CubColtPacer

I'm saying you can't call all 3 years as luck and defense-3 good years out of 6 with 2 different clubs is not likely to be luck. He started out with more strikeouts and walks in 01, and then in 04 he cut down on both his strikeouts and walks. Don't you think Marquis must be doing something to create some of this "luck" to have as many good years as he has had?

and 2001 was the same way? Is it really that likely that a pitcher would have 3 highly lucky years out of 5? He actually knew what a strikeout was in 01. It's pretty damn obvious that he can't strike guys out, walks too many and wasn't even a groundball pitcher in 2005-2006. The difference between 2001 and 2004 for strikeouts and walks was decently small: 01: 6.8K/9 4.1BB/9 K/BB ratio-1.66 04: 6.17K/9 3.13BB/9 K/BB ratio-1.97 I don't see how 01's numbers are so much better than 04's, in fact they are a little worse overall-they are a little better than 05 though.

and 2001 was the same way? Is it really that likely that a pitcher would have 3 highly lucky years out of 5?

Yeah I agree. He could go out an perform well and shut some of these critics up. But right NOW, none of them will say it is in ANY WAY possible. Just like they did for Jones. They had him not batting above .250 with an OBP not at .300. Yeah, that bet that somebody made to give everybody something if Jones accomplished certain marks came a little closer than he wanted, although by the last week he was safe. :D

Basically these stats boil down to 2 things: Marquis is not a strikeout pitcher, and Marquis had a horrible year last year. Those are important to know, as is the next post that points out that Marquis's good years have been his first couple years with a new club.

Problem for them is that since they didn't beat any of the good teams they played earlier(they still play Mo. State, but they're a bubble team), and the Big South is so terrible(29th of 32 Conferences in RPI) that they'll likely be in a situation like last year, having to beat a real good team in the first round(they're 3-4 against the RPI Top 200). True, but they'll probably be better than a 15 seed like they were last year. Bracketology has them as a 12 right now, and if they finish out the year strong I don't see too many teams passing them that are that far down, so they would be at least a 13 in that scenario-facing a 4 or a 5 seed is a lot easier than facing a 2. And the fact that they are undefeated in conference this year (they had 3 losses in conference last year) and that they have 3 less losses right now than last year won't hurt either. Well, yes, if you want to what actually matters or something silly like that :D

Problem for them is that since they didn't beat any of the good teams they played earlier(they still play Mo. State, but they're a bubble team), and the Big South is so terrible(29th of 32 Conferences in RPI) that they'll likely be in a situation like last year, having to beat a real good team in the first round(they're 3-4 against the RPI Top 200). True, but they'll probably be better than a 15 seed like they were last year. Bracketology has them as a 12 right now, and if they finish out the year strong I don't see too many teams passing them that are that far down, so they would be at least a 13 in that scenario-facing a 4 or a 5 seed is a lot easier than facing a 2.

Z said he would accept a 5 year deal-so 5/90 would be the equivalent of Zito's offer. I'm sure it will go up to somewhere like 5/94 or 5/95 before it's all said and done, but I wouldn't call it insulting.

I wouldn't quite go that far: Soriano's best 3 OPS+ Numbers 132, 131, 128 Matthews 119, 109, 101 I'm not trying to compare which one is better-it is obvious that it is Soriano. Soriano's 2006 campaign was not nearly as much of an aberration as Matthews though-in fact, Soriano has had 2 other years that were very close to it in OPS+, while Matthews was much better than any season previously.

