CubColtPacer

-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.

We've only improved at one of the outfield spots. Jones is still Jones(and '07 Jones is likely to be worse than '06 Jones) even if he moves to a different position. Also, DeRosa is far from a guarantee to be an upgrade over our 2B production in '06(.274/.326/.411/.737). Tiger, do you know what our total SS,1B,and LF production was from last year? I'd be curious to know.

or Notre Dame to the Big 10, some combo of Boise St./Hawaii/BYU/TCU/Utah to PAC-10 I'm operating under the assumption that ND won't join a conference. Even if they'd be receptive to it in the future, they've got four more seasons of NBC dollars to look forward to at least (and that's assuming that NBC wouldn't want ND back, which considering the future of the team wouldn't be a good bet). And therein lies the problem of the NCAA. Notre Dame is greedy. The Big 10/11 is greedy. The ACC is greedy. They are all greedy. I really believe that if these schools would give up a little of their short term greed the solution could be found. And I think down the road a playoff would generate much more money then these bowl games do for member institutions. When it started, "March Madness" was barely televised. I think the 79 Magic/Byrd game was on at two o'clock on a staturday. Just look at it today. It is a cash cow. I'm guessing football is still making more money than basketball though, even with March Madness. I know IU is struggling in the athletic department because football is not earning cash, even though basketball makes about as much as anybody in the country-and I don't hear of the pure football schools having the same concern.

or Notre Dame to the Big 10, some combo of Boise St./Hawaii/BYU/TCU/Utah to PAC-10 I'm operating under the assumption that ND won't join a conference. Even if they'd be receptive to it in the future, they've got four more seasons of NBC dollars to look forward to at least (and that's assuming that NBC wouldn't want ND back, which considering the future of the team wouldn't be a good bet). Well then there's no point in making all these changes. It's either ND to the Big Ten or nothing. Why would you say that? I thought what I proposed was fairly reasonable. No teams from below the Mason-Dixon in the Big 10 please. I hate conferences that are all over the map (CUSA, I'm looking in your direction) Louisville and IU would be very close though. They are only an hour apart.

That could be another possible solution. Use the conference championships to decide who gets to move on. But I'd still limit the games to 10 + confernce championship. Split the confernces up with six teams in each division. Make schools join a conference. Each conference gets an automatic bid. How many conferences are there in D-I anyway? There are 11 conferences. If you had 10 games plus a conference championship game, tiebreakers would be rampant. There woule be 2 or 3 way ties in just about every conference, and head to head would only handle some of those problems (many times a 3 way tie would result where each team beat each other).

Good for them, but we still have DeRosa and Izturis in the lineup, a couple of guys who should probably be 8 hitters. I know you have to accept less than ideal in certain spots, but the Cubs are already doing that. The top of the lineup is probably going to lack OBP, the 5 spot is probalby not going to be very good, the middle infield is probably going to be below average. It's an offense you can live with, but without a dominant pitching staff, it's not going to be an offense you can thrive with. The DeRosa who's likely to be league average at second base? It's not like the OPS for second base is very high around the league. With that description, pretty much every team has at least 2 hitters who should be 8 hitters. The DeRosa who could be anything from Neifi bad to Walker good. He's never been an everyday player, let alone everyday second baseman. There is massive downside risk starting such a player, and relying on him to be anything more than mediocre. Agreed-I just happen to think that a reasonable projection for him this year would be to be mediocre (for a 2B), which would still be a pretty big drop from what he did last year. That's all he really has to do for this to be an above average offense right now IMO.

Good for them, but we still have DeRosa and Izturis in the lineup, a couple of guys who should probably be 8 hitters. I know you have to accept less than ideal in certain spots, but the Cubs are already doing that. The top of the lineup is probably going to lack OBP, the 5 spot is probalby not going to be very good, the middle infield is probably going to be below average. It's an offense you can live with, but without a dominant pitching staff, it's not going to be an offense you can thrive with. The DeRosa who's likely to be league average at second base? It's not like the OPS for second base is very high around the league. With that description, pretty much every team has at least 2 hitters who should be 8 hitters.

