CubColtPacer

I'm fine with Lilly being the 2nd banana to whomever else they sign this year. I just think it's inaccurate to paint him as a reliable #3. He's never even thrown 200 innings in his career. I do like that his name is Theodore Roosevelt though. I keep hearing that about him-doesn't his 2002 numbers add up to 200 innings exactly though?

Of course you'd like to look at it like that, because it's the only way to make your case. But in reality he's bee inconsistent. He's got a fairly high walk rate, his ERA+ has been up and down and he's highly susceptible to the HR. I liked him as a guy who you'd slot at the end of your rotation and hope for 180 mediocre innings. But he's nowhere near a #3 pitcher, and clearly not consistent. His ERA+ has been up and down has been more of a function of the league being inconsistent than Lilly if you take out his 2005 year. Lilly has had 4 years under 4.35 ERA out of the last 5-that's pretty good consistency. The move to the NL would probably be good for him. I'd be fine with him for that contract as long as his medical information is all right.

There isn't all much more that he could do being 2 years away from free agency. I'm sure on the open market he would have gotten more, but I doubt arbitration would have given him too much more, especially when this is a pretty decent raise from last year.

He was paid for the play in the minors, correct? So how is he eligible to play college football? You can be professional in one sport and play college ball in another sport as long as you didn't take endorsement money. That's the same reason that Jeff Samardizja was able to pitch for the Cubs this summer and play college football this fall, but Jeremy Bloom was not able to play college football because he took endorsement money to fund his skiing career.

Palmer when throwing to Chad Johnson, Housmanzadeh, or Rudi Johnson so far tonight:15/17, 160 yards Everyone else: 0/5 That's with Rudi only getting 2 of those 15 catches also. Who needs balance? :D

Where is any recent report that says that Hendry is going hard after Meche? The only thing I see is a report dated November 15th-that was a long time ago.

You do realize that report about Meche was written over 2 weeks ago, don't you? This was before the Soriano signing. I mean I got excited that we'd be getting great players after we signed Soriano. Meche is not what I had in mind. I know, but nothing has been reported that the Cubs are the favorites to sign Meche since then. That rumor is not nearly as strong as it was 2 weeks ago. It is possible the Cubs end up with Meche, but I don't see anything recently that would call it likely right now.

You do realize that report about Meche was written over 2 weeks ago, don't you? This was before the Soriano signing.

Does a guy like Ryu (or most of the young guys actually) even have at least a 30% chance of giving the team an ERA under 5.00 next year? Batista will almost certainly do that-his 2 highest ERA years in the last 6 have been 4.80 and 4.58. Batista would be a certain upgrade from most of the young starters simply because he is going to be reliably average, while people like Ryu would be wonderful if they were average next year, but they are most likely going to be terrible.

It's quite obvious to those paying attention. But it's still something that needs to be plainly written out. There's still a large contingent bewildered about Pierre not returning. Many people think the Cubs problem is a lack of small ball and poor defense. It's not saying a lot, but it appears to be an answer to a chat question, and it's a 100% accurate statement. It's plenty accurate, but it's kind of silly to not even answer the person's question. The question about the contracts and the impending sale was perfectly legitimate, and Neyer just brushed it off completely with a completely different issue. I think he answered the question to the best of his ability. He's not in the "are they going to sell the team" side of baseball. He's a guy you ask questions about on the field issues. The person asked if the Cubs are saddled with a GM who has a motive of getting the team ready to sell. I think his answer is no, they are saddled with a GM who has bad priorities when looking at players. It seemed to me that the question was "Why are all these big contracts being handed out now? Is it the impending sale, is it the pressure to win, why would they be spending all this money". That's basically a good restatment of the question-and Neyer's answer does not address that question whatsoever.

It's quite obvious to those paying attention. But it's still something that needs to be plainly written out. There's still a large contingent bewildered about Pierre not returning. Many people think the Cubs problem is a lack of small ball and poor defense. It's not saying a lot, but it appears to be an answer to a chat question, and it's a 100% accurate statement. It's plenty accurate, but it's kind of silly to not even answer the person's question. The question about the contracts and the impending sale was perfectly legitimate, and Neyer just brushed it off completely with a completely different issue.

the Wii is equal/slightly better than the regular xbox in terms of graphical power. check nexgenwars.com. i can't check it right now, but i'm quite confident that the Wii is dominating the PS3 in sales. the Wii had just as many or more people line up for it. since the PS3 had all of the negative news with it (the shootings, muggings, etc), mainstream news didn't make much mention of it. also, nintendo is the only company that profited in the previous generation. sony and microsoft lost money with the xbox and ps2. they make their money off of the games, not the consoles. saying that the gamecube stuggled to compete is a bit erroneous. You are correct that the Wii has outsold the PS3 so far. 680,000 to about 337,000 in North America. Wii sales are expected to hit 1 million in a couple of weeks. BTW, nextgen has the 360 at almost 8 million sales after a year.

