CubColtPacer

By the way ND, with the new BCS bowl this year, it only takes top 14 to be eligible, so ND would have to fall out of the top 14 now to not go, not top 12. They have to make top 8 now to automatically qualify now, not top 6 anymore.

It's like the stupid preseason polls during the season. I'm not saying the Big East is the best but it's just as good as any major conference. I was listening to Mike and Mike and they were saying since Miami and the others left everyone assumes the conference is weak and they just brush it off. It's like we have to wait for 4 to 5 years for them to prove they belong while IMO they already have. This conference has 2 losing teams out of 8 or 75% of the teams in it. No other conference can say that. That's partially because the BE plays less conference games though. For example, the SEC has 8 of the 12 teams with a winning record. Most teams in the SEC have played 5-6 conference games already, while the BE has played 3-4. Two of the SEC teams, Kentucky and Vanderbilt, if they had only played 3-4 conference games so far, they would also be over .500, which would put the SEC at 10 of 12 teams over .500. As teams play their conference season, it becomes harder and harder for a large percentage of the conference to stay above .500-because if teams at the top are staying close to undefeated, then teams have to be losing to them and hurting their records. The BE certainly is not weak. It's just very much an unknown quanity right now, and the bowl games will be a good indicator where the BE is this year. If Cincy played bad teams instead of Ohio State and VTech they'd be 7-2. and if Syracuse played bad teams instead of Iowa and Wake Forrest they'd be 5-4. There are no gimme's like Mississippi St or Mississippi are this year. The SEC is good no doubt but it isn't the God people make it out to be. The bowls hurt the BE if they are the same as last year. If a 2nd BE team doesn't go to the BCS they go to the Liberty Bowl and play an inferior team which once again people will say they didn't play a tough enough team. If we win it's because we should have and if we lose we are over rated. Well, you could make the same argument for teams like Mississippi and to a lesser extent Mississippi State. Mississippi lost to Missouri and Wake Forest outside of conference, and Miss State lost to Tulane and WV. The only bad team of those 4 is Tulane, and if they had played less conference and good teams and more bad teams, those 2 teams would probably have a good record as well.

It's like the stupid preseason polls during the season. I'm not saying the Big East is the best but it's just as good as any major conference. I was listening to Mike and Mike and they were saying since Miami and the others left everyone assumes the conference is weak and they just brush it off. It's like we have to wait for 4 to 5 years for them to prove they belong while IMO they already have. This conference has 2 losing teams out of 8 or 75% of the teams in it. No other conference can say that. That's partially because the BE plays less conference games though. For example, the SEC has 8 of the 12 teams with a winning record. Most teams in the SEC have played 5-6 conference games already, while the BE has played 3-4. Two of the SEC teams, Kentucky and Vanderbilt, if they had only played 3-4 conference games so far, they would also be over .500, which would put the SEC at 10 of 12 teams over .500. As teams play their conference season, it becomes harder and harder for a large percentage of the conference to stay above .500-because if teams at the top are staying close to undefeated, then teams have to be losing to them and hurting their records. The BE certainly is not weak. It's just very much an unknown quanity right now, and the bowl games will be a good indicator where the BE is this year.

