CubColtPacer

Boston's start makes Ray Allen publicly questioning David West's desire to win even funnier.

To be fair, their other non con opponent is a Big East team... Oh I'm not commenting on the schedule. But McNeese St is the SEC football whore. Huh? Mcneese State has played 1 SEC school in the last 10 years. They usually play Big XII teams (and obviously when they scheduled Texas A&M they thought they were playing another one). Or do you just mean Division 1-AA schools in general?

Bell did fumble twice. It didn't happen to hurt the Bears either time, but those fumbles equal how many times Forte fumbled in the first 12 games behind. Allen had over 2,000 yards rushing in his ND career, but I didn't expect him to be carrying the ball in the NFL very much. I'd have a hard time if I was the Bears handing the backup job back to what will end up being next year a 33 year old journeyman.

Andy, I was saying this same thing verbatim yesterday. I'll be the first in line to admit they were dead wrong about Newton. While not my "favorite team" I pull for the panthers because they are more interesting when relevant and like to see local teams flourish. I thought he had potential but to do what he's done since day one is mind-blowing. Side note: as someone with absolutly no vesting interest in Green Bay or Rodgers, it has been fun murdering people on Facebook calling for Brees MVP. Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk What arguments are being made and what is your retort? Just a lot of friends saying "I don't see how Brees can't win the MVP now" type of arguments. I'm not quite sure when so many of my friends became Saints/Brees fans, but anyway. Rodgers has more Touchdowns (45 vs 41), less than half as many interceptions (6 vs 13), a higher QB rating (122.5 vs 108.4) and better overall team record. Sure, Brees has more yardage, but the difference is fairly negligible. This is especially true since Brees threw the ball 120 more times than Rodgers (Brees = 8.17 yrd/pass attempt, Rodgers = 9.24 yrd/pass attempt). Both had extremely good seasons, and the season Brees had would probably win the MVP 9 times out of 10, but I don't see any way possible you could give him the nod over Rodgers. Oh, and I think co-MVPs are stupid. Pick one already. Yeah, there's no real way to pick Brees over Rodgers at this point. Brees is having an MVP worthy season, but Rodgers is having one of the best 5 seasons in QB history (and quite possibly the best ever). They are so far ahead of the field that it can be easy to lump them together, but Rodgers has definitely been better. Co-MVP's are just a fluke anyway when the voting happens to be tied. It's not like a group gets together and decides to have co-MVPs.

The Colts owner came out a few days ago and said that if Peyton is healthy, that he'll be back with the Colts (although they are still very likely to also draft a QB).

I'd be interested because it would be two dynamic offenses going against each other. It's always a fun game for me when you know both teams are likely to get into the 30's in points.

I couldn't believe the line was only 6 for this game. The Colts have been pretty decent against the run overall, but they simply have no idea how to stop the Houston running game. Arian Foster is probably going to win many people their fantasy leagues. Well, maybe that was why the line was where it was. The Colts are trying their best to lose out on the number 1 pick (although if they lose to the Jaguars next week they should still have it). Somehow the Texans went 1-10 on 3rd downs which was the difference in the game.

I couldn't believe the line was only 6 for this game. The Colts have been pretty decent against the run overall, but they simply have no idea how to stop the Houston running game. Arian Foster is probably going to win many people their fantasy leagues.

Sounds like there is no way of that happening if they keep Polian. And unfortunately, I don't think Irsay will fire Polian just yet.

Joe Saunders: 4.78 FIP 2011, 4.65 career Travis Wood: 4.01 FIP in 2011, 3.75 career I was looking at standard ERA, the same way an arbiter would. Yes, and the Diamondbacks probably non-tendered him because they knew he was much worse than his ERA showed. If Wood put up a Saunders ERA with better peripherals, the Cubs wouldn't be non-tendering him in that situation.

As much as I'd like to say Angelo and Smith are completely worthless I got to give them a pass on the way the season ended. There's isn't a team in the league that could have overcome losing their QB, main offensive threat and best RB, two OL, who were improving, and in the Seahawks game their top WR. The Houston reference is not applicable, last time I checked Arian Foster is still palying, Andre Johnson is playing and one could argue Yates is an improvement over Delhomme and/or Garcia. By the end of the year, The Texans will have not had Schaub, Foster, Johnson, and Mario Williams for a combined 28 games. Those weren't only their top offensive stars, those are their 4 best players. The only player of that group who is playing this week is Foster (Johnson is hurt again and has been for a couple weeks now). Then throw in their backup Leinhart also getting hurt for the season and they have had some pretty severe injuries themselves. Yates was drafted 8 spots ahead of Enderle this year.

