CubColtPacer

You like Wright State? Or do you just not want a bubble team to get in? It 's over now-2 bids for the Horizon League apparently.

The strange thing is that Z is the pitcher I least want to see pitching during ST. I mean, Z is the one pitcher who we all kind of know what's going to be there Opening Day. I'm much more interested in seeing the other 5 starters (or starting candidates). Of course, when it comes to the regular season, I'll be more excited when Z pitches then the others :D

IMO, they are largely overblown. I think he had a bad week and a half stretch where he had multiple error games, but was fine before and after. One of those games was a game I went to at Carolina. I believe he had three errors total that game, including two in one inning. I think it was rather ironic that on the day this question was asked he commits 2 errors.

To have 4 errors and only give up 2 runs-that was a great pitching performance all around today. Good work.

Yeah, I'm around as well-anybody know who the error was on?

Cubs scored on Jones 2 run single after Epatt single and D-Lee double. Not completely sure on line on Marquis-he gave up a few runners, with only one flyball out and no runs through 3 IP.

Saying "hope I'm wrong" seems like he's giving him a chance to me. you're right. However "So other than sucking in 2002 and 2003". . and "suck at pitching" is not so positive. who said i was being positive about him? i said i hope he does well. listen, he's really pretty much sucked for the better part of the last five years (including sucking especially hard in the most recent season). if you want to pretend that didn't happen, go ahead. if he was on the cardinals right now, i truly doubt you'd have anything positive to say about him. so i'm not going to sit here and pretend i'm excited about him. and me doing that is not going to have any effect on anybody doing anything anywhere. I'm over it. Just forget about it. Be as negative as you want. would you have a positive outlook for marquis if he had signed with the mariners or the cardinals or anyone else in baseball besides the cubs? If I had heard they had fixed a supposed mechanical flaw? I'd say that he had a decent chance to be good, and a decent chance to be very bad-which is about what I'm saying now :D

I'd be fine with that-that's a good to very good 5th starter.

I still don't understand this one. A 2nd and 7th for Wes Welker? He's a 3rd/4th receiver and average return man. Getting a 2nd for him is surprising. I don't understand it either. I doubt the Pats would have given up so much in a regular trade-Welker was a RFA, and for the Pats to sign him away would have required 2nd round compensation anyway, so the Pats were going to lose that. By giving up their 7th rounder as well, they were able to sign him to a much smaller deal than they would have had to by just signing him. The question is-what do the Pats see in him that they want to sign him in the first place? I'm not sure, but they are pretty good at finding talent, and so I'm worried to find out.

Isn't it funny how every good GM has their niche in the draft? For example, Bill Polian of the Colts is exactly the opposite of Angelo. Polian is the best in the league at his first pick in the draft, and he is the best in the league at picking up great undrafted free agents. As you said, Angelo is the best at the time in between those two points. I just find it interesting that GM's have trouble in certain rounds, but do very well in others-it would seem to defy sense (I mean, a good talent evaluator should be a good talent evaluator all the way through) but it definitely happens.

And here's a complete overreaction to the deal by Steve Rosenbloom, and David Haugh. Wow-those are overreactions. It sounds like what the Chargers papers said last year when Brees was let go, or when the Colts haven't spent anything in free agency the last few years and have been ripped for it each time. Obviously it worked out for both those squads-this is probably the best move for the Bears as well-with the way both of them were unhappy, you really had to trade one of them.

I agree and that seems to be the stumbling block. Of course a trade for a good SS involving Jones and Izturis would be perfect. Who's even out there that would be an upgrade at SS other than ARod? Tejada Oh yeah, I forgot about him. I wouldn't give up the farm for him like I would have last year though. I'd love to find out how steep the asking price is. I'd do it for Guzman and Gallagher (and I'm one of Gooz's biggest fans), assuming Izturis is also involved. I can't see that being anywhere close. Remember how the Angels were willing to offer Santana and a top prospect or two (and the Astros had a huge deal also offered), and the Orioles said no. Angelos has declined so many deals for Tejada that the GM wanted to make-by the time Angelos would say yes, the Cubs would be giving so much talent that it wouldn't nearly be worth it.

Hutchinson? Walter Jones actually. I'm not sure about the rule, but he was the one who got franchised 3-4 years in a row and was not happy about it whatsoever.

I thought Marshall was hurt? Would he be ready if Guzman and Prior can't go on Opening Day? Remember to include Wade Miller in there as well-it seems unlikely that Prior/Miller/Guzman would all be unavailable opening day, and then Cotts would probably get the next chance to start after that anyway. Marshall might not be ready opening day (although there is a decent chance he will be) but he should be available for sure soon after that.

Moving up the equivalent number of spots that the Bears moved would essentially cost a late 2nd or early 3rd round pick. The Bears basically traded Benson for a late 2nd or early 3rd, and then traded that pick and their 2nd to move up. I don't think he got hosed. 2nd round draft picks are extremely valuable trade chips. I guess this is where I would make a lousy NFL GM, I woulda helpd out and made the Jets pay more, if not, make Jones play angry. Whattya think we can get for Briggs now that he is pissed off? I don't know, but if it's just exchanging a pick? I'd let Briggs sit. All year if necessary. Hell, I'd franchise him over & over and let him sit forever if all I'm going to get for him is an exchange of 15 draft positions. can you actually do that? franchise a player year after year? not a bad option here. I am abit pissed w/Briggs. The offer the Bears gave him last year was a fair offer I think. Maybe the Bears new 2nd rd pick will be one to replace Briggs... I believe there is no limit for non-QBs, but obviously the player's salary will increase exponentially based on the avg of the top 5 salaries at his position. Yeah, if you franchise him again he gets either the average of the top 5 salaries or a 20% increase in pay, whichever is higher. So if you franchised him for the next few years (I'm starting with a base of 7.5-I can't remember the exact number, it was over 7 but I think 7.5 was a little high, but it will be close enough). 2007-7.5 million 2008-9 million 2009-10.8 million 2010-12.96 million 2011-15.552 million You can see why teams don't like to franchise their players for multiple years if possible. It gets way too expensive to have all that money going against the cap every season. It's even worse if you have one of the more expensive positions like QB or defensive end as well.