Well, Michigan did take out the number 2 team earlier in the season, and WV will be ranked about the same spot as the team that Michigan destroyed on the road. So why does Louisville get to jump ahead of them based on one game again? The thing is, if Louisville gets ranked behind Texas or Florida, I support you completely if you're upset. Why does Louisville automatically go ahead of Michigan though? Because they beat WV at home? Michigan beat ND on the road Because they beat Miami at home? Michigan beat Wisconsin at home, Penn State on the road and Iowa at home. Those are really the only impact games that either team has played. Michigan has more of them, and they have had more chances to be impressive because of that. Right now, IMO Michigan deserves to be ahead of Louisville. If you think Louisville should be ahead, fine. There certainly are good reasons to argue the other way though. I agree with what you wrote but it just makes no sense regarding the "leapfrog" of another team. If you think a team is better than you should rank them as that but just because one team is ahead of them being the reason why they can't move ahead, I just don't agree with that logic, I'm not saying you said this but talking about the polls in particular. The undefeated teams should be at the top and what worries me is if Michigan and Ohio State go to overtime people will want that game to be the BCS Championship game too. If Rutgers runs the table I know they will not play in that game and I think they should if they beat Louisville and WV. This brings me to another pet peeve. The teams with a Championship Game send in a possible 2-5 loss team to the BCS and the team with the best record goes. The Big East will only get 1 team no matter how good the second place team is even if WV wins the rest of their games and ends up 11-1 and Rutgers ends up 10-2. I think WV would have a shot to get into a BCS bowl at 11-1. It would really depend on how all the other conferences shook out. There are 4 at-large spots in the BCS. One of those will likely be taken by Notre Dame, and another one will be taken by Boise State. That leaves 2 at-large spots-but remember, for most of these 1 loss teams, that means they will win their automatic conference bid. If Texas stays at 1 loss, that means they would be already be automatically going. The same goes for a team like Florida. The winner of the USC/California game gets the automatic spot, and the loser will have 2 losses. The competition for the 2 at-large spots would be WV, either Auburn or Tennessee (no more than 2 conference schools can make it into the BCS in a year, so both of these teams cannot go along with Florida), and the OSU/Michigan loser. Your best hope then is for either 1)Boise State to lose, which means they won't make the BCS-2)Notre Dame to lose twice, 3)Auburn and Tennessee losing again before the end of the year (which is certainly possible, especially if Auburn makes the SEC title game) or 4) somehow OSU or Michigan losing twice. Any one of those 4 scenarios will send WVU to a BCS bowl game. Let me ask you this. What happens if Rutgers beats Louisville, WV beats Rutgers. What makes Florida or the winner of the SEC, winner of the Big 12, or the winner of the Pac 10, or Notre Dame if they run the table automatically better than a 1 loss BE team? The Big East team HAS to go undefeated to go while other conferences can have a loss. Well, first I want to clarify that what I said in the last post is what would happen, not necessarily what should happen. I was trying to project WV's chances through the lens of the national picture. I will answer your question here though. It's simply the number of quality wins that they have. Florida would have more than any Big East team with Tennessee, LSU, and the SEC title game loser. The best the Big East would have to counter that is Louisville, with wins over WV and Miami. The Big 12? You could certainly make a case for that Texas has had no more quality wins or played an extremely tough schedule either, and I would have no argument with it. I would put Texas's accomplishments on the same level as the 3 Big East teams at that point. The winner of the Pac 10? If it's USC and they have 1 loss, that means they will have beaten Arkansas, Nebraska, California, Oregon, and Notre Dame. If it's Cal, I think the BE has much more of a case-because Cal would only have victories over USC and Oregon, which is about the same level as a team like Louisville with wins over again WV and Miami. Notre Dame would have wins over Georgia Tech, Penn State, and USC. That would put them a little better than anything the BE has to offer, although not by all that much.

The rules have changed this year though. To qualify automatically, Boise State (or any other minor conference team) has to finish in the top 12 of the BCS standings, or if they are in the top 16, but finish ahead of one of the major conference automatic bids they get an automatic bid as well. Boise State is 14th in the BCS right now, and higher than any ACC team (Boston College is right behind them). If Boise State wins out, it is almost certain that they will match one of those two criteria to get an automatic bid to a BCS bowl game.

