CubColtPacer

You're not sure why that would have anything to do with SS? SS is a MI position. A MI, by definition, has to be able to play SS. True-but to get a backup MI, all they need is somebody who can play 2nd or SS, as long as they are confident that the other 3 can all play both SS and 2nd. There will never be a situation where they will absolutely have to have that other backup play SS, so there's no reason why the backup would have to play SS. That would be preferable, but not a real deterrent if they find a good backup who only plays 2B. Izturis is coming back from injury so the Cubs may want a defensive insurance policy for SS. This would allow both DeRosa and Theriot to play in the same game while keeping Izturis (or his would be substitute) in the game for defensive purposes. Well if Izturis got hurt during a game that both DeRosa and Theriot was playing, then whichever one was playing 2nd could switch over to SS and the backup come in to play 2B. It would be great if we could get a guy who could cover both positions, but I would rather just get the BPA who could play at least one of those 2 positions.

Wouldn't it be a 4.50 ERA? the ERA is cumulative of all ST appearances. 4 runsin 9 IP I'm more pessimistic than most of Miller's performances. WHIP is way to high. Today would be a 1.75 WHIP...not good. Too many guys getting on bases, eventually, you give up too many runs. He's had some luck on his side to not have an ERA closer to 6. That's the same thing he did at the end of last year as well-1.71 WHIP, 4.57 ERA. I have no idea if he'll be able to continue that or not. What is this last year you speak of? Are you trying to forget 2006 that much :D BTW, I made this post because I forgot to add that was in 5 starts last year.

I'm starting to think we might have been fleeced in the Aardsma deal. It's still too early to make that call, but I have yet to see anything to the contrary... We can't have been fleeced regardless-Aardsma is struggling just as much if not more for the White Sox.

Wouldn't it be a 4.50 ERA? the ERA is cumulative of all ST appearances. 4 runsin 9 IP I'm more pessimistic than most of Miller's performances. WHIP is way to high. Today would be a 1.75 WHIP...not good. Too many guys getting on bases, eventually, you give up too many runs. He's had some luck on his side to not have an ERA closer to 6. That's the same thing he did at the end of last year as well-1.71 WHIP, 4.57 ERA. I have no idea if he'll be able to continue that or not.

You're not sure why that would have anything to do with SS? SS is a MI position. A MI, by definition, has to be able to play SS. True-but to get a backup MI, all they need is somebody who can play 2nd or SS, as long as they are confident that the other 3 can all play both SS and 2nd. There will never be a situation where they will absolutely have to have that other backup play SS, so there's no reason why the backup would have to play SS. That would be preferable, but not a real deterrent if they find a good backup who only plays 2B.

I enjoyed Todd while he was here, but his best days are behind him and I don't see any point in bringing him back at 34 to see if he can help. The Cubs could use some offensive help, but Todd is no guarantee to be of use with the bat. Plus if the whole goal is to get DeRosa and Theriot playing together, SS is the obvious target. The goal is to have Izturis at SS, Theriot at 2B, and DeRosa in right field against LH-that's why they are trying to get a backup MI to be on the bench for those days. I'm not sure why that would have anything to do with SS.

At this point I don't even want him back next season. I empathized with his situation going into the offseason, but so far he's handled it without class. If I publicly roasted my employer like that, I'd get fired. Unfortunately, in this case that's exactly what Briggs wants-to be fired.

Got it, thanks. I wonder if we'll see Jones dealt for an MI and a B prospect before April. I doubt it-if Jones is dealt, no backup MI is needed anymore. Plus, this article seems to think that Jones will not be traded at all now.

Either I'm dense today, or just confused. How does acquiring another MI give Piniella the option to play both DeRosa and Theriot? If he wants to play those two in the MI, wouldn't Izturis then slide into Theriot's bench role? I don't understand how acquiring another player fits into this discussion. Rosenthal was saying that one of those players would play in RF-Izturis, DeRosa, and Theriot would all be in the lineup on those days, but there would be no backup MI on those days-which is why they need to get another backup if they are planning to use DeRosa or Theriot as Jacque's platoon partner in RF.

