CubColtPacer

Well, if he hits like he did last year, he would have 4 million dollars of value at any poistion he can play. If he reverts a little bit, he can become a super utility player again, or else he could become a valuable trade chip because of his versatility. No, I'm not saying because it's not the worst deal. I'm saying that there's a certain point where you decide you want to upgrade the team-and it looks like there may be 2, 3 players at most that would not be classified as "overpaying" after this free agency period. One of those players has a good chance of being DeRosa-if he is an average second baseman, then he will be worth the average second baseman salary of 4 million-and to be an average second baseman, he doesn't even have to come close to what he did last year.

DeRosa does not block anybody. That's partially why they signed him instead of some other options, because if Patterson is ready there are some places in which to move DeRosa. The same thing is going on in CF where they are trying not to block Pie. We may have set the market for overpaying, but other teams have taken it to a new level. For example-the Alex Gonzalez deal. These signings were made within a week of each other, and which one was the clearly worse deal?

That's not Wisconsin's fault. The Big 10 has a 2 year rotating schedule that determines who is on/off the schedule. Some teams will always play each other (OSU and Michigan, PSU and MSU) but others rotate on and off. In 2005/2006, PSU did not play Iowa or Indiana, and the next 2 years, they don't play Minnesota or Northwestern. Heck, a few years back they went 2 seasons without playing Michigan. I also doubt the Big 10 is the only team that does this. Even more of a reason for them to schedule a couple of decent teams out of conference. They knew ahead of time they were not playing OSU and should have to make their schedule harder than it is. As I said, the Big East and the Pac 10 might be the only ones that every team plays each other. I think it's just plain wrong not to play all the teams in your conference. Imagine if Dallas didn't play the Eagles or the Giants in any given year? It's actually possible that Wisconsin did not know they were going to play OSU when they made their schedule-usually the Big 10 doesn't release who you're not going to play till about a year before the next 2 year schedule starts. I do agree though that they have been a good team for a while-there is no reason at this point to schedule such a weak nonconference schedule. The other conferences don't play each other for a simple reason-they all have too many members. A conference would have to have 10 or less members to even consider that.

Congratulations to the Butler Bulldogs. Another good win out of them beating Tennessee 56-44 and advancing to the NIT final to play the winner of North Carolina/Gonzaga. Butler's really trying to make a case here to take them as an at-large even if they don't win the Horizon League.

Agreed. Addai is becoming more involved in the Colts' running game. He may not officially be the starter yet, but it seems to me like he's really the regular. That's correct. Addai has gotten approx. 70 percent of the carries in the last 4 weeks, even though Rhodes has started each game.

Possibly. If he does though, it will be by a very small amount. If you want to trade Izturis so badly, then why would you sign a player to replace him that is probably going to be exactly like him, and has probably lost a step in the field?

That wasn't exactly a bad year for Counsell. In fact, he's only broken a 700 OPS one time out of the last 5 years (same as Izturis). He has been more consistent than Izturis, but it certainly isn't enough to try to trade Izturis and sign Counsell.

As a Colts fan, I have to disagree with the assertion that Grossman is as important to the Bears as Manning is to the Colts. Grossman is what-the difference between 10-6 and 14-2? Manning is the difference between 14-2 and 4-12-it's simply amazing how much different the team would be without him. I do believe the Rivers comparison is apt though, and I do agree that the Bears are maybe not getting the respect they deserve right now (most teams aren't-it seems like the media is trying to say why every team won't win the Super Bowl right now, instead of trying to say why one team would) and that they will get more respect if they beat the Pats.

I don't think the Cubs have talked about anybody-it was rumored a few days ago that Floyd might be the 4th outfielder in a platoon, but from the recent reports he probably wouldn't be considered for more than a bench role. The most recent reports speculate that Jones and Murton may platoon if the Cubs get another CF.

I wouldn't. I'd rather put the 9 million to better use Yeah, same with me. If I thought Maddux was going to put up a 5 ERA next year, I wouldn't want to sign him. I don't think he will do that though at all.

