CubColtPacer

Everybody loves the Jets, and it only grew after the Bears beat them 10-0 in their own building. The media wrote that game up like a Jets win and a Grossman disaster. That's true-the Jets love has been slowly growing throughout the season-if they win a couple more games, it could be in full swing by playoff time.

If you were to follow the Sports Guys betting ideas long enough, you'd lose a ton of money. It's fine to question Grossman, but you can't then place Dallas over them and use Romo as good support, since he has not played any better, or against any better competition, than the Grossman started out the season. Rex looked so much better in the Meadowlands than Romo looked. Yeah, I enjoy his pop culture references, and those type of things than any kind of sports analysis from him. At this point it's just piling on though. People need to back off. If the Bears are going to lose in the playoffs, then fine. Not many people even thought Lovie would be able to beat the Packers, much less win 2 divisions in a row. I know the bar has to be winning the Super Bowl, but my point is none of these media types gave us any credit before for what was happening in Chicago. They called us junk even when it was clear we were building empire on defense. Now they just ignore the accomplishments made, and rag on Rex for a living. Looking at it realistically, teams like the Colts are in the same boat, having lost in the playoffs while putting together great regular seasons. Yet I don't hear the criticism coming their way. It's all pretty darn biased. That's why I think deep down inside most media types hate Chicago and are hoping we fail. How could I think any differently? 10-2, first to clinch, best record in the NFL and nothing but negative press about the QB? Come on, something's wrong with that. The funny thing is that you are using a Bill Simmons quote to talk about how the media is slamming the Bears and not the Colts when Simmons has made his career in the last 3 years making jokes about the Colts and their ineptitude in big games. BTW, the Colts have received plenty of bad press this year-all year it was "Well, they have Peyton-but it doesn't matter because they can't run the ball, and they can't stop the run, and that's what counts"-they are still saying the same things about how the Colts inability to run the ball will be their undoing in the playoffs (a few don't, but many do). I'm not sure the Colts are the correct example here-the teams who have received the media love this year are SD, Dallas, the Giants at times (before they melted down a little bit), and the Patriots at times-that's pretty much it.

I don't know about the numbers, but I've been writing since last month that they're interested (I know there's a thread about this, so let's keep it over there. But I'll answer the question here.) I wouldn't be at all surprised to see him signed. That's the big difference for me. If we sign him for 3/27, I think Marquis "could" live up to the contract. He has the potential to do so if he has 2 to 2 1/2 good years out of those 3. However, I don't think there is much room for him to exceed the expectations of that contract-which makes that a move with little upside and tremendous possible downside, where we are simply hoping that he is worth what he is being paid. Now-if he is being paid 3/15 or 3/18, the risks and upside start to get better, and this becomes a much better chance of a good signing-and if you can convince him to go less than 3 years for that sort of money, it might even be a pretty decent signing from the beginning-but it won't be that if it's 3 for 27 or something similar.

I just love this statement-he is only ok off the bench if he doesn't cost much and puts up a .926 OPS-if he is only .900, we don't want him :D Seriously though, Ward is a pretty good guy to have off the bench. He plays both corner outfield spots and first base, and he hits for pretty good home run power off of the bench. It's unclear to me if last year was a complete career year, or if he made some kind of change that could sustain at least part of that improvement (I wouldn't expect him to maintain all of it, as I still think it's a career year even if he did change something). He's a nice bench player to get 100-200 AB's.

Yeah, our hope to find a #2 will be: -Prior is healthy and effective, or -Hill pitches like he did the last 2 months of 2006. I think that's what it will have to be also. We will probably go out and sign another #3 or #4, and then hope that one of those things can happen. If it does, we have a great rotation. If we don't, we have an average one, where our #2 is weak and the back end is stronger than average.

Hmm-4 years 40 million, it's at least a step down from when we were hearing 4/44 or 5/55, especially since contracts typically go up from what they are rumored, not down. It's not something I'm excited about, but it's not something that I'm upset about either. We knew that we were going to sign at least one of these average type pitchers, and this is the money it takes to sign them right now.

Suppan at anything close to that deal is easily the best FA pitcher not named Zito left. I thought during the WS that he would price himself out of the second tier starter market, but since every starter has done the same thing, he becomes the best option once again. He's a proven middle #3 or a very good #4, and it would be nice to have a second person in the rotation who you know you're going to get average or better production out of (Hill you expect it as well, but you don't know-and who knows with the way pitchers like Lilly and Meche have bounced around, although Lilly would be more likely to then Meche would). Suppan+Jennings or Suppan+Lilly would make the rotation at least average, and could be better if Hill, Prior, or Miller really step up (When I say that, I'm saying Hill having a full season of #2 starter work instead of #4, or either Prior or Miller pitching more like a #2 or #3 rather than a #5, which both are capable of).

