CubColtPacer

good. i would much rather have 4 years of drew than 5-6 of soriano. I dont see why everyone thinks we can only have one or the other. With a $115 Million payroll, there is no reason we cant have both. We can, but that would leave us only about 5 million for pitching to try to fill 2 spots.

But if contact is made and the defender has their back to the play, they are going to call it every time. There was contact? It looked like they brushed hands at best. He prevented Manningham from coming to the ball. That's interference. not if the Manningham doesn't come back for the ball and there is contact, unless he fact guards, which he didn't do. He didn't face guard him? What he did pretty much defines face guarding, he wasn't looking for the ball and making a play on the receiver. The ball hit him in the shoulder to boot. faceguarding has to do with the hands, ie. putting your hands up trying obstruct the view of the receiver without turning around and looking for the ball. the DB never got his hands up. in fact, the ball hit the DB in the hand down by the waste. I'm looking at it on Tivo, and that's exactly how it happened. Faceguarding has to do with looking at the receiver and never looking at the ball. You aren't looking to make a play on the ball you are looking to prevent the wide receiver from making a play on the ball. He never looked back. Agreed, you can't look at the receiver only and touch him with the ball in the air. It was a good call. Great game by OSU, and Michigan also. Not sure how the title game picture will shape up, but I question whether USC/Ark/ND/Rutgers would be able to deliver as good a game as Michigan would. So I wouldn't mind seeing a rematch---though alot depends on these other big games coming up. The title game will likely come down to the voters-Michigan will almost certainly still be the top 1 loss team in the computers (with the possible exception of USC by the end of the season). Unless the voters push them too far down, they will probably have a re-match. My guess is that USC and possibly Florida have a chance to go, but it all depends on how far some people want to drop them in the polls.

This Purdue-Indiana game is hilarious. It's 7-3 Purdue, and each team has 4 turnovers so far. That is not a misprint, there have been 8 turnovers in the first half with just over 3 minutes to go in the half. That doesn't even count the Indiana blocked punt that set up Purdue's only TD. I wonder what the record is for combined turnovers in a game is.

I have bitter feelings towards the Big 10-Rose Bowl tie in. Cost PSU a shot at the NC in 1994 Does the sting of that year make you happier that the BCS is in place, and at least you'd get your shot now?

On 6/21 he gave up 4 runs in the 1st (36.00 ERA), 9 runs in the first 2 innings (40.50 ERA), and a total of 13 in 5 innings (23.40 ERA) -- keeping him in did him a favor in the ERA department. On 7/19, his ERA after each inning was 18.00, 22.50, 18.00, 18.00, 18.00, and it jumped to 21.60 by pitching into the 6th. An exception is not warranted. You may as well take out his best 2 starts. When you suck, you suck. EDIT: You almost got me -- that 2nd game was actually on 7/18. He posted an ERA of 0.00 on 7/19 It may have done him a favor in his ERA for that day-but normally he probably would have been taken out after 6 runs or so-and 7 more in 4 innings does not help out his entire years ERA at all. Actually, yes it does. How did the extra 7 runs in 4 innings help out his year's ERA? Because it was inflated by giving up 6 runs in 1 inning. Say it starts at 4, goes up to 5.5 after getting shelled in the first inning or so. Instead of being taken out, he stays in 4 more innings giving up a run or two an inning, and his season's ERA ends up at around 5. No-the 6 runs would take it from 4 to 5.5, and then the 7 runs in the next 4 innings would take it up to around 6. It wouldn't rise as fast, but the total year's ERA would still continue rising. 7 runs in 4 innings is never going to drop a 5.50 ERA for the season, no matter what the person did the inning before.

