CubColtPacer

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.

That's the problem. Piniella is fine with young players as long as they have the right attitude (which it looks to me like all our youngsters have right now). Dukes would be benched and then traded within a month into the season, similar but even worse than how Bret Boone was handled in Seattle.

It would be harder to replace the players that we would have to give up for Wells than to simply sign a CF I think.

I would prefer Jacque with a platoon also, but if we can get a pitcher for him, I wouldn't mind trading him for that and then signing another center fielder either.

Sure they did. Michigan had close games against Penn State and BALL STATE. True, but only Ball State was the only close game. Even when Penn State got the ball with their 3rd QB, everyone knew they had no chance to really win the game. Even if you count this game, that's 2. The others? Florida-Tennessee, Georgia, Vanderbilt, South Carolina-and they struggled against inferior opponents in a couple other games (2 games left) USC-Wash State, Washington, Arizona State (2 games left) Arkansas-Vanderbilt, Alabama, South Carolina (2 games left) Any of those 3 teams could have at least 1 more close game, and they already have more than Michigan. I am not a fan of Michigan whatsover, but their case is the strongest right now. USC could have it if they impress in the next 2 games, and I don't see any way the other two teams make it in, similar to how I see no way to ND making it in with a similar resume.

USC should get kudos for scheduling such a tough out of conference schedule. Arkansas, Notre Dame, and Nebraska. I definitely agree with that-to have your 4-5 worst games on your schedule be Pac 10 opponents, that's incredible.

I don't what that has to do with anything. Michigan doesn't have to play well enough to deserve another shot. They need to be the 2nd best team in the country. And I think there is a strong case that they are. There certainly isn't a stronger case that anybody else is better. You don't know what this has to do with anything? The human polls are based on people's perceptions of college football teams. I don't think Michigan should be the #2 team in the nation after last Sat. They hold a slim lead in the BCS over USC and some of that has to do with the fact that the human polls still have them #2. I would have Florida #2. That's what I'm saying. I think you could make a strong case for Florida, Arkansas, and USC as the second best team in the nation. They all have cases, but most of them are a little weaker then Michigan's. They all had several close games in addition to their loss, and Michigan did not. Michigan's victory came to the top team in the nation, and the other teams' losses did not. Michigan is the only team to beaten 2 top 10 teams. The only team that will have a great case if if USC wins out, because they will have so many quality wins and a great SOS.

Apparently someone's been Dusty-ized!!!!!! in 2004, CI hit .288 with a .330 OBP and 25 steals before getting hurt. i think he's the most logical candidate to start the season in the leadoff spot (if it's not going to be fonzie), but if he falters then you have to consider other options. i'm not at all advocating putting him there and leaving him no matter how he performs (which is what dusty would have done). i only like the idea of him there because of the speed he would provide leading off. A .330 OBP doesn't make him a logical candidate to leadoff. If he's batting any higher than eighth, I'd be upset. His speed does no good at the top of the order if he isn't on base enough to use it. If Soriano isn't leading off, I'd put Murton up there. If Soriano is leading off, I'd bat Murton second. Agreed. Even for those who are ok with Izturis on the team, it is OK because of his defense, not his offense. We don't know how much under average to the average shortstop he will be, but history shows us that his biggest upside is probably an average offensive shortstop. To maximize his value for the team, you'd then need to try to put him in as many situations as possible to do well what he does well (defense at shortstop) and to try to minimize his offensive drain. For him to bat leadoff just makes that weakness grow because a team's worst hitter is getting the most chances at the plate.

We don't have 37 million left, we have 15-20 million. I wouldn't expect anything more for the offense through free agency except for one 4th outfielder. It looks like they are going after pitching now. I'm assuming the offense is done. On to the pitching. Are you kidding me? This offense is still only half baked. DeRosa, Izturis, and who in CF? All signs point to Jacque being traded. As of right now, we've got five guys with above average production for their positions in Lee, Aramis, Soriano, Barrett, and Murton... DeRosa is going to be slightly below average... Izturis is an offensive black hole... there's nobody in CF... and we have the pitcher's slot. I wouldn't exactly call us an offensive juggernaunt. We might not even end up being above average... I doubt DeRosa is going to be below average. I think his OPS is going to drop, but he can drop 70 points and be average from last year for second basemen, and I doubt it drops much further than that (which could be debated). I think he was still saying that one of Soriano or Jacque would play CF, which would cover those two positions. Our offense is almost definitely going to be above average. How many teams out there have just two holes or potential holes on offense? How many have less? On those teams, how many of their players are impact players on offense? There are not many teams out there without many holes-we would still need upgrades to become an elite offense, but we are definitely above average at this point.

We don't have 37 million left, we have 15-20 million. I wouldn't expect anything more for the offense through free agency except for one 4th outfielder. It looks like they are going after pitching now.

I think they do-which makes me glad it was 12 days before, or else I couldn't have seen the Colts play next week!

New land speed record? Yeah, I suspect the only thing that comes close are the '03 playoff game threads. There were game threads this year that were longer than this. Only 3 or 4, but they were there.

I don't see a scenario where Pierre comes back, but I do see a scenario where Jones is traded. One thing they forgot to mention to you is that the Cubs stated next priority is starting pitching-that's what they will focus on next, and I think Pierre will probably sign during that time.

With a win over ND, USC will jump Michigan. They've already done so in the two polls (Harris and Coaches) and a win over ND would not only increase USC's computer ranking but make Michigan's worse. True, but a ND win may push Michigan into it. In that case Arkansas would still have a chance to jump them all by beating LSU and Florida. Arkansas doesn't have much of a chance in the computer rankings. There's one computer ranking, for example, that allows you to add up to 5 games and see how the results would turn out. These are approximates, because obviously other results would influence it a little bit-but here's what I put in. Notre Dame beats USC USC beats UCLA Arkansas beats LSU Florida beats Florida State Arkansas beats Florida Here are the results Ohio State-.96511 Michigan-.94305 Notre Dame-.91777 USC-.91593 Arkansas-.90405 Notre Dame, USC, and Arkansas are very close-but Michigan is still a long way away. USC and Florida have a chance to catch Michigan in the computer rankings if things fall their way. I don't think Notre Dame or Arkansas do. But the computer rankings are only a third of the BCS. I don't think it's completely inconceivable(if that word means what I think it means) for Arkansas to overcome that in the human polls considering their next two opponents. My assumption is that Arkansas cannot pass Michigan in both polls over two wins at the end of the year. It's just too far too fast, and I doubt it would happen. It would take both polls for Arkansas to pass Michigan in the BCS.