Well, Michigan did take out the number 2 team earlier in the season, and WV will be ranked about the same spot as the team that Michigan destroyed on the road. So why does Louisville get to jump ahead of them based on one game again? The thing is, if Louisville gets ranked behind Texas or Florida, I support you completely if you're upset. Why does Louisville automatically go ahead of Michigan though? Because they beat WV at home? Michigan beat ND on the road Because they beat Miami at home? Michigan beat Wisconsin at home, Penn State on the road and Iowa at home. Those are really the only impact games that either team has played. Michigan has more of them, and they have had more chances to be impressive because of that. Right now, IMO Michigan deserves to be ahead of Louisville. If you think Louisville should be ahead, fine. There certainly are good reasons to argue the other way though. I agree with what you wrote but it just makes no sense regarding the "leapfrog" of another team. If you think a team is better than you should rank them as that but just because one team is ahead of them being the reason why they can't move ahead, I just don't agree with that logic, I'm not saying you said this but talking about the polls in particular. The undefeated teams should be at the top and what worries me is if Michigan and Ohio State go to overtime people will want that game to be the BCS Championship game too. If Rutgers runs the table I know they will not play in that game and I think they should if they beat Louisville and WV. This brings me to another pet peeve. The teams with a Championship Game send in a possible 2-5 loss team to the BCS and the team with the best record goes. The Big East will only get 1 team no matter how good the second place team is even if WV wins the rest of their games and ends up 11-1 and Rutgers ends up 10-2. I think WV would have a shot to get into a BCS bowl at 11-1. It would really depend on how all the other conferences shook out. There are 4 at-large spots in the BCS. One of those will likely be taken by Notre Dame, and another one will be taken by Boise State. That leaves 2 at-large spots-but remember, for most of these 1 loss teams, that means they will win their automatic conference bid. If Texas stays at 1 loss, that means they would be already be automatically going. The same goes for a team like Florida. The winner of the USC/California game gets the automatic spot, and the loser will have 2 losses. The competition for the 2 at-large spots would be WV, either Auburn or Tennessee (no more than 2 conference schools can make it into the BCS in a year, so both of these teams cannot go along with Florida), and the OSU/Michigan loser. Your best hope then is for either 1)Boise State to lose, which means they won't make the BCS-2)Notre Dame to lose twice, 3)Auburn and Tennessee losing again before the end of the year (which is certainly possible, especially if Auburn makes the SEC title game) or 4) somehow OSU or Michigan losing twice. Any one of those 4 scenarios will send WVU to a BCS bowl game.

Well, Michigan did take out the number 2 team earlier in the season, and WV will be ranked about the same spot as the team that Michigan destroyed on the road. So why does Louisville get to jump ahead of them based on one game again? The thing is, if Louisville gets ranked behind Texas or Florida, I support you completely if you're upset. Why does Louisville automatically go ahead of Michigan though? Because they beat WV at home? Michigan beat ND on the road Because they beat Miami at home? Michigan beat Wisconsin at home, Penn State on the road and Iowa at home. Those are really the only impact games that either team has played. Michigan has more of them, and they have had more chances to be impressive because of that. Right now, IMO Michigan deserves to be ahead of Louisville. If you think Louisville should be ahead, fine. There certainly are good reasons to argue the other way though.

It's still possible even with all that though. The OSU-Michigan loser is 1. After that is possibly Texas, Tennessee, Florida-Auburn winner (possibly both if Arkansas beats LSU and goes to the SEC title game), probably at least 1 out of USC/Notre Dame/California, and possibly 2 if USC loses both of those games. That's 4-6 teams right there even after taking into account the teams that play each other. Of course, several of those teams still could get knocked off by other teams. It will be an interesting last few weeks.

If somebody hopes that both Big East teams will lose before the end of the season, then I think you should root for Louisville. Not that West Virginia is by far the better team-but with the speed of WV, a team with inferior team speed will have a hard time beating them. Louisville I think has a better chance of getting upset by Rutgers or Pittsburgh later in the season, although I don't know if they will or not.

I thought that I heard that McBride had been suspended for 4 games. It was about 2 weeks ago, so I'm not sure about that..can any Illini fans confirm?

this is certainly not bad news And no Mariners. So who does this leave? Yankees, Mets, Dodgers, Rangers, Cubs, Red Sox, Tigers, and Padres (Not really sure about Rangers and Tigers.) Any other possible suitors? I don't think Padres will have the money. Red Sox, like the Cubs, have yet to make a splash in the Asian market. Yanks surely have to be the favorite, with Mets maybe not far behind. Here's hoping Hendry feels enough heat to make a splash. I'd be surprised if anybody but the Yankees, Cubs, Mets, Red Sox, or Rangers won the bid. Texas and the Yankees have to be the leaders for me, because those are the two teams who will literally throw large amounts of money around like crazy sometimes (the Red Sox and Mets do, but it is usually much more calculated, and I think one of the first two will have a bid way above market value, and the Cubs won't go that high either).