Well, if they get 700 PA out of LF, I'm not sure they think Floyd would give them anymore than 300, in which case Murton would have 400 there, and probably another 50-75 in pinch hitting opportunities and starts elsewhere. That's approximately my thinking about what the breakdown on at-bats would be between them, with Murton maybe getting even a few more than that (and Floyd being the first pinch-hitter off the bench and so getting plenty of pinch-hit at-bats)

He pounded the ball in the second half, and his .060 IsoD is far from a disaster. Did Pie participate in any of the winter leagues? If so, how did he do? He did, and he has under a .600 OPS in it.

I completely disagree. If we're not willing to put Marshall in the rotation next year (which I don't think we can do with wanting to contend next year), then Marmol's long-term value to me is much, much higher.

I'll agree that "not being a finalist" does not equate to Hendry not trying. However, it should also be noted that Schmidt signing with the Dodgers does not equate Schmidt having no interest in Chicago. We don't know either way, and probably never will. That's a fair analysis of the situation. I said beforehand that I'd give Hendry credit if he signed him, blame if he signed a reasonable deal with another non-West Coast team, and neither if he signed a reasonable deal with a West Coast team. He did, and so it's impossible to tell exactly what the Cubs might have offered him.

I would compare it more to Hendry labeling Rich Hill as untouchable before last year than anything. Their stats are much more comparable when you look at that, and maybe they expect a similar breakout from Marmol soon.

I agree with this statement from top to bottom. Both ND and the minor conference will be likely out next year (down year for ND, and I don't see any minor conference teams ready to go undefeated next year), so if they do not change the rule then they could be finding themselves in a situation where there are no eligible teams to fill the remaining slots if they are not careful-the 2 per conference rule has to be abolished now that they have expanded the BCS games, or at least raised to 3.

I have one for a league that gives a point per 6 yards rushing or receiving, and 6 points for a TD. I am starting Tiki Barber, and can start 1 more of the following group: Joseph Addai vs Jac Corey Dillon vs Mia Deuce McAllister vs Dal Reuben Droughns vs Pit Who should I start?

I can actually already see it now. Schmidt will sign for a reasonable deal for the market (14-15 million per) with a West Coast team, and then people will be upset that we didn't match. I just have no idea if Schmidt would take that from us specifically, and it's hard to tell how high we'd actually have to go to make the extra money worth it to him. That's not to say that Hendry shouldn't go hard after him-he should, but I'm not sure that anything can really be gleaned from the contract if it is to a West Coast team, because there is a decent possibility he turned down a larger contract from somewhere else. If he was so content, why isn't he signed already? Seattle is interested, yet they don't have him locked down. Rumor has it they are currently seeking out cheaper options. You do bring up a good point that he's not willing to sign any type of hometown discount-my guess is that he's got a number that is reasonable, and none of those teams have matched it yet. Some teams not on the West Coast have probably matched it already, and now he's waiting to see if the bidding goes up or a team on the West Coast matches that figure. If not, he may come to a team like the Cubs. That's speculation, I know, but it seems reasonable considering most of his quotes and his behvior. I would be willing to make a deal like 3/48 for him in this market, that's for sure-I hope Hendry is also. I just wonder if our location is going to hurt us enough to lose the deal if a 3/42 deal comes from a team in one of his preferred locations.

I can actually already see it now. Schmidt will sign for a reasonable deal for the market (14-15 million per) with a West Coast team, and then people will be upset that we didn't match. I just have no idea if Schmidt would take that from us specifically, and it's hard to tell how high we'd actually have to go to make the extra money worth it to him. That's not to say that Hendry shouldn't go hard after him-he should, but I'm not sure that anything can really be gleaned from the contract if it is to a West Coast team, because there is a decent possibility he turned down a larger contract from somewhere else.

So 11-2 Wake Forest shouldn't get in, but 10-2 ND can? Good example. That's not what I said. If you want to change the rules so that ND should not be picked over Wisconsin and Auburn because they are ranked higher, then have both ND and Wake out. Wake gets in because of an advantage of being in a coference, and ND gets in because of an advantage of not being in a conference. Like I said in the last post-I don't care if you put them both in, or if you leave them both out-I'm just glad that they are consistent.