On 6/21 he gave up 4 runs in the 1st (36.00 ERA), 9 runs in the first 2 innings (40.50 ERA), and a total of 13 in 5 innings (23.40 ERA) -- keeping him in did him a favor in the ERA department. On 7/19, his ERA after each inning was 18.00, 22.50, 18.00, 18.00, 18.00, and it jumped to 21.60 by pitching into the 6th. An exception is not warranted. You may as well take out his best 2 starts. When you suck, you suck. EDIT: You almost got me -- that 2nd game was actually on 7/18. He posted an ERA of 0.00 on 7/19 It may have done him a favor in his ERA for that day-but normally he probably would have been taken out after 6 runs or so-and 7 more in 4 innings does not help out his entire years ERA at all. Actually, yes it does. How did the extra 7 runs in 4 innings help out his year's ERA?

Westbrook's profile is much more groundball and anti-HR than Marquis'. Given 100 chances to choose between the two, I would choose Westbrook 100 times. That said, I wouldn't trade Murton for him. But, if we're talking about some subset of Wuertz, Ohman, Novoa, Cedeno, Marshall, Guzman, Mateo, Moore, Patterson, Gallagher, then I'm all for it. I would trade some of the bullpen arms for Westbrook and probably somebody like Marshall or Mateo-then again, I wouldn't be upset though if we signed Marquis if we got him for somewhat cheap either (or if we did both). It all depends what the market is, and it's sometimes hard to tell how teams value these types of players. I think Westbrook is the better bet to put up a solid year, but I'm not sure exactly how much better of a bet that is.

On 6/21 he gave up 4 runs in the 1st (36.00 ERA), 9 runs in the first 2 innings (40.50 ERA), and a total of 13 in 5 innings (23.40 ERA) -- keeping him in did him a favor in the ERA department. On 7/19, his ERA after each inning was 18.00, 22.50, 18.00, 18.00, 18.00, and it jumped to 21.60 by pitching into the 6th. An exception is not warranted. You may as well take out his best 2 starts. When you suck, you suck. EDIT: You almost got me -- that 2nd game was actually on 7/18. He posted an ERA of 0.00 on 7/19 It may have done him a favor in his ERA for that day-but normally he probably would have been taken out after 6 runs or so-and 7 more in 4 innings does not help out his entire years ERA at all. The probably better comparison to make it fair for Marquis is to take out his two worst starts and his two best starts and to see what his average was then. I bet it's still better than his total ERA, but still pretty bad. As people were saying last night though, Marquis is simply Westbrook who had one awful year.

I think Leftwich got a raw deal in Jacksonville, and I think if he does end up not playing another game in a Jaguars uniform, he'll have the opportunity to start elsewhere. He's no Joey Harrington, come on. You know, some people I was watching the Giants game with started complaining about Grossman...all I could think about was how much more confident I feel with Grossman at the helm than a Kyle Orton, Chad Hutchinson, Jonathon Quinn, etc. Some [expletive] media type person said something like: "Kyle Orton did what he was supposed to do, not lose games. Grossman can lose you games" God, I wish there was some emoticon to express my reaction to that. I'd probably take Joey Harrington over Leftwich. I think Leftwich still has a chance to resurrect his career, but it's going to be hard. Colts fans are hoping Garrard struggles big-time the next two weeks so they'll put Leftwich back in to face us. The thing with Leftwich is he's pretty immobile, and he's not very accurate with his throws. That makes it so he makes some good plays down the field, but he gives up many big plays to the defense in the form of sacks and turnovers. He doesn't make enough good plays to make up for the bad plays on a week to week basis.

Same for me: as much as it hurts, let's go Michigan and let's go USC tomorrow! I think Ohio State and USC will probably win, but the difference between the teams is so slight that the games could really turn out in just about every different way possible.

The only thing that scares me about those years? In some years, his home/away splits are decently even. In 2004 and 2006 (as you said, his 2 pretty good years), here they are 2004 Home: 7-2, 2.37 ERA Away: 7-7, 4.13 ERA 2006 Home-7-4, 2.88 ERA Away-8-6, 5.40 ERA That scares me a little bit about him.

