CubColtPacer

Let me remind you in the past 3 years Alou has played in 155, 123, and 98 games respectively. He will also be 41 this year. I understand the importance of OPS to an offense but I also remember Alou's horrible OF defense, throws, and baserunning miscues during his last couple years with the Cubs. That being said, I'd rather have the moderately younger (38 this year) Gary Sheffield who up until last year, played in 155 or 154 games the three seasons prior. He also provides great OPS. People need to get off the Alou bandwagon - stop smoking that stuff. Sheffield may be the better player, but is he worth more than Jones and Alou and the possible other prospects the team might have to give up to acquire him? That's where the question comes in-I don't think Sheffield alone is worth more than the combination of Jones and Alou (which fills one big bench spot also), and prospects that can go to another trade. Now, I don't think the Cubs will get Alou-but if they could, I think that option would be better than trading Jones+ for Sheffield.

A quick search resulted in this: Here's the source on that one: http://pages.map.com/pinto/2003_03_09_BMarchive.html And then there is this one: The source on that: http://www.glenndickey.com/_gd.php?view_one=yes&which=385 That's about all I can find for now. That's a very interesting pair of quotes-I think it's a very positive thing that he wants hitters to be agressive only in small area, but to try not to hit a pitcher's strike, and to never swing at something outside the zone.

I watched the last drive of that game. It was simply one of the most surreal things that I have ever seen. From the heavy fog that was making it hard to see to the terrible camera angles to the announcers yelling "I think a bat almost came in here", it certainly didn't feel like one team was trying to come back in a college football game. I couldn't believe either that they refused to run Wolfe at the 2, although their first down play should have been caught for the TD.

That's not the point. He inherited a team capable of winning the division. If he didn't, they wouldn't have won the division. Wait a minute-the original point is that a GM who takes a team capable of winning a division and doesn't do much more isn't that good of a GM. You said that the Cubs were capable to win a divison at the end of 2002. That means that basically the Cubs team from 2002 had a reasonable chance to win the division (with some minor upgrades). What you're saying there is that every team is capable of winning the division at the end of every year-but the original poster was saying without major moves they weren't able to. IMO, the Cubs did not just tinker from 2002 to 2003-they would not have won the division without all those moves they made. If you disagree, that's fine-but I certainly didn't look at the end of the year in 2002 and say that the team was 1 or 2 moves away from a division title.

Hendry inherited a team that won 88 games 2 years before, then the team went out and won 88 games and won a division. That sounds nice, but that doesn't mean the team he inherited could win the division. The 2001 Cubs were nothing of what it looked like at the end of 2002. They had talent at the end of 2002, but the talent was completely different than what it was when they won 88 in 01-the only players even available to Hendry from the 01 team were Sosa, Hundley, Mueller, Wood, and some bullpen guys. That's it-the team in 03 had an almost complete turnover. That's a great deal different then his point that the Dodgers were ready to win then and there. Hendry inherited the team at the end of 2002. The 2003 team was very similar. The rotation, the primary reason they won, was already in place. It's simple absurd to claim that Hendry didn't inherit a team capable of winning a division. He inherited a team, and they won the division. I guess I just don't believe that the team at the end of 2002 could have won a division if they had all been retained for 03. There was plenty of talent there, but there were a great number of holes as well. I don't think the Cubs come anywhere close to a division title without filling at least some of those holes, such as a bad lineup with a quickly declining Fred McGriff and a terrible Todd Hundley (or Joe Girardi) and a mostly awful bullpen.

Hendry inherited a team that won 88 games 2 years before, then the team went out and won 88 games and won a division. That sounds nice, but that doesn't mean the team he inherited could win the division. The 2001 Cubs were nothing of what it looked like at the end of 2002. They had talent at the end of 2002, but the talent was completely different than what it was when they won 88 in 01-the only players even available to Hendry from the 01 team were Sosa, Hundley, Mueller, Wood, and some bullpen guys. That's it-the team in 03 had an almost complete turnover. That's a great deal different then his point that the Dodgers were ready to win then and there.