Miller's having a good outing-after that leadoff HR, he's allowed 3 hits, struck out 4, walked none, and picked off one of the runners he let on in 3 innings.

untrue. the week before harris went down, the trib did a full spread on how the bears front four had been getting little pressure over the previous 5 weeks They didn't get much pressure in 2 of those 5 games, but they still had 6 sacks and 3 QB forced fumbles in 3 of those games. That's not too bad, and their defense also had 10 INTs in those 5 games, which at least some of those could have come from pressures.

Miller with a confusing 1st inning-2 hits including a leadoff HR, but then he strikes out the last 2 batters of the inning. 1-0 Arizona after 1.

Well, it looks like the top of the 1st had Pie fly out, Theriot strike out, and Murton strike out.

you're saying that tampa has been wasting money on derrick brooks, too? no, in the tampa-2, the will better be fast, he better be quick, and he better be equally as proficient against the pass as against the run. the sam, on the other hand, is the position of no consequence in the tampa-2. the defense is built around the excellence of the will, and the bears have the right guy for it. The Tampa-2 isn't a defense built around the will linebacker. the will is the most important position in the scheme. No, the defensive line is the most important part of the scheme. The ability to get pressure with only the front 4 without blitzing is the big reason why the Tampa 2 works, and the team will always pick pass-rushing defensive linemen over any linebacker. The two safeties and the WILL are the next important, and the other two linebackers and the corners are the least important in the scheme. The big change that Chicago has made is to modify the system so that Urlacher becomes more important to the scheme to utilize his talents. Correct. Every defensive line position is more important than the WILL linebacker in the Cover-2. wrong. while the defensive line is impoprtant, it's importance is judged as a unit. as a unit, it's only important as the first wave of attack. when sacks and pressure aren't happening, which they weren't on a majority of snaps for the bears last season, the linebackers are revealed as the most important positions in the scheme. if the bears got more pressure on the QB last season, i agree, they wouldn't need such excellent LB's. but you can't assume QB pressure, ever. The Bears got plenty of pressure until Harris went down-they finished 8th in sacks (which I know is the not best indicator of QB pressure whatsoever). When Harris went out, the Bears had to compensate by blitzing more, which led to teams going for more yards. In fact, out of their first 11 games before Harris went down, Chicago allowed 300 or more yards 1 time. In the 8 games after (including the game he went down) they allowed 300 or more yards all 8 times. The Bears were able to stay afloat because of their great ability to force turnovers, but they were no longer able to keep people from driving up and down the field on them. No, you cannot always rely on consistent pressure on every play. That's why the Cover 2 defense is designed to not give up the big play. They force opponents to make long drives down the field, and if the front 4 is good enough they will get pressure on at least one crucial play during the drive and force a big play or turnover, or at least a 3rd down incompletion.

oh jeez, i doubt my perceived condescension can come close to yours, "sport". leave it alone. and i didn't avoid your point, i simply noticed that it was faulty. It's not faulty. Cato June was allowed to test the market, even though he played the "most important position in the Cover-2" at a pro bowl level. The Bears look like they don't want to give Lance Briggs a market value extended contract to play, what you call the most important position on the defense. Both of these guys were late round pics and Cato June is a silghtly oversized saftey. If the players and play at this position is so important, why aren't these guys locked up right away? I doubt we'll see a bunch a song and dance routine when it comes to Tommie Harris' contract. That's because Tommie's position is much more crucial to the performance of the defense. It's one of the easiest positions on the defense to fill and it is by no means the most important tampa-2 position. I've never heard anyone associated with this defense ever say anything like that. The Colts were actually so impressed with David Thornton at the WILL a couple of years ago that they moved him to SAM so that they could break in their young guy (June) at the easiest linebacker position to play, the WILL. That certainly doesn't sound like the WILL is valued all that much.

you're saying that tampa has been wasting money on derrick brooks, too? no, in the tampa-2, the will better be fast, he better be quick, and he better be equally as proficient against the pass as against the run. the sam, on the other hand, is the position of no consequence in the tampa-2. the defense is built around the excellence of the will, and the bears have the right guy for it. The Tampa-2 isn't a defense built around the will linebacker. the will is the most important position in the scheme. No, the defensive line is the most important part of the scheme. The ability to get pressure with only the front 4 without blitzing is the big reason why the Tampa 2 works, and the team will always pick pass-rushing defensive linemen over any linebacker. The two safeties and the WILL are the next important, and the other two linebackers and the corners are the least important in the scheme. The big change that Chicago has made is to modify the system so that Urlacher becomes more important to the scheme to utilize his talents.

