CubColtPacer

This part isn't really true. The NL has better #7 and #8 hitters than the AL #8 and #9 hitters. Even when you compare it 7 and 8 to 7 and 8 it's close. The worst hitter besides an NL #9 hitter is an AL #9 hitter, and it's not particularly close. The NL does seem to put poor hitters in the #2 spot though. Here's last year OPS advantages: #1 spot- NL by 11 points #2-AL by 62 #3-NL by 12 #4-NL by 33 #5-AL by 22 #6-NL by 3 #7-AL by 9 #8-AL by 5 #9-AL by 164 Total: AL by 20 I was surprised to see from how much we talk about sluggers going to the AL that the NL led in both the 3 and 4 spot last year, and by a decently large margin in the 4 spot.

You think Szcur had to be close to making the top 10 OF list? I know opinions vary on the guy but I didn't think there were even those who were high on him that would list him up there. Last year, BA had only 10 OF listed in the top 100 prospects (12 if you count guys like Alonso who were listed as 1B/OF). Sczcur is supposed to be in their top 100 list this year. So Sczcur could very well be close or on some top 10 lists as an OF, but that doesn't necessarily say much about him being an elite prospect.

No it wasn't. It was a setback to teams that are willing to spend more in the draft. The Cubs were one of a few organizations in that position. Everybody has enough cash to spend bigtime in the draft, and more and more teams were doing it. 10 teams broke the 10 million mark last year. And the market sizes of those teams were all over the board. The CBA helped the teams who hadn't caught on yet and it's a significant problem for the Cubs in the short-term, but the trend was showing that it wasn't going to be an area of advantage for any team for too long.

Eli Manning strikes me as a whiner who makes that "the reciever ran the wrong route" face every time something goes wrong. Of all the reasons to dislike Brady, having played at Michigan is not very high on the list but it's still on the list. If Brady wins, I'd still take Joe Montana. It seems like the Giants defense gets more credit for the first super bowl win. Also his recievers that made incredible catches at critical times. Whether that's fair or not is open to debate. If the Giants win this one, he'll probably get most of the credit. Yeah, we all know that QB's get too much credit / blame. My question is, within the ranks of QB's, where would Eli rank? Eli shouldn't rank all that high IMO. The two playoff runs should count for a lot, but only 2 to 3 regular seasons where he was good to great is a big problem. He still turns the ball over way too much which is part of the reason his team hasn't been that good in the regular season (they've only won more than 10 games once in his career). If he keeps churning out regular seasons more like this past one for 6-7 more years than that would start to shoot him up the list. Brady was always an overrated guy that somehow developed into an unbelievable QB over the years. He shouldn't get the lions share of the credit for the SB's (barely any for the first run, and some for the next two). But he's been dominant for years now, and really his only flaw is that he makes bad decisions when his team is up in the 4th quarter. Another SB would put him very, very high IMO.

I would agree the schedule hasn't been great so far. But they are beating these mostly bad teams on the road (10 road games vs 5 home), and they've played decently against the good teams so far (beat LA at LA, blew out shorthanded Atlanta at home, got blown out at Miami, lost shorthanded at Philly). So I think the expectation level is that they won't get trounced by the good teams when they start coming around more.

Expectation level: 4th/5th seed. Optimistically hoping for the 3rd. As for championship, who knows. Probably either somehow convincing someone like Howard/Williams to come to Indy, or having George or Stephenson develop into a star. Both of those are possible but neither very likely. Signing/trading for Eric Gordon to add to the team has been talked about on Indiana boards ad nauseum as he might be the one decent star who would want to come to Indiana. Or they could try to luck out and win one like the Pistons did with no stars. The scenarios aren't great, but that's about the only ways they could go rather than try to get the #1 pick on the right year. They've done everything right so far-they have a young, deep team with lots of cap space. But their market is going to hold them back from so many options, so they have to tread carefully. I do think the current core as constructed has better potential than the Hawks ever did (more like the 90's Pacers level of potential) but even that team didn't win a title even after getting to the ECF 5 out of 7 years.