Of course they do. Teams that win impressively are often moved ahead of teams that don't win impressively. This in turn effects the BCS. The same goes for losses. If someone beleives that Michigan didn't play as well as the score indicated, then sure, it does matter. When and where? Before you go looking don't waste your time. It is impossible. There are too many variables in play to make such an argument. Did Michigan lose spots when they barely beat Ball State or OSU when they barely beat Illinois? A ND fan could probably tell you the exact occasion(s) but I believe ND dropped in the polls one week after winning that weekend. ND dropped in the polls (2 spots) after beating GT in week 1 because it was determined that they didn't win in an impressive enough fashion. They then dropped again after they beat UCLA because they didn't win in an impressive enough fashion-it was 2 spots again-one team they dropped behind had beaten Alabama by 3 the other week, and the other team they dropped behind was off that week. After Army, they dropped again for the same reason (although this one has a possible other explanation depending on how the pollsters put Rutgers the week previous, who lost to Cincy that same week). A team can most certainly drop after winning unimpressively-ND has shown it can happen multiple times this year. ND beating up the weak sisters of D1 did not happen in a vacuum. I'm not that interested to go ook in to it any further but there probably where other variables in play that could explain dropping in the polls, like who the teams behind them beat, among other things. The entire BCS is a travisty. No, it is a sham. No a mockery. It is a travishamockery. Well, in week 1 there is certainly no question. If you can find a single team behind ND who beat a better opponent then them that week besides USC (and Arkansas wasn't regarded better than GT at the time) than let me know. I can tell you one thing though-if ND had beaten GT 50-14 and USC had beaten Arkansas 14-10, there is no way that USC moves past ND in the polls. It was the style points. In the UCLA example, it was the same way. Tennessee beat Alabama, who isn't really any better than UCLA. Florida didn't play anybody, so they really had nothing to move up with. Style points matter a great deal in the polls, and how much a team wins by can determine if they go to a better game or not, or even to the national title game.

Of course they do. Teams that win impressively are often moved ahead of teams that don't win impressively. This in turn effects the BCS. The same goes for losses. If someone beleives that Michigan didn't play as well as the score indicated, then sure, it does matter. When and where? Before you go looking don't waste your time. It is impossible. There are too many variables in play to make such an argument. Did Michigan lose spots when they barely beat Ball State or OSU when they barely beat Illinois? A ND fan could probably tell you the exact occasion(s) but I believe ND dropped in the polls one week after winning that weekend. ND dropped in the polls (2 spots) after beating GT in week 1 because it was determined that they didn't win in an impressive enough fashion. They then dropped again after they beat UCLA because they didn't win in an impressive enough fashion-it was 2 spots again-one team they dropped behind had beaten Alabama by 3 the other week, and the other team they dropped behind was off that week. After Army, they dropped again for the same reason (although this one has a possible other explanation depending on how the pollsters put Rutgers the week previous, who lost to Cincy that same week). A team can most certainly drop after winning unimpressively-ND has shown it can happen multiple times this year.

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/cs-061128bearsbits,1,6348055.story?coll=cs-home-headlines The Manning thing doesn't surprise me - in his first year, Marvin Harrison was still developing, the other receivers were lousy, and the offensive line practically consisted of five turnstiles. Plus, he was thrown right into the fire - didn't get to sit and learn the offense and watch from the sidelines for a while. People forget how bad the Colts back then because they've been really good for a number of years. Yup-Manning actually now holds the record for most consecutive QB starts to begin a career-139, and he is still going on that. That 1998 Colts team? They were certainly better than the 1997 team, who lost their first 10 games and went on to be 3-13. They were really young, and they struggled a great deal, especially early in the season. The 98 team was also 3-13, but they started to be in ballgames by midseason because of Manning. His first 5 games were awful, and then he started to get a little better: 1st 5 games: 4 TD, 13 INT Last 11: 22 TD, 15 INT He had no receivers at the time (Harrison was pretty good in 98 until he separated his shoulder and missed the last 4 games-then Manning was throwing to a rookie Jerome Pathon and Torrence Small, I know those names strike fear into your heart:D) Now, saying all this and defending Manning:D, I think you have to continue to go with Grossman and hope this year. I know there is a legitimate argument that you might be better with Griese this year, although there is certainly a legitimate argument the other way as well. Grossman is your QB of the future though-if you pull him this year because you're in a playoff race, then what do you do next year when you're right back in the same playoff race? He has to be developed sometime-it might as well be this year. Besides, he's been good in most of his games. I only worry about him because the playoffs requires you to be good in all of your games, and he might have 2 great games and then a horrible one. At the same time though, the lumps have to be taken if you want him to be the next great QB in this league, and there's no sense in delaying it further.