i really don't see the fascination with vasher. he's good, but good players can be had in the draft. angelo has shown a fairly decent ability to get good players in the later rounds of the draft on a consistent basis. players like briggs and harris aren't just good, they are top 3 at their respective positions in the NFL--they are perrenial all-pro players. a good GM locks up his all-pro players and shuffles his good players in-and-out through the draft, letting them walk when they ask for all-pro-type money, which they clearly aren't worth. briggs is probably worth what he's asking for. it's just a matter of whether or not he'll get it from anyone. I'm not sure Briggs really is that great. In that system, everything is supposed to be funneled to the WILL, and they get inflated stats because of it. If the rest of the Colts defense had been better this season, Cato June with his statistics would have been in the Pro Bowl for the second year in a row and would also be seen as a "perennial all-pro player", but the reality is that most good outside linebackers could do a great job as a WILL in that type of system. Briggs probably will be paid by somebody, but he is replaceable and probably not worth the money. I'm not saying Briggs isn't good-he is. However, just like June, Briggs benefits from being in the system he plays in which gives his position in particular the chance to pad their stats and make plays. you're talking to me like a bears fan could have no idea how the tampa-2 works. i think i know a little about football so let's just move on from breaking down the inner-workings of the bears defensive scheme. briggs's stats aren't the reason he's an all-pro player. I don't know then why you would want them to sign Briggs for all that money. The Bears could find several other people at that position to give them similar production at much less cost. If Briggs really is that good, then Chicago is wasting his talent by using that system with him at that position-any good linebacker could play that position very ,very well, and there's no reason to pay anybody a great amount of money to do so.

Two players peripherals right here-both are on NL Central teams right now, both were on the same team in the years these were taken from, and one is expected to be average while the other one is not: Year 1- A-6.17 K/9, 1.97 K/BB, 2.17 G/F, 1.42 WHIP B-5.27 K/9, 1.69 K/BB, 1.59 G/F, 1.37 WHIP Year 2- A-4.35 K/9, 1.45 K/BB, 1.59 G/F, 1.32 WHIP B-5.28 K/9, 1.81 K/BB, 1.43 G/F, 1.38 WHIP Here is year 3 for one of those 2 pitchers B-4.93 K/9, 1.51 K/BB, 1.61 G/F, 1.45 WHIP Based on those peripherals, what do you think of these two pitchers? Are they both destined to be pretty bad?

Right on again. The issue here is, it seems for many the range of potential outcomes with Marquis never approaches positive territory. For them, it's just a question of exactly how bad the guy's going to be. While it is true that I have a vendetta against Jason Marquis, it was never my point that he would DEFINITELY be bad. He'll probably bad. My main point was that it was an idiotic deal for the simple fact that he more than likely won't be any better than Marshall or Guzman and will probably be much worse than those guys. Not only that, but he cost 21 million while the other two guys would cost you relatively nothing. I have no problem with those statements whatsoever-if he's worth the contract considering the other people available will be much harder to justify. I'm not sure anybody was quibbling over what you said either because as you said you left open for the possibility that he will be all right from a baseball sense but just not likely to be worth enough to be anywhere near his contract.

i really don't see the fascination with vasher. he's good, but good players can be had in the draft. angelo has shown a fairly decent ability to get good players in the later rounds of the draft on a consistent basis. players like briggs and harris aren't just good, they are top 3 at their respective positions in the NFL--they are perrenial all-pro players. a good GM locks up his all-pro players and shuffles his good players in-and-out through the draft, letting them walk when they ask for all-pro-type money, which they clearly aren't worth. briggs is probably worth what he's asking for. it's just a matter of whether or not he'll get it from anyone. I'm not sure Briggs really is that great. In that system, everything is supposed to be funneled to the WILL, and they get inflated stats because of it. If the rest of the Colts defense had been better this season, Cato June with his statistics would have been in the Pro Bowl for the second year in a row and would also be seen as a "perennial all-pro player", but the reality is that most good outside linebackers could do a great job as a WILL in that type of system. Briggs probably will be paid by somebody, but he is replaceable and probably not worth the money. I'm not saying Briggs isn't good-he is. However, just like June, Briggs benefits from being in the system he plays in which gives his position in particular the chance to pad their stats and make plays.

