, and just because they are in the majors doesn't exclude those players from that distinction? I don't see how that is so hard to believe. Because the road to the majors is pretty tough - it already weeds out the mentally "soft" players. I certainly do think it weeds out most of them Now comparing it to some other sports-is being a star in the minors that much tougher than being a star of say college football or basketball? It's obviously tougher, but the lifestyle of the minor leagues is offset by the media scrutiny that college football and college basketball players are under. If it's not that much harder taking all that into account, why would baseball be able to weed out all the people who can't take the pressure/media scrutiny/ability to recover from adversity but sports like football and basketball cannot?

What-the argument that Prior at this point has let some things get to him mentally, and that doesn't make him soft but just human with all the things that have happened to him (he's gone through more scrutiny then most people have their whole careers combined), but there are other people in the majors who are a little soft mentally, and just because they are in the majors doesn't exclude those players from that distinction? I don't see how that is so hard to believe.

I'm really not sure how that's relevant (again, I'm not calling Prior soft :D) How could it not be relevant? Leaf was thought to be good enough to hang in the NFL, but he wasnt. That was proven the moment he stepped on the field. Mark dominated AA, AAA and MLB before the injuries started. Maybe he never throws another effective major league inning, but I don't think it has anything to do with him being soft. I've always believed that Leaf in the right system could have developed into an NFL QB. I don't think it was his talent that lost it for him-it was his mental makeup. The expectations in San Diego plus the media scrutiny plus the poor performance (which should be expected for a rookie) got to be too much for him). He was coming back a couple of years later and I think could have had a nice career before he got hurt and had to retire. Prior didn't have all the whispers through the minors-he was always the golden child. His confidence was sky-high because wherever he went, he dominated. From NCAA to double A to Triple A to the majors, he was dominant. The injury in 2003 was concerning, but he came right back and dominated again. 2004 he was pretty good, and 2005 he was really good again before the next injury. I do think that at this point Prior has been beaten down by the questions and the fans and the expectations. I do question the timing of it though-if he really was soft, he should have broken down in 2004-2005 when the speculation and pressure was really turned up, not 2006-2007. Instead, because he made it that far before letting it get to him, I just think he is a normal person-anybody under that much stress for that long is going to be thinking about it at least a little bit. So I don't think Mark Prior is soft, but I disagree with the assertion that anybody who has made the majors and has had success is automatically not soft.

I'm really not sure how that's relevant (again, I'm not calling Prior soft :D)

I disagree with that assertion-Ryan Leaf is one example of a player who made it to a similar level in another league and was most definitely soft. Not a good comparison. Leaf didn't have to get promoted through 4 levels of minor league football. Well, technically, neither did Prior (only 2 levels to go through). Leaf also had a lot more media scrutiny/poor performance than Prior did early in his career-Prior didn't really start getting that until 05 (some in 04, but not that much). The loss of confidence due to that poor performance/media scrutiny is what usually people define as "soft", although I question the use of the word for Prior. I don't think we can know ever if he is soft or not-after all the scrutiny he's been through, after all the questions he's had to answer and the injuries he's had to go through, I think most anybody would be a little broken down mentally by now. I don't think that makes him soft at all, although I do think that he does have some mental things to work through along with some physical things.

What whispers? What executives? What players? Who specifically has called out Prior? I don't know specifically (and btw, I am not one of the ones who are calling Prior soft in this thread or any other, although I do have my doubts)-but the guy is not making up stories that haven't been reported. Here's just one example of an article that points to that: http://www.suntimes.com/sports/deluca/213815,CST-SPT-deluca17.article

I disagree with that assertion-Ryan Leaf is one example of a player who made it to a similar level in another league and was most definitely soft.

Both Cubs World Series years started w/ spring training in West Baden, IN. Maybe that's been the problem all these years! Let's go back! West Baden has actually been in ruin for much of that time-and now they are being restored due to money influx into the area-anybody see any similarities? :D

There's a lot of evidence to show that he was bad last year largely in part to how infrequently Dusty would use him due to the team being so bad. When he was used on an even somewhat regular basis, he did pretty well. His bad periods typically came after Dusty sat him at least 3 games or more. Not that I'm disputing what you're saying, but what evidence would that be? I'd genuinely like to know. It's hard to tell because ESPN doesn't have the info for 2005(well, compiled that is, I'm not about to go diving through game logs right now), but Dempster was awful on 3+ days of rest last year, and he threw almost 1/3 of his innings in that situation. With more regular usage those gaps between outings wouldn't happen. Of course, last year Dempster was also awful on 0 days rest, so take it FWIW. I'm less worried about the 0 days rest-he was pretty good on that at the start of the season, and a decent amount of the damage in that was in August and September, which Dempster said he just kind of gave up and wasn't pitching hard during that time. Unfortunately, looking through 2005, Dempster was very good on 3+ days rest, only giving up runs in one outing, and that outing was not a save situation.

There's a lot of evidence to show that he was bad last year largely in part to how infrequently Dusty would use him due to the team being so bad. When he was used on an even somewhat regular basis, he did pretty well. His bad periods typically came after Dusty sat him at least 3 games or more. Not that I'm disputing what you're saying, but what evidence would that be? I'd genuinely like to know. Quickly going through the game logs-I looked at every Dempster outing that was after at least 3 days off-it counted an off day as 1 of those days but not the All-Star Break. With just this quick look, Dempster gave up 15 earned runs in 18 1/3 innings after this type of break, which meant he gave up 25 earned runs in the other 56 2/3 innings.