Who? Edmonds definitely overachieved, given his age...and Dempster definitely did have his best year (although he has continued to be pretty good since). DeRosa probably had his best year. Can you really say that anybody else significantly overachieved? Lee underachieved pretty significantly. I expected more out of Kosuke. Soriano's year wasn't anywhere near a career year (although it was probably his best year as a Cub and probably the most you could reasonably expect out of him). Their bench really overachieved that year. Hoffpauir with 73 AB's and a .934 OPS. Fontenot with 243 and a .909. Johnson with 333 and a .778. Blanco and Cedeno were also better than most of their careers. Only Ward was worse. Zambrano also had his best year hitting of his career. Each of them separately weren't that important (except maybe Fontenot being 150 points better than expected) but together they really overachieved. Then as you said Edmonds did much better than could be possibly expected, Dempster's ERA was a lot better than even his peripherals would have said it should have been, DeRosa had a career year, Theriot had his best year, Soto and Soriano had their second best years. Harden's ERA was ridiculous, Samardzija somehow kept getting out of jams, and everyone else on the pitching staff was about as expected. Howry, Lee, Fukudome, and a couple of minor pitchers were the only ones who were worse than expected. It was no shock that the next year a large percentage of the same team came out and won 83 games. They were probably a 90 win team that overachieved greatly, lost a little in the offseason, and then underacheived a little the next year.

Yeah certainly, and Roy Hibbert, wow. Thoroughly outplaying Bynum with a broken nose was beyond impressive. He should make the All-Star team. Also, love when Granger plays D, and he's returning to that this year after an extensive layoff. Yeah, it's been a really fun year so far. Pacers are quite enjoyable to watch, lots of good players, but no super star. Also thrilled for Roy Hibbert; I've been probably the biggest proponent of Hibbert since he was drafted. Nice to see him doing well -- and, selfishly, proving me right, ha. My worry about Hibbert was always how he was going to fit in that run and gun offense. Now that O'Brien is gone, he is really blossoming. And his biggest improvement is on the defensive end. You could see the skills from his rookie year, but he was a foul machine back then. The Pacers not finding a backup scoring wing has hurt a little bit, and with Foster out backup C is a little bit of a concern. But this team doesn't have very many holes, and they should keep getting better as the season goes along (as players like George/Collison/Hansbrough get more experience and West's knee continues to get stronger). The next few weeks could be pretty bumpy though before a soft March/April schedule.

Maybe you didn't follow the Cubs as closely in the early part of the decade. 2003 was the year that the was supposed to be the beginning of dominance for a decade. The 2008 team was the end of any relevance. but in terms of which team was better, it's not even close. the 2008 team was completely stacked. That 2008 team was not stacked by any stretch of the imagination. They didn't have any holes, but they were basically just good everywhere instead of having any real greatness. 2003 had a HOF RF and what should have been 2 HOF starting pitchers at the beginning of their careers. 2003 had the feeling of a team on the verge of continued dominance and 2008 had the feel of a complete one-off opportunity. I agree 2003 had that feeling, but it really shouldn't have. By the end of the year, here were the offensive players on the roster under age 33: Alex Gonzalez, Ramirez, Patterson (with a torn ACL), Choi, Ramon Martinez, and Simon. That's it. The starting pitching was really exciting, but the offense needed to be completely rebuilt and the bullpen didn't have any young stars either. It was a good start to a great team, but it still had a lot of holes. 2008 was dominant only because a bunch of players had career years. It was a very good team that overachieved all season long.

Dungy was criticized by many for not being a good game coach. They derided his philosophy of "do what we do" and refusal to make adjustments especially in playoff games when other teams were throwing in new wrinkles. I'm not sure I completely buy it, but it's out there. I don't remember Dungy being criticized for timeout/challenge issues like Lovie is though.