It'd be something if MJ, Pippen, Rodman and Kukoc got together and popping open champaign to celebrate the Mavs losing. But hey, what's wrong with us fans doing it? You're just a jealous Pacers fan. ;) Nah, the Pacers had some great runs-I'm more of a journey than a destination kind of guy. It has been kind of frustrating though to lose in the ECF in 7 games 3 times, in 6 games twice, and in the Finals in 6 games once all in the last 12 years. They did give the Bulls the best fight that anybody has ever put up against them though in a 7 game series. Besides, if I wanted to do the same thing I could always do it with IU:)

Wrong? Hendry did a terrible job at constructing a team that lost 90+ games, how were people critical of his moves wrong? They were wrong about Jones. Stick to the subject. Wrong about Jones for one year. Still a couple more left to go, so lets not go patting ourselves on the back yet. If he plays like last year for the next two years, I'll be happy. He wasn't great, but it's better than I expected. As for Marquis, he was a contributor for the Cardinals last year, just like you said. Of course, he was absolutely terrible for them, so im not sure what you're saying there. He didn't say that-he said that he was a contributor 2 out of the past 3 years, which would be referring to 2004 and 2005. Oops, I saw it as "a contributor for the past three years", my bad. Still, I don't get what's so offensive about predicting a player will continue his downward trend into awfulness. Do these people do this for every prediction? Do you not fill out an NCAA bracket, because you don't know what's going to happen? "Ohio State should win the tournament!" "They might not, though!" Well no kidding, thanks for the revelation. It's not a matter of the prediction-it's the people who are saying that Marquis has absolutely no chance to be decent to good (or a negligible chance). If you said "There is no way for anyone but Ohio State to win this tournament" I'd point out reasonable ways that other teams could win. Marquis is one of those players where it would be reasonable to say that he's going to be anything from good to horrible (I'm not sure that it would be reasonable to think he could be great, so I left that out)-the definitiveness of what some people think he's going to be to the point that they think that there is no way he could be anything else is what people were addressing.

During the football season, they complain about the Dolphins people doing it, and then when it comes to basketball season, what do they do? :D

Wrong? Hendry did a terrible job at constructing a team that lost 90+ games, how were people critical of his moves wrong? They were wrong about Jones. Stick to the subject. Wrong about Jones for one year. Still a couple more left to go, so lets not go patting ourselves on the back yet. If he plays like last year for the next two years, I'll be happy. He wasn't great, but it's better than I expected. As for Marquis, he was a contributor for the Cardinals last year, just like you said. Of course, he was absolutely terrible for them, so im not sure what you're saying there. He didn't say that-he said that he was a contributor 2 out of the past 3 years, which would be referring to 2004 and 2005. Also, Jones was one of the most under-paid right fielders that have already hit free agency in the league last year. He already has earned about half his money in just 1 of the 3 years-even if only 1 of the next 2 years are like last year, he'll earn his contract.

Of course it doesn't. But that's not the point at all. ok, so what is the point? The doomsday predictors don't know as much as they think they know. I love how everything someone says that they think someone will be terrible, someone else shows up to say that they "might not". Really geniuses? You're telling me that there's a chance he might be bad, and also a chance he might be good. Well, gee, that sounds, almost like every other player in baseball. Marquis last year was as bad as Pujols was good. If you start a thread about how Pujols is going to be great this year, I'm not going to come in the thread and say "Yeah, but he might be bad too! You dont know as much as you think you do!" It's not a question of possibilities though-it's a question of reasonableness. Could a healthy Pujols be bad this year? Sure-but it's so unlikely to be unreasonable. Could Marquis be a league average pitcher this year? Definitely-his track record, his possible return to being a ground ball pitcher, the fixing of his mechanical flaw, the Cubs infield defense and the high grass at Wrigley all give him a reasonable chance of being average. Was the 3.71 an aberration in 04? Probably-was the 06 an aberration? Probably as well. He is a pitcher that if he gets ground balls will most years be somewhere in between the low 4's and high 4's, which means that in most normal years Marquis is a just fine 4th-5th starter with some years being a good 3rd. Now-he might not have returned to throwing primarily ground balls, but I don't think anyone can definitely say that for sure, especially with the limited ST evidence that seems to suggest that he is throwing his sinker well again. Could that change? Sure-but it is perfectly reasonable to think that it may stay that way.