CubColtPacer

The Cubs were only able to have the Indians send 775,000 for 2 months of Fukudome. And then he was worse in Cleveland and will now turn 35 near the start of the year. He might have received an offer for 2 or 3 million, but he almost certainly didn't get anything substantial. He might be close to done.

Only if that provision is put into the contract. It was in Cespedes, but I'd be shocked if it was in Soler's. Mainly due to the fact we'll be paying Soler millions to play in the minors. I'm not totally sure how it works, but let's say he makes the majors to start the 2014 season, for instance, and sticks. He'd play under his current contract for 2013 and 2014(assuming it's 4 years}. In 2015, we could give him a 20% reduction in salary, as it's still a pre arb year. Then, 2016 thru 2018 would be his arb seasons. I could be slightly off here, but I think I'm right. You're just one year off on your dates. If he came up at the start of 2014, he's play 2 years under his current contract, then knock 20% off in 2016, then be arb eligible from 2017-2019.

Exactly. This is the main problem I've had with this offseason. This is free talent. They don't have to trade players for him, or waste a draft pick, or use up international signing allotment. If the Cubs are serious about upgrading the talent/assets in the organization, moves like this should be a no brainer if you have money to spend. That's what causes me to wonder if the Cubs have all that much money to spend. Obviously they have some since they offered him 6/40, but overall I don't get the feeling that the Cubs are giving Theo all that much to spend this offseason, and that sucks. As Davell pointed out, Theo probably has a pretty good budget. It's just that the Cubs have a lot of line items that most clubs don't. From deferred money (Pena and Dempster) to fired executives/managers (Hendry/Quade), to one-time facility upgrades (the 8 million dollar Dominican facility), to greatly increasing front office/minor league staff, the Cubs have a lot of expenses they didn't have just last year. Theo seems to just be choosing to allocate his budget a little differently than Henry did who stuck most all of it in the major league payroll. The 40 man payroll is starting to tick up though especially if the signing of Soler is confirmed. And the good news is that most of that list will go away. The budget money that is being spent on upgrading facilities will be able to be spent elsewhere once that is done. The deferred money is out of the way after the year, and so are the fired salaries.

Unless there is a clause in the contract that says he will (like the one Cespedes and Fukudome got) than no. It will be like what is happening to Samardzija now. If he doesn't have enough service time for arbitration (which seems likely), then the Cubs will be able to cut his last years salary by the full 20% if they want to, or they can choose to non-tender him at that point. Unless there is that clause though, he'd be under Cubs control for the 6 years of major league service time just like every prospect.

I would be really surprised if Purdue made it in with 18 wins, that would mean a losing record in conference. Why are you worried about Purdue anyway? ISU has a much better resume at this point. Your worst loss (Drake) is pretty much a wash with our worst loss (Butler), but you've got wins against Kansas, Texas, and Kansas St. which are all better than our best win to this point (Temple?). Losing @ Penn St. really hurts Purdue too. If Purdue had those two games back and had beaten bad Butler and PSU teams they would only be worrying about seeding right now. The bracketologies I have seen have Iowa State and Purdue in the same range (usually Iowa State is a little ahead, but they're both in the 9-11 seed range). I'm not completely sure why, but it's pretty consistent. That's probably why he's concerned about a school like Purdue.

Michigan shoots the least number of free throws in the conference so probably not terribly many.

the talent on the current roster is enough to win the big ten, this year and next year. if we replace the coach, next year could happen. I would agree, although to be fair there are probably 5 schools that could make that claim based on talent (Ohio State, Michigan State, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois). The key for Illinois will be keeping Leonard. With him, they have just as much talent as the other four. Without him and they're clearly behind (the same is true to a lesser extent with Ohio State) The Big 10 is going to be so loaded next year. Most of the top schools have very few seniors, and a few of them have great recruiting classes coming in to add to the talent.

Interesting. Taking a quick look at it compared to the newest bracketology, BPI seems to really like Wichita State and loves St. Louis. It doesn't like teams like Michigan or Florida State. And it really doesn't like Murray State. I'm sure there are others I missed that have wide disparities.

Oh, tons of patsies for sure. As many as IU? Or equal enough across twelve teams to draw a reliable conclusion? I'm not sure that would be the case. IU's shot 35 or more free throws 6 times this season (Savannah State, Butler, Howard, UMBC, Purdue, Illinois). 5 of those were at home. 3 of those were against teams they shouldn't have been playing. Illinois wasn't the highest either-IU shot 47 free throws in a game earlier in the season. I would have been a lot more interested if the author had restricted his sample to top 150 teams. The patsies IMO don't give you a very clear picture. In those games, IU was just using its athleticism to overwhelm them. It's certainly possible that IU would still have the biggest distinction, but I'm guessing it would be a lot closer.