I'd be fine with this, but it better get a true #2 starter in return if they do trade him. If they are looking at trading him now though, he must not be in their long-term plans, so I'd rather trade him this offseason if we can get good value for him rather then simply lose him next off-season.

what difference does it make? he's either going to be productive or he's not. the big thing about soriano's 2006 was his improved plate discipline. a low OBP is what kept his OPS down in previous seasons. i'm hoping he turned the corner discipline wise, b/c if he did, he at least has a chance at being worth all the money he's going to get. Then how do you explain the huge difference in production when he bats anywhere else in the lineup? That still doesn't explain his good numbers at leadoff in 2002 and 2003 though. In 02 and 03, he primarily batted leadoff and did well. In 04 and 05, he primarily did not bat leadoff and his numbers dropped. In 06, he returned to leadoff primarily and had a .956 OPS at leadoff, but only a .911 overall. It can never be conclusively proven that certain players play better in certain lineup spots, but Soriano has had a significantly higher OPS from the leadoff position then not in his career, and his leadoff numbers are significant better than his non-leadoff numbers in 4 out of the last 5 years (and the 1 year it wasn't was one of the 2 years where he had less then 100 AB's at leadoff). The middle of the order might be the best place to use Soriano's numbers, but it is probable that his numbers will drop batting later in the order.

We would have another Atlanta Hawks ownership group situation where some of the owners want to make a move, and others don't-which forces the courts to freeze our free agent signings effectively keeping the team from getting better. I'm sure we all live for that type of situation.

What would that pitching staff look like then? The same as it is likely to look like without those moves. We'd still be adding a couple of the Lilly, Padilla, etc. crew. Your payroll about 140 million then? :D Really though, that would add about 35 million to the payroll right there, which would just about put the team at close to the limit. I would love that lineup though-we'd be Yankees lite!

Here you go: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2665405

The other interesting thing that Meche isn't listed for starting pitchers, but Westbrook, Lilly and Marquis are. I guess that report that says Meche was our prime target may be a little off-which is probably good, because I like a pitcher like Lilly more among that second tier, and Marquis has just been reported as an extra pickup fighting for one of the last spots anyway.

BTW-I was looking around for some news on Drew that may have gone unreported, and I ended up looking at some Dodgers and Red Sox fan forums. Apparently, we are the only teams fans who actually want Drew. Dodgers fans are ecstatic that he opted out of that "crazy" contract as they called it, and many thought that there is no way he would get more on the market with his skills (which is crazy-I know). When the Red Sox offered him 4/44, the Red Sox fans went crazy-they wanted nothing to do with him, and couldn't believe that the team had offered him that kind of deal. Maybe we should show this all to Drew-he is very concerned about these types of things, and maybe we can show him we're the only ones who really want him and so he should come here. :D

Yes-an article the other day made reference to a Cubs trade a couple years ago (the Lee trade maybe) that was during this time where they traded a PTBNL who was then named after the Rule 5 draft.

I think your guess at Hendry's thinking is probably accurate, but still doesnt excuse the fact that Loretta, Belliard, Kennedy, Aurilia, and Giles (through trade) are probably all better alternatives to DeRosa and will most likely get similar salaries, especially considering the fact that there are not 5 other teams in need of second basemen. Not to mention that all of the options I listed (except Belliard) are better options at the top of the order, which supposedly is such a concern of Hendry's. The only thing that DeRosa has over those players is outfield experience and my opinion on that is whoopdeefreakindoo. I don't necessarily know why all those players are better alternatives to DeRosa unless you think that his hitting style means absolutely nothing to his success. I submit that it does mean something, but that he had a career year to go on top of that. Even if he splits the difference between his previous numbers and last year, he still will have a better season then Loretta has in each of his last 2 years. He will beat Giles's last year numbers, and he will be better then either of Kennedy's last two years. He would beat Belliard's year last year-the only one who he wouldn't beat the numbers of last year would be Aurilia. Add to that DeRosa'a versatility allowing for some creative bench options (for example, DeRosa playing third on Ramirez's days off allowing Theriot to play second instead of having to go out and get a bench player specifically to backup third), and it would seem to suggest that DeRosa could be and probably is more valuable then about all of those players. He doesn't have to perform up to what he did last year to justify the contract-all he has to do is put up between a 730-760 OPS, and he'll be an average second baseman (yes, their average is that low-for example, 4 of the 5 guys you mentioned had below a .730 OPS last year) making about average salary with the added versatility. Any more than that is simply a bonus that will make him worth more than his contract.