And ND can play a weak schedule whenever they want and get in the BCS. edit - or they can play what looks to be a good schedule and turns out to be weak (like last year, when two teams they played were ranked by the end of the season). The weak schedule can work in ND's favor just as much as it can in a conference team's favor. Yes, but a team like Florida State can load up their OOC schedule with 3 tough games. If they win them, then they are the leader for the national title game. If they lose them all, their ability to make a BCS game is not impaired whatsoever, as they can still go out and win the ACC. Divisions make that phenomenon even worse-when Nebraska beat Missouri and Kansas State, they could have finished with 4 losses in the Big 12 alone and still had a chance to go to the BCS A couple of years ago, a 6-5 Colorado team was one win away from heading to the BCS. ND will have the advantage when people are comparing very good teams, but they will also have the disadvantage of never getting to back into a BCS bowl with a bad record like several teams have done either. If you're saying ND shouldn't have gotten in over teams like Wisconsin and Auburn who are ineligble, then while we're changing the rules we might as well make sure a team like Wake Forest can never get in either. I'm fine with either way-either they both should get in, or neither should get in.

Yeah, they were overrated at one point in the season but I wouldn't consider them overrated right now. They started the season overrated. Several experts had them winning NT. I really think if people would have objectively looked at them at the beginning of the season they would have to come to the conclusion that OSU and several SEC schools were better. Notre Dame did look like they could possibly go undefeated with the schedule they had. I dont think noone outside of me and some Michigan fans thought Michigan was a better team then Notre Dame before the season began. So most people thought if they could beat USC at USC they would go undefeated. So Notre Dame was ranked to high to begin the season. Which puts them about were they are now. Except for Lou Holtz I dont think anyone else outside of Notre Dame thinks they are a Top Ten team now. Really I do get tired of people just throwing out that Notre Dame sucks or are overrated. There is no other eligble team that is more deserving who was left out of the BCS. They are a double digit underdog in the Sugar Bowl. What exactly are we trying to prove. They should be 21 point underdog or West Virginia should have made the BCS. I almost feel dirty. Defending Michigan and Notre Dame in the same week. Therein lies the problem. Wisconsin is more deserving, but can't go, because they actually play in a conference. Auburn also has a higher BCS ranking, but they can't go either. The system gives a huge edge to a team that doesn't play in a conference. Conference teams get the advantage of having a weak conference from time to time and getting in the BCS with a bad team (Wake Forest is the closest example this year-Florida State of a couple years, Pittsburgh of 2004, etc.) ND gets the advantage if they are eligible. It all ends up evening out in the end.

If by "most people" you mean "Notre Dame fans," then yes, they're seen as about the same. Well, then that makes his argument even worse. If ND is seen as worse than Wisconsin, then how they are over-rated if Wisconsin isn't also? I actually believe people think Wisconsin is a little better than ND, but I couldn't completely prove that, so that's why I didn't take the statement to that level, even though it would have made my case better.

I made that same point in another thread on college football. Just another reason for a playoff. Except of course they would probably be picking playoff teams based on the same flawed coaches poll. The difference would be that the 9th best team or the 17th in a 16 team playoff doesnt really have a arguement they should be fighting for the NC. They would just be upset that they are out the money. Or you could just get rid of the coaches poll and bring back the AP poll into the BCS formula. Except for the fact the AP removed themselves from the BCS, they wanted nothing to do with that sham. On a side note, Notre Dame is the most overated team in the country. People say the Badgers didn't play anybody, other than Michigan, which they lost to. Notre Dame, other than Michigan and USC, didn't really play anyone either. And they got creamed by Michigan at home and slaughtered by USC while the Badgers hung tough on the road at Michigan until the 4th quarter and were actually leading at halftime. Wisconsin and ND are seen by most people as approx. the same, so I'm not sure where you're going with this argument.

Not if he can play centerfield. A lot of teams would love a guy with a .360+ OBP at the top of their lineup who can play an adequate CF. It's not as if they are going to put him in LF or RF and ask him to hit 25+ HR's. This is making the assumption that you are going to get that out of Theriot or Patterson. I'm wondering if they are thinking of having a Lofton/Theriot platoon in CF.

If the Nationals only want a pitching prospect, would a deal involving Mateo or Marmol work? The Cubs might could toss someone like Bynum or Pagan or Negron back in the deal to sweeten the pot. From reading that snippet, I think the Nationals would happily take a guy like Mateo or Marmol for Church, and I would not be opposed to making that deal either.

I didn't see the 2nd grounding. The 1st one was grounding, but the 2nd one, Sportsline had as intended for Gaines. Not sure about that one. It was a call they typically don't call, but it was grounding-he only threw it about 1/3 of the way to the receiver with nobody to impede his motion.

I've been to plenty of MLB and NBA games, and MLB crowds are typically much tamer than NBA crowds.