Yeah, I think I do too. Odds are, the prospects aren't going to be just filler. Getting 3 players for a short reliever with 1 year left on his contract is probably going to be a good deal regardless of the players. Getting a back of the rotation starter for 4 years is not a horrible return by itself. I'll throw in my guess that Wood is the centerpiece and that the other two prospects are a decent position player and a minor league reliever with potential. The position player will come in between 10 and 30 on the Cubs system and the reliever won't be in the top 30.

So Casey McGehee is a 3-ish WAR player then, right? Because, based on over 1,000 at-bats, he is. Sometimes players have unexplainable starts, or years, in their career. McGehee put up numbers that were better in the major leagues than any year in the minors, including his 2 years in the hitting crazy PCL. Wells had a very good K/BB ratio the entire way through the minors and had 2 excellent seasons in the minors. They are not really comparable. You're missing the point of the comparison. The point of the comparison is that it's not illogical to believe Wells' first two years don't presage his entire career. They may not be identical, and Casey McGehee might be Wells' reductio ad absurdum, but players do have randomly good seasons for little apparent reason. If you want to discuss Wells' numbers, then sure. I'm guessing the two excellent seasons in the minors for Wells were his age 22 and 23 seasons, in which he pitched 106 and 131 innings (I'll incorporate my previous post about concerns of sudden workload increases). In the majors, Wells has pitched worse each year by basically every statistic: WAR (3.2-3.0-1.1), FIP (3.88-3.93-4.99), ERA+ (146-99-78), ERA (3.05-4.26-4.99), BB/9 (2.5-2.9-3.1), K/9 (2.26-2.29-1.74) (not exact there, admittedly), ground ball percentage (47.9%-46.9%-42.4%), etc. You couple that with the eye-test, which says he does not have outstanding stuff by any means, and one must start to wonder. Perhaps last year was a blip; I cannot see the future. But I see a player without very good stuff, with a big increase in workload, with a decrease in performance, an increase in injury, and I have little hope for the future. The peripherals for 2009 and 2010 are very similar and in line with his minor league career: 2009: 5.66 K/9, 2.5 BB/9, 2.26 K/BB, 0.76 HR/9, 3.88 FIP, 4.18 xFIP 2010: 6.67 K/9, 2.92 BB/9, 2.29 K/BB, 0.88 HR/9, 3.93 FIP, 3.94 xFIP Obviously the ERA was a lot lower in 2009, but people knew that his 09 ERA was lucky because he had outpitched his peripherals by so much. But 2010 was essentially the same year. It looks like he threw outside the zone a little bit more which increased his strikeouts and walks by a little bit, and his home run rate was very similar. Can Wells come back and be the pitcher he was in 2009/2010? It's hard to say. It depends on the extent of the injury. But those years weren't randomly good. They're very similar to his minor league career. And if he's healthy, there's no real reason that he can't come back and have seasons similar to that once again.

So Casey McGehee is a 3-ish WAR player then, right? Because, based on over 1,000 at-bats, he is. Sometimes players have unexplainable starts, or years, in their career. McGehee put up numbers that were better in the major leagues than any year in the minors, including his 2 years in the hitting crazy PCL. Wells had a very good K/BB ratio the entire way through the minors and had 2 excellent seasons in the minors. They are not really comparable.

They're almost certainly using it one way or the other. The question is if they are using it on major league payroll or not. I doubt that Theo is just going to leave 30 million of his budget unspent. If they're not using it that's coming from Ricketts, not Theo. Well, that depends on whether you believe Ricketts when he repeatedly has said he's going to spend every dollar in revenue back on the team and that the overall baseball budget he's given to Theo is about the same as last year. It's unlikely IMO that he is just lying about both.

Nonsense. If in 3 years the Cubs have a good team out that looks to be in it for the long haul it's not a failure. My gripe is the potential awfulness we have to witness to get to that point if they're trying to do it on the cheap. theo wouldn't be a failure under those circumstances, but we'd be giving him an awful low bar to hop over. i mean, how many guys have gotten a chance to do things that way? to have easily top-5 resources in the league, but don't worry about losing 100 games over and over while you rebuild for three straight seasons? Hey, I'm totally agreed. Bottoming out intentionally to fulfill this asinine notion of building teams "the right way" seems like a waste of time. It's one thing if the money isn't there; it's another if they're just not using it. They're almost certainly using it one way or the other. The question is if they are using it on major league payroll or not. I doubt that Theo is just going to leave 30 million of his budget unspent.

As a buddy noted on twitter recently, CJ Wilson moved to the rotation at about the age Marshall is now. Has Wilson ever have the arm troubles Marshall has had? Plus Wilson was never quite as dominant as a reliever as Marshall is. Usually a starter is more valuable than a reliever, but Marshall is so elite in the bullpen that he'd have to be a really good starter to be more valuable there. The likelihood that he would be IMO is not worth risking it. 200 innings of completely league average pitching would equal his value from last year, and he was the 3rd most valuable reliever in baseball. The smart move would have been to sign him last year at good reliever rates and try to convert him. He's not going to get to 200 innings anytime soon. Also, I assume that would equal the same WAR? Tell me if that's wrong. If so, that doesn't take into account roster spot/playing time/positional scarcity. It's easier to find players that can give you average starting innings then one who can be a reliever as dominant as Marshall. Especially for a big market team like the Cubs, it doesn't make sense to turn an elite player into an average one because they can go out and find other starting pitchers with their money that can be average to pair with their elite reliever.