Especially with the price CFers are being payed this year. I don't think JJ likes it in Chicago after all the abuse he took. I think he would welcome a trade. But a lot can change with him in CF and with Soriano on the team. Last year the Cubs really needed him to produce, now that is not so much the case. The Cubs really need him to produce this year. Anything less than what he did last year would hurt the team. He's still the 5th hitter, as things stand today. They haven't added a single middle of the order hitter. I don't necessarly disagree, but I don't think they need another run producer. With Lee, Aramis, and Soriano they have three pretty good ones. I think they need at least one or two guys who can get on base with regularity at the top of the order. I know a lot of people have discussed this but I beleive putting Soriano at the top of the order is a waste of his SLG. Unless things change they still will be a an "on base" challenged team. Unfortunately, it's just not realistic to think of Soriano as anything but the leadoff hitter. Every indication is that he was promised the spot and wants to stay in the spot. The Cubs need an impact bat. Do 3 #6 type hitters add up to be the same as a 5,6, and 7? I agree that the Cubs don't have anyone who fits well into the 5 spot, but I think that out of Jones, Barrett, and Murton they are all better than a 7 hitter as well. I think that would balance it out.

BECAUSE THE BOWL GAMES ARE CHOSEN BY JUDGES, INCLUDING WHO GETS TO PLAY IN THE WHATEVER BOWL THAT DECIDES THE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP. Every other sport this side of figure skating and boxing is decided on the field/diamond/track/ice/oval. The national championship in college football is decided by sprotswriters. It is a joke. Wisconson, West Virginia, Louisville, and Rutgers, only has one loss. Boise state has zero losses. None of these teams are even in the discussion. If Michigan plays OSU again and wins both will have one loss. Some other team that didn't play OSU or Michigan could end the season with one loss. Boise State could end the season undefeated. College basketball is also decided by judges-those judges just pick 65 teams to compete for the championship, while college football has 2.

The Bowl games are not a playoff. They aren't even close to a playoff. They don't even reside in the same universe as a playoff. The Bowl games are closer to a socer friendly then a playoff. They are closer to a beauty contest then a playoff. They are closer to a HHHH hog prize at the county fair than a playoff. A playoff, hahahahahahahahaha! The Bowls are-the BCS championship game isn't. The main purpose of the BCS is to put the best 2 teams on the field to decide the national championship, just as in other sports it is the best teams. Now, you may disagree with the method they use for picking these teams, and you may feel that they should include more teams in deciding the championship (which almost all of us do). It is still though about picking the two teams in the nation who have the best resume and have looked the best over the season. It is then not logical to say that if Michigan had lost to a team like Auburn they would be playing for the national title, but since they lost to a better team than Auburn they supposedly should not play for the national title anymore. If it was a choice between them and Ohio State, that would be one thing-but it's not that. It's a choice between Michigan and the other 1 loss teams, and unless USC wins out Michigan has the best resume of the 1 loss teams. Yes, teams who beat teams in the regular season lose to those same teams in the playoffs in every sport-they aren't declared split national champions then, and it shouldn't happen this year in college football either. The winner of that game is the champion, regardless of what happened between those teams during the season. That's what happens it every sport-it may not be fair, but it's accepted for all the other sports-so why not in this situation?

That happens all the time in all the other sports-in college basketball, teams have met twice in the regular season and a team has won both times, and then the other team wins in the tournament. The same thing happens in professional football all the time as well (great example-Steelers go 15-1 and smash the Patriots in the regular season, but the Patriots get to have a rematch and destroy them in the AFC championship game). The BCS title game is a playoff just like all these other sports-it's just a 2 team playoff. The best 2 teams get in, and they should get in regardless if they played each other or not. If one team still has a good enough resume to be ranked number 2 after losing to the number 1 team, then they should be ranked number 2.

I think you are overpaying for Giles and not paying nearly enough for Tejada. Also, of course our payroll would probably not be able to handle such moves.

I don't think anyone has been so head and shoulders ahead of the rest of their conference in a while like the Bears are this year. Maybe the Rams in 2001 but that's about it. As far as record? The Colts last year, the Eagles the year before that come to mind as teams who were so far ahead that they clinched the conference a month ahead of time. The Bears are enjoying a similar run this year, and it should be an easy run to HFA-my question to Bears fans is, do you want to rest starters or not? It's a very tough issue.