Just because USC beat them in Week 1? You're arguing that Arkansas going undefeated in the SEC doesn't deserve to be ranked above a USC team that lost to an unranked Oregon St. ? Every game matters. If two major conference teams both have one loss and Team A beat Team B, then why shouldn't Team A be ranked ahead? strength of schedule, conference record, when the game was, etc., etc., etc. Doesn't matter. Team A beats Team B. Do you remember the 2000 National Championship game between Oklahoma and Florida State? Well Miami handed Florida State their only loss that year but because it was early in the year and Miami lost later in the year, Florida State was incorrectly ranked higher in the polls. Miami should have played Oklahoma that year. USC should be ranked ahead of Arkansas if they both have the same number of losses. I don't really understand how there could be a better factor for which team is ranked higher under the circumstances (both with one loss) than the head to head result. In your 2000 thought process, you missed one thing. Florida State did lose to 11-1 Miami, but Miami lost to 11-1 Washington. Washington under that logic should have played for the national title, not Miami.

I'm not sure about still the easy pre-season schedule. Duke, Southern Illinois, Kentucky, the preseason NIT (hopefully past the first two rounds), and I know this game is actually during the conference season but Connecticut should make this non-conference season again a little too much. I fully support having a couple tests non-conference, but playing what is likely to be 4-5 top 25 teams non-conference (depending on how the preseason NIT goes) before going into the Big 10 is a little too much for me. Well, this team learning the system will certainly be battle-tested by the time it comes to conference play once again, however.

Yeah. It would be kinda weird for Florida to win the SEC championship title game and Auburn make the NCG because of that. I mean is it a championship game or what? Im sure people from Auburn might argue this but they are just being silly. Arkansas has 2 tough games coming up so Auburn may end up getting the chance to prove it in the title game. Doesn't Arkansas have to lose twice in order to have Auburn win the division? Yes, Arkansas has a 1 game lead and the tiebreaker, so they would have to lose twice before the end of the year for Auburn to sneak into the SEC title game. It's possible though-Arkansas has Tennessee this week, and still has a team like LSU later in the year.

I'm just saying the altitude can be a factor - there is a reason Denver teams have the greatest home-road record disparity in every sport. don't take that as a pick against ND. It definitely does, and the Air Force style of offense doesn't help either. The difference between that 2002 and 2006 teams is that team was heavily defensive oriented, and this one is offensively oriented. I think ND will win, but they have to execute-if they get behind early, it can be very, very hard to catch up to a team like that sometimes.

I still think they'll be top 14 even with a loss which would make them eligible-and I can't see the Sugar Bowl passing on ND, even if they shouldn't take them (I'm not saying that they should or they shouldn't-I really don't know). The money possibility is just too strong.

They're number 25. But I have a hard time believing they're better than a lot of the 3 loss teams from power conferences. I saw them play against B.C., and the teams were very even. B.C. was very, very lucky to get away from that game with the win in double OT.

Can someone explain to me why the computer's averages are so different from the BCS poll? What do you mean exactly? Why do the computers disagree with the polls so much, causing the huge difference in the poll? Or do you mean that the top team gets 25? In the computer averages, 25 is best. If you get a 25, that means you're #1 in that poll-all the way down to 1 point, which means you're number #25 in that computer poll actually. Edit: That is of course until it says the entire computer average: then you want to be #1. the first thing you said. They have Cal at #4, but in the BCS poll, theyre at 8. Also Michigan is almost unanimously the top team in the computer rankings Well, it's mainly because computers don't care about margin of victory or how you look. Michigan has the best SOS of the undefeated teams, and so they are #1-but in the human polls, OSU has looked better, so they are #1 in the polls. The computers have Cal much higher than they are in the polls because Cal has never been able to recover from the image of them getting destroyed in Tennessee in the polls, while in the computers it is once again that they have 1 loss with a good SOS.

Can someone explain to me why the computer's averages are so different from the BCS poll? What do you mean exactly? Why do the computers disagree with the polls so much, causing the huge difference in the poll? Or do you mean that the top team gets 25? In the computer averages, 25 is best. If you get a 25, that means you're #1 in that poll-all the way down to 1 point, which means you're number #25 in that computer poll actually. Edit: That is of course until it says the entire computer average: then you want to be #1.

Thank you Moose for the fantasy boost!