I'm not sure if this is a serious question, since the answer is so obvious. In the late innings, when you've already scored enough runs to win, it makes sense to put in the guy that will do the best job of preventing runs from scoring. In the early innings, obviously the light-hitting, all defense guy is a bigger liability than the guy that can hit but plays inferior defense. Of course it is a serious question. It makes no logical sense whatsoever. What does it matter that the poor defensive player lets in runs at the beginning or end of the game? But more to the point, how often does his replacement prevent a run from scoring in the 8th or 9th inning? Are you honestly saying you don't understand the logic behind why a manager might substitute a Doug Mientkiewitz for a Craig Wilson in the 9th inning with a 1-run lead? The premise is elementary: when you need your defense to hold the lead and secure the win, then you put your best defensive players in the game. It's a basic principle that applies to many sports. You can agree or disagree with the wisdom of such a strategy as it applies to baseball, but to fail to grasp the logic is pretty puzzling. It's pretty basic stuff. Ok the logic is faulty. Here's the deal, Why pay a guy and take up space on the 25 man roster when whatever minimal benefit he might provide is going to matter maybe once or twice a season, if that? Substituting Freddy Bynum for Matt Murton or Neifi Perez for Todd Walker is just foolish. Those two are 2/13 of the position players on the Cubs team (the kept 12 pitchers). If you take out Blanco they represent 1/6 of the entire team. I don't know if the figures could be generated but I would think that having Bynum and Perez on the bench cost the Cubs more games than if the Cubs had guys on the bench who could actually hit. The value of the bench lies in it's ability to create runs. If you have to rely on your bench for jacks-of-all trades-masters-of-none defensive replacements you are putting your team at a decided disatvantage. That's a different argument then. Sure, people on the bench who can hit are more valuable, and players should not be kept on the roster who are seen as only defensive replacements. If they are on a roster though and a team is up late, there is value in a defensive replacement-just not nearly as much usually as an offensive player on the bench. People thought you were arguing originally that a defensive replacemnt in-game is never a good move instead of the value between an offensively minded bench guy and a defensively minded bench guy.

Discussed? Yes. Excused? Absolutely. When teams start to lose though, minor issues inevitably get blown way out of proportion-on the Cubs right now, this one is it.

Link This is interesting. Of course, I'm not sure Arod gets as much money if he opts out...but there is the chance he could get more. I don't think that there's any conceivable chance for him to get more. His agent is Scott Boras. And his salary is ~$25mil and he will be ~33. Is Texas still paying out part of the contract? If he opts out, does that release them from their obligations also?

I don't think that is going to be great bulletin board material. He set himself up for bulletin board material if he had proceeded to another sentence, but right there he seems to just want to focus on his team and his play, and not what the other team is doing-he's not necessarily saying that his team will play better.

Wow-that's all I have to say to that. I guess everybody has their scapegoat, and I guess it is Ramirez for him. I could at least accept that as his opinion if he then didn't want to go out and re-sign Pierre even if I don't agree with him. The fact that he can't even be consistent drains the remaining credibility that the rest of the article works so hard to destroy. It's not just him!! People are piling on this whole "Ramirez is lazy" story because one person ran with it and they are either too stupid or too lazy to come up with their own stories (see: Eckstein or Arod). That's true. I guess if this writer is that lazy, maybe he shouldn't be asking for a raise anytime soon, or else his boss might throw this article, especially the first couple sentences, back at him-wouldn't that be poetic justice? :D

Wow-that's all I have to say to that. I guess everybody has their scapegoat, and I guess it is Ramirez for him. I could at least accept that as his opinion if he then didn't want to go out and re-sign Pierre even if I don't agree with him. The fact that he can't even be consistent drains the remaining credibility that the rest of the article works so hard to destroy.

Wouldn't losing Pierre or Ramirez raise that though? Not sure: "If there are 14 or less type A and B players available, no team may sign more than 1 type A or B player. If there are 15-38 available A and B players, no team may sign more than 2. From 39-62 this becomes 3. The club quota increases accordingly for higher totals of available free agents. There is no maximum allowed for type C free agents. Lastly, a team can sign up to as many type A and B free agents as they've lost, regardless of the above quota." I read that last clause as meaning if you've lost more type A/Bs than the quota you get to replace all your A/Bs, not that you get the quota plus the A/Bs you lose. There are already more than 62 filed, so it should be at least 4. Of course, I think Ramirez would count towards that number, so it would be back to three after that.