People need to get over the TE fascination. The Bears TE group is fine. There are only a handful (maybe 5?) really good TE in football. Unless you get one of those, there's no reason to be spending 1st round picks on them. Every year there's 2-3 guys who are considered can't miss TE who are picked early and flame out. Clark/Heap/Crumpler/Gates/Gonzalez/Whitten/Shockey/Winslow( So and no, goony, the Bears TE core is not fine. I like Desmond Clark, so he is solid, but Gilmore/Reid are practice squad caliber TE. So yeah, count me as one who believe the Bears offense would be better, if they had an IMPACT TE on the team. TEs are having bigger impacts on Offense in today's game, then ever before, and if the Bears continue to "ignore" the problem, it's going to hurt the offense. Not to mention neither Bradley/Berrian have established themselves as "true threats" consistantly. So, until then, I like to give Grossman, or whoever will be the QB in 2007 as many OFFENSIVE weapons as possible. Ignoring the TE is a problem, because sooner or later you will have to replace Clark. So to get Olsen/Miller or Chandler this yr, would go a long ways to help the offense. So goony, it's not a "TE fascination", it's fact. If the Bears miss out on a TE in this yr's draft, then perhaps Angelo is "asleep at the wheel." I heard the same crap last year and the Bears went from a bottom of the barrel scoring team to top of the league. Blahblahblah. Clark is perfectly fine. How many teams have better backup TE's than the Bears, and how does that make a difference? Actually, several names just on that list have better backup (or 2nd) TE's than the Bears. Dallas, SD, Colts come to mind (along with the Patriots and Titans to name a couple that are not on that list)-2 tight end sets can be very productive. I actually think running 2 tight ends more would be very good for Grossman-it allows the Bears to still run the ball effectively while having an extra middle of the field outlet for him.

This DID happen yesterday, after all! She must be a demon in the sack. ;) It actually happened on Monday night, but nice try.

Z Hill Lilly Prior Miller Marquis becomes a long man. My guess is that someone (Marquis, Hill, Prior, or Miller) will get traded for a SS who can hit at the end of July. If they're all healthy, to begin the season Miller makes the most sense there...I don't think you can trade marquis till June or so since we just signed him... Z, Hill, Lilly, Prior, Marquis That probably makes much more sense. I just have no confidence in Marquis at all. He's been through Duncan and Mazzoni and they both couldn't "figure him out". I have no faith that Larry will do any better. On the flip side, Marquis has been great in his first year with each of his two clubs (if you disregard the cup of coffee he had in 2000), so I'm hoping that extends to the Cubs as well.

I'll send everyone a pm with the League ID & password. You'll need a Y! account, if you don't already have one. We still need to figure out what type of draft to have. Live online (where you can be there in person or just preset your rankings) or offline. I'm fine with either, though if we do live online, it could take a long time to draft 250 or so players. On the other hand, as anyone who has been following the other fantasy league draft on nsbb knows, if you do offline in baseball, you'll probably have a couple people pick a player that's already been taken. I'll see what the options are for live online drafts tomorrow. If we can do it online through Y! but over a few days rather than try to hammer it out in a few hours, that might be best. I can't see how it would take you more than 2, 2 1/2 hours at the absolute very most to pick your players in a 10 team league-just letting you know so that you have more information when trying to decide what type of draft to have.

Without Wrigley, the Cubs are just another team that perpetually sucks. The Cubs already outdraw a bunch of bigger stadiums of better ball clubs because of Wrigley. I'd just keep jacking up the ticket prices rather than rolling the dice that you can recreate the magic of Wrigley somewhere else. You'd have to hope that 3+ million people are driving out to bumble-f to see one of the worst teams in baseball. No, the Cubs are different because they have one of the largest fanbases in the country, and that is due in a large part to WGN. Wrigley is a side benefit (and an awesome experience) but people still travel up there to watch their team play, not necessarily for the ballpark that it is in. If the new ballpark is one of the better new ballparks, plenty of people would show up unless the Cubs are way out of the race (which out of the last 7 years I'd only count 2 years as those years where attendance would suffer-2002 and 2006). Many other years though the Cubs could get 45-50K there per game, and even if they don't average that as vance said the extra luxuries that they would put in would make them more money then Wrigley ever could.