Padilla and Lilly will both be better in 2007 than Maddux will be. Westbrook, Lee and Jennings will be. Suppan will probably be. Marshall will be close. Guzman is a year stronger; he should have much better command on his change, which was his best pitch. The Miller/Prior combo will be better. There's no reason to spend any signifigant money on a guy who will put up back end numbers in the rotation, regardless of the warm fuzzy feelings Cubs fans get for him. I don't really have any warm and fuzzy feelings about him. I just know he has had a better ERA than Padilla the last 3 seasons. He has had a better ERA than Lilly the past 3 years as well. He has been better than Lee 2 out of the last 3 seasons. Sean Marshall had over a 5.50 ERA last year, and would have to drop over a full point to catch Maddux. Guzman/Miller/Prior may be, but they all are pretty big risks. The only 2 who are better than Maddux are Westbrook and Suppan, and the fact that probably every other pitcher will ask for more money and more years than Maddux, and the fact that Westbrook will require talent to be sent back, Maddux should still be seen as a good option for one of the rotation spots. I am also fine with saying that Westbrook is a good option for the rotation.

-He had a 4.20 ERA overall, and a 4.69 ERA with the Cubs. That's bad. He won't be worth whatever he costs. That's not bad, that's average. He puts up similar numbers to the free agent pitchers not named Zito or Schmidt, and they all are asking for 8-10 million dollars. Do you think Maddux will sign for more than that? I doubt it. Zito and Schmidt are asking for around $12-15m per. I'd guess Maddux could get at least $6m or $7m. He's not worth that. Regarding his ERA, if you take out April he had a Cub ERA well over 5. He was terrible for us. Why would you want him back when better options for a back end rotation guy are available via trade, FA or in house? What I meant is that people like Padilla, Lilly, Meche are all asking for 8-10 per. I'd much rather sign Maddux for 1/6 than sign any of them to 3/27 or 4/36. I don't know of anybody in house of the youngsters besides Rich Hill that could be likely under a 5 ERA. Trading? Well, there's been some rumors-but none of those players are significantly better than Maddux either except Jennings who will cost way too much talent. What pitchers would you want for the starting rotation, and at what prices would be better enough to Maddux to both justify the difference in salary and years?

-He had a 4.20 ERA overall, and a 4.69 ERA with the Cubs. That's bad. He won't be worth whatever he costs. That's not bad, that's average. He puts up similar numbers to the free agent pitchers not named Zito or Schmidt, and they all are asking for 8-10 million dollars. Do you think Maddux will sign for more than that? I doubt it.

And in 20 of those starts he's going to blow up and be terrible. I could care less about his clubhouse rep. It's one of the most overrated aspects of baseball. There's no reason to repeat past mistakes. He's no better than a 5th starter, and if we're going to bring in a guy who's simply going to take the ball every 5th day, we have about 5 guys who can be 5th starters and "take the ball every 5th day" at a fraction of the cost. Do we have 5 guys who could perform to his level? All of his statistics still stack up well with the other pitchers on the market. We were talking about Meche a week ago, and Maddux would likely be a great deal better than Meche for the next 1-2 seasons. Maddux is still a pitcher who will give you slightly above average production, which is rare for pitchers in this market. Depending on the cost, why not sign him for 1-2 years, and then we can grab a pitcher when a better market establishes, rather than signing another average pitcher now for 3-5 years?

Maddux could still put up slightly better numbers than just about all of the second-tier pitchers on the market, even though he has slipped considerably. It would depend on the price.

I heard the same thing, and did not perceive it as an attack on Grossman. The question was-if you could start a franchise with one of these QB's right now-Romo, Rivers, Palmer, Grossman, Big Ben, or Eli Manning-who would you pick? Golic's order-Palmer, Rivers, Big Ben, Grossman, than Eli last. Romo he said didn't qualify because we don't know enough about him yet, even though he's played very well in his 4 starts. When they talked about Grossman, they seemed to see him as a guy with great potential who has been up and down. All they said is they would like to see a middle ground from him: some games where he is neither great nor horrible (which I believe he has had 1 or 2). They basically though credited him for the Bears great season so far, and said that which Grossman shows up will be the key to how far they go in the playoffs.