I can't find anywhere close to 10 trips in a row that a foul was called. The closest I can find is a stretch where Illinois got called for 6 fouls on 4 trips down the floor for Indiana (there was also a turnover by Indiana in the backcourt during that stretch and an offensive rebound so it wasn't exactly 4 possessions). As for the rest, that's prone to interpretation. But I would point out that Hulls wasn't the player getting to the line all that often (6 FT total and 2 of those were because of an over the back call on the other end). It was Zeller and Oladipo, and neither of them like to shoot jump shots for 2's (Oladipo tends to either shoots 3's or go all the way to the rim and Zeller always shoots close to the rim. They actually both need more of a midrange game). So the type of fouls you describe wouldn't be real typical for those two. That of course could only be ascertained for sure by looking at the game tape, and even if I wanted to go back I don't have it anymore.

what's irrational? as i've said, illinois made 12 layups and missed 10. raw made the claim that indiana had 7-8 missed layups, they made 14 of them, which would mean that they attempted 21-22, at best the same amount that illinois attempted. this myth that indiana got to the basket an appreciable amount more than illinois is irrational, if anything. This is a discussion point. Almost everything else posted here, excepting bukie, has been irrationality. Regardless, those stats prove little. First, "layups" in play-by-plays and box scores aren't inherently drives to the basket (or even "lay-ups" by the common understanding). Often, the official scorer -- and I've received these every time out covering college basketball in my previous job -- counts any short jumpers as such because it's easier. Second, it may not be relevant for this game, but raw is correct that breakaway dunks are not equivalent to half-court drives when discussing fouls. Third, and, most importantly, the made/missed numbers may look the same, but that does not account for IU's drives that resulted in fouls. You can't harp on the fact that IU received a foul call every time they got close to the basket, then ignore those times they got close to the basket to prove that Illinois got close to the basket as often as IU. Further, Illinois took fifty shots and twenty-one were 3-pointers (forty-two percent of their shots). IU took forty-two shots and only twelve were 3-pointers (twenty-nine percent of their shots). This certainly implies that IU was more aggressive going to the basket and not settling for jumpers (unless there was a rash of long 2-pointers from IU, which I don't recall). Finally, you're addressing a poster that admitted last night that Illinois got homered a bit. Still, my last post was an attempt to steer away from the officiating because officiating discussions are almost inherently irrational. If I counted right, the play by play has Illinois with 14 non-3 jumpers and IU with 6. But several shots from Leonard and 1 from Zeller are included in those numbers and I know those two didn't shoot that many jumpers (Zeller has only shot a couple true jumpers all year long), so you have to take those numbers with a grain of salt. IU definitely didn't shoot very many long 2's though.

Were all 13 of those calls bad calls? If not, then it should affect the game's conclusion. You're not allowed to commit fouls and stay on the basketball court. You guys keep harping on 2-3 calls on Leonard, when most of the 26 fouls called on Illinois were undisputable....yet you guys keep dismissing my point that Illinois could not stop IU from getting into the paint at will. Paul, Henry and Bertrand all had legit fouls. Hell, Paul didn't really feel like playing anyway. I'm saying your position is largely a chicken-egg scenario. Every little tap was getting a foul call, so the defenders were unable to stay close on their assignments to avoid picking up even more fouls. From the time Leonard went out with his 4th with 12:29 left until IU went up 67-55 at 5:00, every single IU possession ended with a made 3, a made layup, or FTs. From the start of the 2nd half to the 12:29 mark left in the game, every IU possession ended with a made 3, a made layup, or a FT (other than a Hulls 2-pt jumper from about 10ft). IU got an offensive rebound after every shot they missed the first 7 1/2 minutes of the 2nd half. Leonard going out just gave a convenient excuse and Illinois had little chance of keeping up with IU offensively in the 2nd half, even with him on the floor. That isn't quite true either. Indiana turned it over twice in that stretch.

Were all 13 of those calls bad calls? If not, then it should affect the game's conclusion. You're not allowed to commit fouls and stay on the basketball court. You guys keep harping on 2-3 calls on Leonard, when most of the 26 fouls called on Illinois were undisputable....yet you guys keep dismissing my point that Illinois could not stop IU from getting into the paint at will. Paul, Henry and Bertrand all had legit fouls. Hell, Paul didn't really feel like playing anyway. I'm saying your position is largely a chicken-egg scenario. Every little tap was getting a foul call, so the defenders were unable to stay close on their assignments to avoid picking up even more fouls. From the time Leonard went out with his 4th with 12:29 left until IU went up 67-55 at 5:00, every single IU possession ended with a made 3, a made layup, or FTs. This is not true. Pritchard's offensive foul was on the very next IU possession. Abell missed a jumper on the possession after that. They had 2 scores than Oladipo got called for travelling. Then IU had a stretch where that was true but it was shorter and later in the game than what you said(8:56 to 4:17 which was a total of 8 possessions).