well, no, no it isn't. because, see, when you step into Wrigley, it's still actually 2007, not 1933. It's not a museum. The truth is, the Cubs have been extremely great about not simply tearing it down and building a luxury-suit riddled throwback park in Naperville, as that would actually keep them up with the other teams (as far as park revenue). let's not act like the cubs are doing us any big favors. these ads are embarrassing. our pristine ballpark is becoming a parody of its former self, and people like you are stepping up and telling others the cubs are being nice to us. as soon as the cubs figure out a way to swing it so that people won't get mad and they won't lose money, they'll start working on a new ballpark. I guess you haven't noticed how just about every other team in baseball has built a new ballpark, including the recently announced plans for a new yankee stadium. The Cubs are indeed doing us a favor by only putting Under Armor logos on the doors and not building Tribune Park out in Batavia As soon as they figure out how to move without losing the Lincoln Park beergarden crowd and pissing off half their fanbase , they will. These ads are just little steps towards that day. That's going to be pretty tough to figure out. They've already laid the groundwork with their contentious relationship with the neighborhood. The city isn't helping much either by declaring Wrigley a land mark, making any renovations more burdensome. The Cubs have had a contentious relationship with the city and neighborhood for years. This is nothing new. How are you going to turn Cubs fans against Wrigley? People are saying "as soon as they can figure out how to not piss off the fans." How exactly are they going to do this? The fact is, if you put last year's team in some new ballpark in the burbs, the Cubs probably cut their attendance by a third. The Tribune company knows this. They put an ad on the outfield doors. Let's not lose are mind about how the park is now a parody and this is the first step in moving the Cubs. True, the attendance would have been down last year-the attendance would probably be up overall if they went to a new ballpark though. I'm not advocating them going to a new ballpark whatsoever, but it probably would improve average attendance numbers. I don't think it would. The Cubs are perennially 6th in total attendance. It's not because they are good. If they built a larger stadium in the burbs and have teams as bad as they recently have had, I doubt they would match Wrigley's attendance numbers. I think it would even out with a little edge to the new ballpark-many people still want to go up and see a Cubs game, and if they built a nice new ballpark they still would go to a game. For seasons like 2006, the attendance would be down, but those years would be balanced with years like 03 or 04, where the attendance would be up from Wrigley.

well, no, no it isn't. because, see, when you step into Wrigley, it's still actually 2007, not 1933. It's not a museum. The truth is, the Cubs have been extremely great about not simply tearing it down and building a luxury-suit riddled throwback park in Naperville, as that would actually keep them up with the other teams (as far as park revenue). let's not act like the cubs are doing us any big favors. these ads are embarrassing. our pristine ballpark is becoming a parody of its former self, and people like you are stepping up and telling others the cubs are being nice to us. as soon as the cubs figure out a way to swing it so that people won't get mad and they won't lose money, they'll start working on a new ballpark. I guess you haven't noticed how just about every other team in baseball has built a new ballpark, including the recently announced plans for a new yankee stadium. The Cubs are indeed doing us a favor by only putting Under Armor logos on the doors and not building Tribune Park out in Batavia As soon as they figure out how to move without losing the Lincoln Park beergarden crowd and pissing off half their fanbase , they will. These ads are just little steps towards that day. That's going to be pretty tough to figure out. They've already laid the groundwork with their contentious relationship with the neighborhood. The city isn't helping much either by declaring Wrigley a land mark, making any renovations more burdensome. The Cubs have had a contentious relationship with the city and neighborhood for years. This is nothing new. How are you going to turn Cubs fans against Wrigley? People are saying "as soon as they can figure out how to not piss off the fans." How exactly are they going to do this? The fact is, if you put last year's team in some new ballpark in the burbs, the Cubs probably cut their attendance by a third. The Tribune company knows this. They put an ad on the outfield doors. Let's not lose are mind about how the park is now a parody and this is the first step in moving the Cubs. True, the attendance would have been down last year-the attendance would probably be up overall if they went to a new ballpark though. I'm not advocating them going to a new ballpark whatsoever, but it probably would improve average attendance numbers.

I thought that they actually showed them pulling out the ping pong balls, just not which team was on which ball-I do agree that it would be great to watch all of the representatives anxiously waiting as the ball is pulled out. The only problem I could see is that the team who gets the first pick all their ping pong balls have to be pulled out in order that they don't get picked again, and that would take time that wouldn't be conducive to a live telecast.