I'm sorry for your pain. I hope Dierdorf likes the Bears, because if not you are going to want to come through the TV at him. I had to turn him down one week it was so bad. Gumbel isn't bad though.

BTW, did everybody hear about what Wisconsin did at the end of the first half yesterday? Pretty funny if you ask me-I'll explain more if somebody wants to know. That was a great way to expose the new clock rules (it could have happened with the old clock rules also, it just would have been harder).

Well, it really depends on how your defense scores, but I would take the San Diego D. Of course I'm biased, but the big thing is that the Colts do not turn the ball over very much (only 4 times through 7 games) and they don't let Peyton get sacked very much. That doesn't give many extra points for the defense.

Do you know which announcing team you have? A couple of them are actually good. You're right though, with the quality of your game (because Miami is so bad) you probably got one of the lesser announcing crews, and most of them are simply horrible.

May I ask where the origin of this rant came from? It's actually pretty good-one harsher concluding sentence, and it might be Denny Green territory (not close to Jim Mora territory though) :D By the way, Boston College losing last night is bad news for those who wanted to see their team get a BCS at-large bid. Since the ACC winner is now going to even be further down in the BCS, they might stay behind Boise State. If Boise State stays ahead of the ACC winner, then they only need top 16 status to get a BCS bowl. So 2 of the likely 10 BCS teams are going to be either Wake Forest, Maryland, Georgia Tech from the ACC plus Boise State. Or all they need to be is top 12. If Boise runs the table they are almost a lock. Currently they are 14 in the BCS. Tennessee lost yesterday and are ranked 11th, Boise will jump them this week and probably be 13th. Rutgers is right in front of Boise at 13, if/when they lose Boise has their top 12. USC or Cal is going to lose 1 more because they play each other and USC/ND is going to lose one more because of the same thing. Wisconsin's win yesterday might jump then in front of Boise and it doesnt look like they will lose again this year. That might help prevent Boise but with the ND/USC/CAl scenarios still in place they might be top 12 even with Wisconsin ahead of them. I think that will be the case, but I'm not completely confident of that for a couple of reasons. 1)If Rutgers splits with WV/Louisville, they could very well stay ahead because they will probably actually go up in the polls because of the signature win. 2)Teams from behind-specifically Wisconsin, LSU, and Oklahoma-I think with strong finishes they could jump Boise State-they all got very good wins this week which will help them a great deal in both the polls and the computers. Don't be surprised if LSU makes a jump in the BCS to 12th or 13th. They were only 24th in the computers before this week-the win over Tennessee will vault them probably between 15 and 20, which combined with their good poll ranking will give them a significant jump. Those could offset the teams from ahead. I think that Boise State will get to the top 12 and stay there, but I'm not completely sure yet.

The funny thing is that another board that I'm on asked a fantasy question about TE's this week: they asked if they should start Dez or Kellen Winslow, just to get a feel to what some other fans are thinking is the value. In my mind, Gates should be starting unless there is a clear reason why not. I can't see that with Dez against Miami, so I say Gates.

May I ask where the origin of this rant came from? It's actually pretty good-one harsher concluding sentence, and it might be Denny Green territory (not close to Jim Mora territory though) :D By the way, Boston College losing last night is bad news for those who wanted to see their team get a BCS at-large bid. Since the ACC winner is now going to even be further down in the BCS, they might stay behind Boise State. If Boise State stays ahead of the ACC winner, then they only need top 16 status to get a BCS bowl. So 2 of the likely 10 BCS teams are going to be either Wake Forest, Maryland, Georgia Tech from the ACC plus Boise State.

LOL..I was watching the Oklahoma State guy return a kickoff. He caught it on the left side, and immediately started going straight right. I was screaming "What are you doing? You'll just get tackled inside the 20" when he promptly takes it for a TD. Now that's a mistake, but I don't mind :D Still 23-10 Texas though.

UCLA scores to tie it at 7. UCLA could probably be even more effective if they weren't penalizing themselves so much. The drive before the TD drive they had 3 separate holding penalties on the same drive.

I've figured out the difference-Texas doesn't make the huge mistakes that have absolutely killed Ok State so far. 17-0 Texas after a fumble on the kickoff led to an easy score.