No it doesn't. Who do they have to squeeze into that roster? The bottom 3-4 guys are probably all going to be garbage. What's the point in getting jumpy now? If nobody was going to offer much of anything and the Cubs were going to pay all of it, then the best bet always was to try and see if he can get hot in time for the trading deadline and then cause somebody else to do something stupid. The upside of Sappelt getting that playing time >>> the upside of fantasizing that Soriano's trade value at 36 is going to improve. There's also the thought that acceptance of advanced statistics for pitchers are well behind what they are for hitters. So if they put a better defense behind the cost controlled pitching the Cubs have, the more the can artificially inflate their trade value. Those arguments are both significant, but I'm not sure if it makes up for the fact that it's only 2.7 million savings either. The Cubs can probably get more at some point, but the question becomes is the extra amount worth the opportunity you're losing by keeping him.

Obviously not the most recent but I'd like to get a Herschel Walker return for Forte :) Edit: I'd settle for a Ricky Williams like trade too Ricky was a decade ago. Marshawn Lynch was recently dealt for very little. Reggie Bush netted next to nothing. The Chargers tried to trade Turner but he left via free agency. I can't think of any meaningful RB trade in recent memory. The Colts traded Marshall Faulk in this type of situation and only got a 2nd and a 5th (although apparently the Dolphins offered a 1st and was turned down because the team wanted him traded to the NFC). That was also over a decade ago. It's very unusual for a star runningback to be traded because of money though so as you said there aren't many data points to consider.

Because he couldn't hit but still played, and received praise. Therefore he must be good at defense. Plus the Cubs won a lot when he played his first couple seasons, and then right as his reputation was growing he had the season where he threw out a bunch of runners. Add in how inconsistent Soto has been (which increases the hype for the backup), and it's pretty easy to see how Hill's reputation has just grown a life of its own.

You could also say the Western Conference is really good at defending their homecourt: Eastern Conference: 51-38 at home, 44-69 on the road Western Conference: 78-34 at home, 28-60 on the road So the Western conference has a 12 game lead on the East so far, but has played 23 more home games!

Allen's contract isn't bad. I think he could fetch a decent amount of talent without having to take on a bad contract in return (the only issue is how receptive teams are to a rental). They'd have a really hard time finding a Garnett deal that would work. I'm not saying give up right now. But I think that should be a significant option by March. Limping into the playoffs as the 7 or 8 seed and hoping the very old roster can somehow turn it on in the playoffs and immediately beat one of the two favorites doesn't seem to me to be a great risk. Not being able to sign West in free agency and then immediately losing Green really hurt.

I guess I just don't understand why Boston would want to try to push forward with the Big 3 one more time. Yes, they very likely will get in the playoffs and if they're lucky maybe win a round. But I really don't think they're just coasting right now, and their chances of winning a championship are pretty small. Why not trade Allen and/or Garnett (although I have no idea if Garnett is even tradeable right now) and combine that with your cap space for next year to quickly rebuild your team. I can understand if that was their plan before the season, but I'm not sure it's the best plan anymore to just go down with the ship.

And the Falcons made it in 1998, so it's not been forever for them. The Vikings have made 2 NFC title games since 1998. LOL at the Lions, Cowboys, and especially the Redskins. That's true. I forgot to mention one more-if the 49ers win, the NFC West will become the 1st division in football to have all their teams in a Super Bowl in this century. Of course, they haven't won one this century yet.

If the 49ers win, they'll be the 11th different team from the NFC in the last 11 years to make the Super Bowl. The only teams who won't have made it in that timespan are the Cowboys, Redskins, Lions, Vikings, and Falcons (and looking over that list, the NFC would have a plausible chance to go 12 for 12 next year). If the Patriots win, it will be the 9th straight appearance by the Patriots, Steelers, or Colts. Whichever team wins, the AFC will have had only had 9 teams represented in the last 27 Super Bowls.

I forget who it was, but one of the Raptors airballed two against the Pacers yesterday. Jamaal Magloire. I was puzzled when I saw his career stats. Shot above 70% from the free throw line 3 years in a row and then suddenly went to the 35-55% range per year. He is 2 for 11 so far this year!