Not really-I don't mind a clubhouse issue when the player is very productive. When it's simply a bench player like Nevin though, the problems in the clubhouse simply aren't worth the extra production he would give you over another bench player.

A large portion of the problem with the DeRosa deal is the fact that Hendry thinks it's a good idea for him to come be our second baseman. It might be-it's not like second basemen hit well anyway. The median qualified second baseman last year had a .744 OPS. For DeRosa to acheive that, he can drop 70 points from last year. Even with last year probably being a career year, his new batting approach will probably make him an average second baseman or better.

that cuts both ways. you can use it to discredit Hendry, but you also have to use the fact that he was able to get the deal done and hence consummate the trade as something that he should be credited for. Not trying to use it for either purpose, it's relevant to what was being discussed though. so is what I said though. I think saying he only got Lee because of Baltimore's failings is giving half the story. somehow, someway, he succeeded where other GMs failed. the same goes for Aramis. sure, any team could have landed him in a salary dump. but LA, Seattle, Philly, and the Yankees all could have used a third baseman in the stretch run in 2003, yet none of them swung the deal. I'm nearly out of defending the guy, but like many things baseball, the bashing goes to illogical extremes. Just remember also that the consensus around baseball was that the Cubs should go out and get Lowell, not Ramirez during the summer of 2003. That wouldn't have worked out well for us at all. Hendry's opponents should have no need to try to downgrade his sucesses. They are there, and he did have several successful moves early-besides, there is plenty of ammo for his failures recently anyway that can be used that there really is no need to try to downgrade his success stories. I think most people would agree that the offseasons before 2005 and 2006 were not good to say the least. For some, the good work he did in 2003 and into the season in 2004 still gives him a little bit of grace going into this offseason (although for people like me who has some grace for him, one more terrible offseason and that is completely out the window). Others think those two offseasons should be enough to get him fired. I guess we'll see if some faith is restored in him by all in the next couple months, or if more people join the fire him camp.

Haha, that's really quite pathetic. And considering all the talk radio hosts over the last 10 months falsely calling the Fiesta Bowl of last year a "beatdown" even though the game was in doubt until the very end, you'd think this guy would at least call in to one of THOSE shows, rather than worry about a game that was pretty much over in the 2nd quarter. What would you call last years OSU/ND game then if it wasn't a beat down? 617-348 total yards including a 275-62 rushing advantage. Troy Smith threw for over 300 yards and Pittman ran for over 100. Plus OSU turned the ball over twice and ND didn't at all. One of those turnovers was a Troy Smith fumble at the ND 9 yard line. The score of that game should have been much worse than it was. At the least it should be called a very convincing victory. I would probably call it a convincing victory-but OSU had a 3rd and 12 late in the 4th quarter up by 7, and Troy Smith was wrapped up by a Notre Dame defender for a sure sack to put the Notre Dame offense on the field to try to tie the game (and the Notre Dame offense had scored a TD on their previous drive), and then Ohio State had another 3rd and long deep in their own territory where almost the same thing happened. When your QB has to make two great 3rd and long plays with less than 5 minutes to go to make sure that there isn't an OT, it isn't a beatdown.

Is it possible as far as it is legal? Of course. Will it happen? No way-Coletti basically called him out after he opted out, and burned every bridge the Dodgers had left.