The question of this thread becomes-who do you want as your final bench player-Craig Counsell or Freddie Bynum?

Hmm..well, I think that Counsell would be the second backup infielder. We have 3 bench spots filled-Theriot, Pagan, Blanco. With 2 spots left, an outfielder and infielder are needed. It is said that the Cubs might sign Floyd for the outfield spot, and I woudn't think it was terrible if Counsell was signed to be the final bench guy.

The first quote in this thread from last month would seem to say differently about Z. If he doesn't get the money, he is gone. The Murton thing? I can understand what he's saying. The Cubs are looking for another CF, and if Jones stays on the roster he would probably be used as Murton's platoon partner then. There is still the possibility he would be traded though.

Cedeno would be an upgrade over last year. There's no way he hits that badly again, and I have great faith that Gerald Perry could turn him into at least a league-average hitter... and he has the tools to be above average. Izturis is a waste of 4 mil and a roster spot. I'd almost rather see if MLB would allow us to run 7 defenders out there without taking an automatic out when the SS spot should be batting than to stick him out on the field. That's just a little bit of an overstatement isn't it? :D Seriously though, Izturis has shown he has the tools to become a league average hitter as well. He is not completely hopeless. His swing could lead itself to a large number of line drives, and his numbers were getting closer to league average before he got hurt. If he can stay healthy and works with the new hitting coach, I see just as much optimism that he can go to league average as Cedeno.

I heard somebody else speculating that the sale of the Nationals finally going through during this season has really helped teams get some of that extra cash (around 19 million per team). Does anybody think that could be part of the extra money flowing out of these teams?

1B: .266/.337/.437/.774 SS: .246/.275/.324/.598 LF: .280/.346/.428/.774 Thanks! That's very encouraging to see those numbers. I have to believe that each of those positions might get an upgrade next year. 1B will be a major upgrade, but I think SS and LF are also even minor upgrades right now, just because the numbers at SS were so bad last year and LF will be better with Murton getting a greater percentage of the at-bats. I think that means we should have increased production at every position except 3B (where we'll get about the same), 2B (where we could get less or more-it's hard to tell) and catcher (where it's almost certainly going to be less).

Here you go Bears fans. Here's a satire involving the Patriots injury report and Rex Grossman that I saw on another board, and many fans thought it was hilarious-so enjoy. http://thebrushback.com/grossman_full.htm

Glendon Rusch is still on the roster, and there's been no indication that he won't make the team. He would be the 4th lefty in the bullpen listed, and that's ridiculous. A trade must be in the works/in Hendry's mind. Rusch is incredibly unlikely to be medically cleared to play by Opening Day. He has to be on blood thinners for a mininum of 6 months, and it will probably be longer than that. He cannot play at all during that time. They started in the middle of September, so the earliest he could even really throw a baseball is the middle of March, and probably later than that. After that, it would take quite a while to get back into playing form. We may have to pay his contract, but the indications are that he won't be in the bullpen for at least the first 1/2 of the season at least. We might as well release him if he doesn't retire. I would agree with that. My guess is that there is some sort of medical settlement, which leaves him free to sign with another team if he becomes healthy again. Is that possible in MLB?

Glendon Rusch is still on the roster, and there's been no indication that he won't make the team. He would be the 4th lefty in the bullpen listed, and that's ridiculous. A trade must be in the works/in Hendry's mind. Rusch is incredibly unlikely to be medically cleared to play by Opening Day. He has to be on blood thinners for a mininum of 6 months, and it will probably be longer than that. He cannot play at all during that time. They started in the middle of September, so the earliest he could even really throw a baseball is the middle of March, and probably later than that. After that, it would take quite a while to get back into playing form. We may have to pay his contract, but the indications are that he won't be in the bullpen for at least the first 1/2 of the season at least.