I just wanted to say good luck to the Bulls this year. I think the Bulls and the Pacers have two of the deepest teams in the NBA this year (the Pacers actually had to cut a very promising rookie, James White out of UC because they were so deep) and I know it will be a great battle in the Central. The Central will probably get at least 4 teams out of the 8 that make the playoffs (Detroit, Chicago, Cleveland, Indiana)-that's pretty impressive. Again, good luck, and I can't wait until the two teams get to face off this year.

Holy Schnikeees! (And no wonder Ramirez opted for FA. He'll get more than Alphonso!) Are my timetables off, or is Soriano still in the exclusive negotiation window with his former team? If so, what would be the penalty with "player tampering" of this nature. Would it be forfeiture of the contract, should he sign 1 with them? Hmm, now that you point that out, that is strange. I don't have an answer to you if it is tampering, and what that would mean if it was though. Anybody know a little more than me? :D

Don, if Ramirez walks, you then have to sign or aquire 2 impact bats to improve. Thjat's going to be next to impossible this winter. As far as being the next Ron Santo in terms of fan support, I'd rather people be indifferent to him and he continue to outproduce every other 3B in team history than be popular. I am in the camp that believes that Ramirez NEEDS to be re-signed, but Hendry could sign Soriano and Carlos Lee and put Soriano at 2B, or sign Soriano and trade for Sheffield. If the Cubs sign Soriano (which I believe they will), there are a number of OF possibilities: Lee, Sheffield, Wells, Burrell, etc. Personally, I would re-sign Ramirez, sign Soriano and try and trade for Vernon Wells or sign Lee. On a semi-related note, I find myself wondering why people are assuming Soriano will be an OF next season. Sure he is a butcher at 2B, but with the lack of impact bats on the market this winter, he's going to play where he wants to. I agree. There are options if Ramirez walks. The hard part is-how would Hendry lure free agents to Chicago to a team now without Ramirez? If he could, here's about what he would have to do: Trade for A-rod Sign Soriano (CF) Sign Durham Sign Platoon Partner Leaving a lineup of Soriano Murton Lee A-Rod Jones/Platoon Partner Barrett Durham Izturis That lineup would be productive enough, and would still leave us some money for pitching (the loss of A-Ram coupled with the payroll increase and the salaries already gone would give us a ton of money to spend). I think the whole process is a great deal easier with re-signing Ramirez, and I certainly hope they do-but I still think there's a possibility, even if it be small, of fielding a good team without him next year.

http://www.newsday.com/sports/printedition/ny-spyanks314954810oct31,0,5248755.story?coll=ny-sports-print Not sure what I would give up for Sheffield but if we found a way to not give up much and find a way to peddle Jones for something of vaule it would be nice to take a gamble that Sheff can return to 30-35 homer glory. Does Sheffield still throw the ball well? I know he's not worse than Jones. Well, if it's the Cubs, good for them for staying firm in the Sheffield talks. I don't particularly want him, but if the team is going to get him, at least they are not caving it to the Yankees demands yet (and that's why the Yankees are waiting, hoping the market improves for him).

Agreed. But "love of Chicago" or not, Aramis was gonna opt out of this contract. The time to be upset was the beginning of 2005, not today. I've never understood the hatred of the opt out clause. Sure, everyone knew he was going to opt out after two years. If Ramirez and his agent came to the table though at the beginning of 2005 and said "You give us this or we go to free agency after the year" do you expect the ownership to just let him go to free agency? It at least delayed things for one year-now the team has to lock him up.

I agree, I just think it's entirely too early to be thinking undefeated, so I doubt they'll bother trying. I don't think they would do it anyway until there is only one team left undefeated.

I don't think ND deserves to be that high, although there are some teams above them in the polls that are getting a free pass. Texas is a great example of that-they also got blown out against one of the top 2 teams at home, and have struggled mightily against a couple of the only decent teams they played. I'm not saying that Texas should necessarily be below ND, but I think they have had very similar seasons-and it is kind of interesting how there is a big gap between them in the polls.