I agree. I'd never heard him do a Cub game (not from Chicago area) and before I knew who he was, I was really impressed with the depth of analysis that he provided. I actually learned from him, whereas most commentators try to "dumb down" their material too much, so that all they're spouting is trite crap that 90% of baseball fans already know. He struck me as very thorough in his knowledge of the teams he was discussing. When they came back from a commercial break and he was identified as Steve Stone, I was amazed that the Cubs fired him. He's the best that I've seen in the color role. Wait a minute-what year was this? You weren't watching Cubs games in 04? I have no idea what year it was. I didn't watch Cubs games in '04 because I don't live in or near Chicago and don't have WGN. I did watch nationally televised games that year, I'm sure. OK-just surprised that you became a Cubs fan without even the WGN games to watch.

I wouldn't-there is bad defense, and then there is that defense (that would possibly be one of the worst everyday defensive outfields that I have ever seen, and of course Soriano isn't exactly even ok at 2B). Plus, Floyd would get hurt quicker playing everyday, and the upgrade from taking DeRosa out of the lineup wouldn't be enough to justify all of that.

I agree. I'd never heard him do a Cub game (not from Chicago area) and before I knew who he was, I was really impressed with the depth of analysis that he provided. I actually learned from him, whereas most commentators try to "dumb down" their material too much, so that all they're spouting is trite crap that 90% of baseball fans already know. He struck me as very thorough in his knowledge of the teams he was discussing. When they came back from a commercial break and he was identified as Steve Stone, I was amazed that the Cubs fired him. He's the best that I've seen in the color role. Wait a minute-what year was this? You weren't watching Cubs games in 04?

I don't think there was any overreaction at all. I think people were logically debating what should be done, but that is just me. It is true that the Z thread was nothing like the Ramirez thread-much more toned down. There was some overreaction (like there is to just about every piece of news) but not near the level of Ramirez, and most of the conversation was discussing options as CubinNY pointed out.

I don't think they are counting any re-signings but only players who changed teams (although they did stick Wood as an aside in there).

dream on... don't care what he or his parents are saying, he's going to the nba. Normally I'm all for guys staying all four years in college. I usually don't like when they go pro early, but for guys like Oden and Durant, they need to go as soon as they are allowed. He has a shot to be the #1 pick, or at worst, the #2 pick. If he stays in college, he could only jeopardize that ala Matt Leinart. Plus, if he gets hurt next year playing college ball, he's out of luck. If he gets hurt playing NBA ball, he'll have his millions to fall back on. The reason most people go to college is to get a good job. Some guys find a way to do that without graduating by going pro in their sports. I wonder which one the Celtics will get? The NBA usually has the major market teams get the premi #1 pick unless they happen to be from Ohio. Well, that's a conspiracy theory that doesn't seem to make sense-how about Milwaukee or Toronto? They both had number 1 picks lately along with Cleveland as you mentioned. I have a feeling Boston is going to get the 3rd or 4th pick and miss out on Oden or Durant-statistically, they have the best chance at the #1, and so this will not likely happen, but I just have a feeling this is going to be the case. Was either guy a premi 1 pick though? Oden and Durant are and the Celtics will get a top 2 pick if both these guys are available. Ok-Houston's a pretty big city, but would you call them a huge market? They had a premier player come out to them.

I'm going to give props to BigBadB on this one-last night on the other thread, he asked for them to come out in the papers and say that they are working on a long-term deal, and here it is :D

dream on... don't care what he or his parents are saying, he's going to the nba. Normally I'm all for guys staying all four years in college. I usually don't like when they go pro early, but for guys like Oden and Durant, they need to go as soon as they are allowed. He has a shot to be the #1 pick, or at worst, the #2 pick. If he stays in college, he could only jeopardize that ala Matt Leinart. Plus, if he gets hurt next year playing college ball, he's out of luck. If he gets hurt playing NBA ball, he'll have his millions to fall back on. The reason most people go to college is to get a good job. Some guys find a way to do that without graduating by going pro in their sports. I wonder which one the Celtics will get? The NBA usually has the major market teams get the premi #1 pick unless they happen to be from Ohio. Well, that's a conspiracy theory that doesn't seem to make sense-how about Milwaukee or Toronto? They both had number 1 picks lately along with Cleveland as you mentioned. I have a feeling Boston is going to get the 3rd or 4th pick and miss out on Oden or Durant-statistically, they have the best chance at the #1, and so this will not likely happen, but I just have a feeling this is going to be the case.