I'm looking at the play by play and I'm confused by what you said. Indiana got into the bonus with 13:44 left. Leonard's 4th foul was an offensive one (the moving screen) with 12:29, and it looks like Indiana got into the double bonus with 8:20 left after a foul by Henry. Am I missing something? I meant the moving screen, just ballparking the time left. I could've sworn that Leonard foul put them at 9 for the second half. Play by play shows Leonard's was the 8th. 9th was committed with 8:56 to play.

I'm looking at the play by play and I'm confused by what you said. Indiana got into the bonus with 13:44 left. Leonard's 4th foul was an offensive one (the moving screen) with 12:29, and it looks like Indiana got into the double bonus with 8:20 left after a foul by Henry. Am I missing something?

The 27 is a bit overstated to begin with. Illinois had some silly fouls in the last 2 minutes that led to 8 Indiana free throws when the game was already decided. So a 19 FT difference in the first 38 minutes. Add that Indiana deserved some sort of disparity, and you're looking at maybe 10-15 extra FT's on the high end. But it was probably a good deal less than that. As for the Leonard thing, if the refs wanted to favor IU they could have easily called 2 early fouls on Leonard. 1st with the shove at halfcourt and 2nd with the charge that they changed to a block. Not saying they made the wrong calls, but refs with an agenda could have easily had Leonard on the bench there.

IU deserved some sort of free throw disparity. They drove into the lane much more consistently than Illinois did. And when Illinois threw it into the post, Indiana didn't challenge it very much which is part of the reason Leonard shot such a good percentage. Did they deserve a 27 free throw disparity? I don't know. It's certainly not been something that's been consistent with IU all Big 10 play. They've had some games where they've had a big free throw edge and others where they had a big deficit. Good win for IU. Hopefully they can beat Northwestern and split their road games and their other two road games to go 10-8 in conference. That would be a victory for this team.

Castillo only has 1 option left. I think it's past the point where the Cubs can easily bypass him just to get him at-bats. Do they really want to be stuck in a situation next year where they are forced to keep him in the major leagues with no idea how he'll handle major league pitching? If they plan to trade Soto in June or July, it would make sense to send him down and then give him the 2 month audition later in the season. Otherwise I think if he doesn't make the team he's in trouble as any sort of prospect.

I actually don't think the Floyd/Fitz comparison is very good, but I have seen it made by several scouts. I think Floyd is more Vincent Jackson than Fitz, as I don't see him with the hip fluidity that Fitz has. By that I mean, Fitzgerald runs routes like a little guy. He has decent straight line speed, but he can really turn and get in and out of his breaks quickly to create separation. I don't think Floyd has that ability. Yeah, I don't see the Fitzgerald comparisons at all for the same reasons that you mention. Floyd is more of a Brandon Marshall type (I think Floyd is tougher and not as much of a deep threat than Jackson). Actually, the guy that Floyd reminds me of most in the way he runs his routes and his skill set is Calvin Johnson. But he's more Calvin Johnson lite-a little smaller, a little less leap, a little less speed, which translates to less production. But I think they play the game the same way.

Big game for Big 10 seeds tonight between Indiana-Illinois. The winner probably is the favorite to grab the 5 spot in the tournament while the loser could easily be in the 8-9 game.

Is it bad that I'd take 11 through 18 over 5 through 10? I guess I'm just much more intrigued by the position prospects than the pitchers in the system right now. Several guys between 10-20 I think could be in the top 10 in a future year.

To me the middle ground does include moving Marshall. For all the much vaunted talk of rebuilding the Cubs really haven't made any moves that had to have been done without the intention of competing in 2012, and yes, I include the Marshall deal in that. Trading for Rizzo really hurt that goal because he is good enough to not want to acquire somebody great for 1B, but not ready enough to really help the 2012 team. I'm guessing the Cubs would argue that they are trying to compete. They would point to moves like Maholm and Dejesus. And depending on how you account some of the Cubs recent activity (Dempster and Pena's money that was deferred, front office salaries, Dominican complex, Concepcion) the Cubs might not actually have that much money left over in the budget. Of course the Cubs being interested in the Cubans and them not being available as FA's until after many other options signed didn't help either.

Why is that a bad thing? The larger the playoff is, the more games those lesser teams have to beat against strong competition. Would anyone really claim South Carolina/Wisconsin/Kansas State wouldn't be worthy if they had to beat Boise, then Stanford, then LSU to win a playoff? I watch much, much more of the college football regular season than the regular season of any other sport. And a big part of that is that the drama factor is so high because a upset could end a teams season. If that was changed and a playoff was instituted, I would watch the playoff and enjoy it but still watch much less college football than I do currently. A large part of the regular season would become boring at least to me.

I would agree the differences between teams end up being too small to be very accurate, but Wisconsin would not have been considered even without that Hail Mary. Their schedule wasn't good enough, and they probably wouldn't have even finished ahead of Stanford. I'm a fan of a 4 team playoff. There won't be much chance of an undefeated being left out (unless the schedule is absolutely awful like Houston last year) but still makes a loss for any team potentially devastating. Any more than that and some teams will know they can lose a game and still make it.

Enough. Back on topic.