I tend to agree with this, but you have to be realistic and admit they are going to suck for a long time if they do this. 2012 and 2013 will be lost. 2012 is definitely lost. 2013 would depend on how well some of the young players play. If they find another piece or two of the core during 2012 and then spend a lot in free agency before 2013, they could very well compete. If all the young acquired players flop and they still have this many holes to fill next offseason, they're sunk. But if they don't make a major upgrade this offseason, they're in that position in 2013 whether they trade those players or not. At least with completely punting 2012 they'd have a chance to find some players to fill those 2013 holes.

As a buddy noted on twitter recently, CJ Wilson moved to the rotation at about the age Marshall is now. Has Wilson ever have the arm troubles Marshall has had? Plus Wilson was never quite as dominant as a reliever as Marshall is. Usually a starter is more valuable than a reliever, but Marshall is so elite in the bullpen that he'd have to be a really good starter to be more valuable there. The likelihood that he would be IMO is not worth risking it.

Did you even attempt to read? I'm sorry, I think you're going to have to explain this "witty" response. Your nonsensical statement about replacing this average group in no way shape or form addresses the issue being discussed. The point is not to replace what is here, the point is to get better. If the first step you take toward getting better is getting a lot worse, it's going to take longer to get better. Half of those good parts he mentioned are likely to be gone after next year anyway (Dempster, Byrd, Marshall, Zambrano). The only pieces he's taking off the team that would be a decent part of the team in 2-3 years are Garza, Soto, and Marmol. So really he's mostly just punting 2012 and not the years after that. The Cubs best plan was probably to make a huge effort to compete in 2012. If they are not planning on making some major upgrades, punting 2012 and acquiring lots of assets might be the best way to go rather than wasting the last year of several of your assets. Let's say they don't even do a full rebuild and don't trade Garza, Soto, and Marmol. Trading Dempster, Marshall, Byrd, and Z gives you a better chance of competing in 2013 than holding on to them does. And if you find a good deal for one of the other 3 that fills some holes, then you have to consider that as well.

almost certainly assisted by his 24% ld% Well sure, but that's part of why minor league BABIPs tend to be higher than in the majors. He almost certainly won't be able to make that solid of contact against major league pitching.

Agreed, but I threw that in there to say-if that's what other teams were thinking back in 2010 when they had very little reason to, what are they thinking after his 2011 where he has warning signs popping up in a lot of his numbers? Then you keep him. Oh, definitely. I was discussing why teams might not be biting on him even at that level. But I wouldn't have offered to pay quite that much to give him up, and if teams aren't willing to pay even 20% of his contract you have to keep him.

Agreed, but I threw that in there to say-if that's what other teams were thinking back in 2010 when they had very little reason to, what are they thinking after his 2011 where he has warning signs popping up in a lot of his numbers?

If you think he can probably pitch several more years in baseball and be decent, but without a lot of upside, then you are refuting your insinuation that there is a surplus of pitchers like Zambrano. Maybe overstated it a little, but pitchers with where I think Z's ability level is at this point sign 1 year deals all the time. There are options out there for teams.

Oh come on. "A lot"? Everybody in baseball continues to say how little pitching there is out there. Guys are getting paid millions just for the ability to not be horrible. If anything, I think the rest of baseball might be scared off by the Cubs drama queen way of handling him, instead of the proper Theo way of "shut the hell up about your internal issues". The Cubs have routinely talked down their "cancers" while in the process of giving them away, and that's what people are hoping to happen again. Well, I am a little more down that Z on most. I think his arm is mostly fried at this point. His peripherals and how hittable he was last year scare me. I still remember the comments from the 2010 trade deadline how opposing teams were quoted (off the record) that they felt he was no more than a 5th starter at that point which confused many of us at the time. And I don't think MLB teams value a pitcher's contribution at the plate like they should, which is the main thing that Z offers at this point besides possibly being an innings eater. He can probably pitch several more years in baseball and be decent, but his upside is just about gone. As Kyle mentioned, if other teams think Z is a bargain at this point but are waiting to see if the Cubs go down further than they're crazy. If a team values Z at 7-10 million and he's being offered to them at 3.6, are they really going to wait to see if his price comes down to 2.5 and risk someone else taking him? Unless they somehow know that every other team in the league doesn't like him, that doesn't seem to be a very smart strategy.