No way is that certain. They would have been 24-5, RPI would've been above 50, and they had only two wins over teams in the top 90 of the RPI (Syracuse and St. Joe's). A lot of little-conference teams have been left out with similar profiles - including Holy Cross the year before, when they were 24-6 after losing to Bucknell in the PL final. Every bracketologist I saw had them as a lock for the field, and not one of the bubble teams. I've never seen a lock lose one game and be gone, and they all said that Bucknell was in no matter what. I know teams like that have been left out before, but Bucknell's 9 seed in the tournament when they won that game kind of proved the brackatolegists right that they were in for sure, as they certainly wouldn't have dropped past the 13 seeds who got in as an at-large.

Reasons? Far better for non-gaming purposes, better visually, already established compared to the wii, and I personally don't think the wii is going to age well as a console. What does the 360 have that the Wii won't have for non-gaming purposes (besides DVD playback, which there are rumors that the Wii will have an update that will allow that next year)?

He's a really good coach - HC is lucky to have him. If he were younger and not set at his alma mater, I'm sure he'd have major-conference teams looking at him. That team was completely in the tank when he arrived, and he took them to a PL title in just two years. He also did something similar with Western Kentucky, his first job. His only failure was at Pitt - he did have five years - but Howland took them to a 29-6 record a couple of years later using players that Willard recruited. Not going to happen. HC just isn't athletic enough, and they'll probably get smoked. The Patriot League will never get two teams in, unless HC or Bucknell turns into the Gonzaga of the East someday. I suppose it'd be possible if HC lost to Syracuse, Duke and then Bucknell in the Patriot League final, leaving them w/three losses - but that's a lot to expect, given road games against Providence and Dayton (who beat Louisville), and two games earlier in the year against Bucknell. It'll probably come down to HC and Bucknell, just like the last two years. Bucknell has a really good big guy who's a senior - until he graduates, I'd have to say Bucknell is the favorite. Bucknell was going to be in as an at-large last year if they had won the Patriot League or not.

Reasons? the games you like definitely side with the 360 That's my opinion as well. I prefer the Wii, but from your description of the games you would want the 360. The only other 2 big questions: which controller do you like better-the standard one of the 360 or the new one of the Wii? Last thing-which online play do you think you'll like better-Microsoft's which you have to pay for, or the Wii's which is free online play for the new games plus you can pay for any of Nintendo's extensive library of games, including NES, SNES, 64, Sega, and one other type of games? The answers to those two questions will probably be the biggest differences along with the game differences.

Specific Big East teams? That can't be decided yet-it will depend on which one and how many Big East teams make the BCS and if ND makes the BCS. Both of those decisions will affect the order of the Big East bowl games all the way down.

i swear these people slept through 2006. Well, apparently it looks like Murton liked Pierre :D

This is old news everybody. See the date? September 1st. Simon played off the bench for the Phillies all of September, but I have no idea if they plan to keep him next year.

Terrible. Terrible. I definitely agree on this-as good as Bassett played, when I saw him drive it inside the 3 point line I'm just screaming "NOOOOO". It was just a classic freshman late game mistake.

Well, a very good game by IU tonight. They made a ton of mistakes, and that hurt them a great deal. Stemler's absence hurt a lot, the Duke home court officiating didn't help, but the biggest reason this was a loss is that this team doesn't quite have that swagger or ability to play together yet. I see the pieces though, so this game encouraged me more than some of the wins against the inferior opponents did. They just made some key mistakes, but that can be corrected.

on the other hand, if winning is his first priority, he probably wouldn't sign with a team that hasn't won a World Series in 100 years. Well, it's not like the Mariners 0 championships in their history is going to suggest to him a winning team either.