Moving up the equivalent number of spots that the Bears moved would essentially cost a late 2nd or early 3rd round pick. The Bears basically traded Benson for a late 2nd or early 3rd, and then traded that pick and their 2nd to move up. I don't think he got hosed. 2nd round draft picks are extremely valuable trade chips. I guess this is where I would make a lousy NFL GM, I woulda helpd out and made the Jets pay more, if not, make Jones play angry. Whattya think we can get for Briggs now that he is pissed off? I don't know, but if it's just exchanging a pick? I'd let Briggs sit. All year if necessary. Hell, I'd franchise him over & over and let him sit forever if all I'm going to get for him is an exchange of 15 draft positions. can you actually do that? franchise a player year after year? not a bad option here. I am abit pissed w/Briggs. The offer the Bears gave him last year was a fair offer I think. Maybe the Bears new 2nd rd pick will be one to replace Briggs... Well, you can do that-but if he plays and you franchise him year after year, the amount of money he costs against the cap goes up by 20% every season-it gets too expensive very, very quickly. If he holds out the entire season-well, then you're just wasting your franchise tag and ability to sign free agents (because he could sign that tag at any moment-so you have to keep 7-8 million dollars of cap room just in case he signs). It's usually never good business to be that stubborn about a situation.

Here's another example-it's doing it to me on this topic.

In the past day, I can't seem to finish reading certain topics. When I go to the thread and read through it, then when I look at it again it still says I have new posts in that thread when it clearly doesn't. It started with just the transactions forum that it did that but this morning it spread to a thread or two in baseball discussions. Is anybody else having this problem? The only way I can make it marked read is to actually manually click to mark all topics read. Again, this is only on certain threads-the one about the Angels trying to look at the contract of Matthews in Transactions, for example.

Some of the other big news of the day: Wes Welker is a Patriot. He got traded from the Dolphins for a 2nd and a 7th round pick, and then the Patriots signed him to a 5 year, 18.5 million dollar deal. Speculation is rampant that the league quietly told the Patriots and Dolphins to "work something out" rather than have the Patriots use the poison pill in the contract, which the league is trying to get rid of. Patrick Kerney signs a 6 year, 39.5 million dollar deal with the Seahawks=19.5 guaranteed. He chose the Seahawks narrowly over the Broncos.

if the bolded section implies "ineffective in later innings" I'd disagree. If it means "became susceptible to arm pain if overused" then its worded poorly. Its not that Wood can't be an effective starter, its that his arm won't hold up to 150+ innings. edit: I also agree that after a couple effective years in the pen, it might be wise to stretch him out. Of course that bridge isn't crossable yet. I was saying that every time he was injured in the last couple years, it's because his arm gave out after 3-4 innings. He would walk off the mound suddenly in the 3rd of a game he was pitching well in. He couldn't take the strain of pitching that many pitches at a time-that's exactly why they moved him to the bullpen in the first place, hoping that if he doesn't go past that pitch mark his arm and shoulder will be able to handle the stress easier. wow. Not sure I agree. I think it was definitely cumulative. And your conclusion makes a jump without a bridge. Even if it was a threshold of pitches per start, its very possible that would change if the workload was lessened and his arm actually got a chance to heal completely. Well, I would agree. Give the chance for the arm to heal longer, and the ability to stretch out and become a starter might be possible-but that's a ways down the road I think.

if the bolded section implies "ineffective in later innings" I'd disagree. If it means "became susceptible to arm pain if overused" then its worded poorly. Its not that Wood can't be an effective starter, its that his arm won't hold up to 150+ innings. edit: I also agree that after a couple effective years in the pen, it might be wise to stretch him out. Of course that bridge isn't crossable yet. I was saying that every time he was injured in the last couple years, it's because his arm gave out after 3-4 innings. He would walk off the mound suddenly in the 3rd of a game he was pitching well in. He couldn't take the strain of pitching that many pitches at a time-that's exactly why they moved him to the bullpen in the first place, hoping that if he doesn't go past that pitch mark his arm and shoulder will be able to handle the stress easier.

Check the Bears thread-the Bears only moved up in the second round from #63 to #37, they didn't actually get an extra second rounder.

According to draft value charts, moving up in the 2nd is probably more valuable. I'd take the 3rd though, but of course it's hard to know if the Jets would offer a 3rd or not.

Actually, they are saying it's Jones/Bears 2nd rd for the Jets 2nd rd pick. If the Bears had to thrown in their 2nd rd, plus Jones to move up 5 spots int eh 2nd rd, then this deal SUCKS for Bears. The Jets get a proven RB, plus only lose 5 spots in the 2nd rd. The Bears have to get a 3rd rd pick this yr or next, to make this a "fair deal." Yeah, I saw that and put an edit on my post-just a little too late :D This is a bad deal for the Bears, but like I thought originally (before I was shocked by this trade), the market for running backs is just not that good-it hasn't been for years. I thought the Bears could get a 4th for him-it seems they didn't even get that.

Wow-good job predicting it Bears fans. Another board is reporting that this deal was for the Jets second rounder-they must have seen the money that the running backs were getting on the free agent market and gotten desperate. This is a good deal for the Bears. Edit: Wait a minute on that, there are conflicting reports on what has been traded. Another source is claiming that the Bears only moved up in the second round by making this trade-I'm going to wait to figure out what it actually is.