Every single player on every major league roster is a "question mark." What does that even mean? Are you saying Felix, Sabathia, Castro, Cabrera, Pujols, etc. are all question marks? To answer your question, a "question mark" is a player that doesn't have a track record to predict whether he will be productive. Every player on a major-league roster has a significant track record from which we can make reasonable projections about their productivity. Every player on a major-league roster has a non-zero chance of performing significantly differently than what we expect, including the so-called "sure thing" stars. That's not true of prospects and foreign players. The track record in the minors or foreign leagues often doesn't translate to reasonable projections about their productivity. Every failed player that's called up to the ML obviously had a decent minor league track record or they wouldn't have been called up. The players that I named may have a "non-zero" chance of performing significantly different than what we expect, but it's darn close to zero. The question mark players have a high chance of performing differently because there is no base line to set expectations. Wood has 200 major league innings and Volstad has 600. Even if we didn't have a good base because of their minor league record (which I don't agree with) we have plenty of major league results to base a decent projection on. And in the case of Wood's 200 innings, it matches up very well with what he did in the minors which gives further proof that it's sustainable. Wood, Volstad, Maholm with Wells backing them up is significantly better than Zambrano, Wells, Cashner, Coleman, Davis, and Lopez gave the Cubs last year.

Every single player on every major league roster is a "question mark." What does that even mean? Are you saying Felix, Sabathia, Castro, Cabrera, Pujols, etc. are all question marks? To answer your question, a "question mark" is a player that doesn't have a track record to predict whether he will be productive. The question becomes what you do with those question marks. It's not right to assume that all of them are going to bust, because a lot of players don't bust. But some do, so it's not right to assume they're all going to play well either. You just have to project them the best you can. And the reasonable projections for the Cubs four players (Wood, Volstad, Stewart, LaHair) would say that the team will probably not be much worse if not better than last year. The 2012 Cubs will have better pitching, better defense, and worse offense than they did in 2011. The depth will be important this year. The 2011 Cubs had several players who were beyond horrific last year (Colvin, Hill, Coleman, and Davis) Giving those innings and at-bats to even bad players will help the team a pretty good amount. And most of the players returning (Soto, Byrd, Dempster for example) had poor years last year and should bounceback a little bit.

I guess the NBA wanted to get all the trips out West early. 11 teams from the East have played more road games then home, 3 have played the same number, and only Boston has played more games at home than the road.

I don't think that's certain at all. That's right about where I have them. I have them being between 70-75, but projecting the Cubs win total with any level of confidence will be really hard next year because there are so many players who could range all the way from breaking out to being awful. The 2013 projection even without any upgrades between now and then would be higher than that just because Jackson/Rizzo will probably outproduce the players playing in that position in 2012. And as much money as the Cubs had this year, they'll have a whole lot more next year.

For years now, the Cubs hitting prospects have disappointed. Castro appears very good but he's the only one. Soto's okay, but after that there have been no guys of note. Prospect after prospect has disappointed at the plate. Vitters, Colvin, Pie, Choi, Patterson. Vitters still has a chance, but he certainly has underperformed to date. Now the Cubs top 10 is dominated by bats. None of them are elite bats with the possible exception of Rizzo, but there are far more bats than arms. And that's new. For a long time, the Cubs were known to for producing a fairly consistent string of mostly power arms. Now? Next to nothing. I'm betting that'll change, but for the first time in a long time, the number of highly regarded Cubs hitting prospects clearly outweighs those of their power arms. According to many prognosticators the Cubs top 4 prospects are all hitters and their highest ranking pitching prospect is either McNutt who is coming off of a down year or Maples who has yet to throw a professional pitch except in instructs. That's new. Yeah, I get that there are numbers now that haven't appeared before, but the issue remains they aren't stocked with blue chips at upper levels and they still need to acquire more bats. I just think it's a mistake to emphasize pitching at the expense of hitters in the minor leagues, the Cubs can use both right now. They hardly have a glut of anything, outside of maybe mediocre space fillers, which they seemed to stock up on in recent years. They could definitely use some of both, but if they have to choose it makes sense to add pitching. The best two sure bets in the minors are hitters. Most of the high upside guys both in the upper levels and the lower levels are hitters. They shouldn't take a vastly inferior pitcher just to take a pitcher, but pitching is clearly the biggest need of the Cubs system right now.

Enough.