CubColtPacer

Interesting, Nebraska #15. They are good, no doubt, but they haven't impressively beat anyone in conference. A bad KU team by only 7, a bad Iowa State team by only 14, and a meh K-State team by only 18. They are good, and I'd rank them higher than Missouri at this point (just because they have played USC and UT tough), but I don't think they're a top 15 team. I see them losing two of the next three games: on the road against a solid Oklahoma State, home vs. Missouri, and on the road against A&M. Wasn't Nebraska #17 this week? You don't go up 2 spots by losing, IMO. Yes, I know they played a top team. I still don't think they'll go up. they barely lost though. a win would have put them in my top 10. losing by two to a heavy favorite top 5 team is at least 2 spots IMO. Who else would you put at 15? Oregon lost badly, GT lost badly (even though it was to a great clemson team). That's two teams that dropped to let Nebraska go up 2. I would think Rutgers would deserve to be in 15th now at least now that they are 7-0 and have beaten a legitimate opponent. Also Wisconsin deserves to be in front of Nebraska-only one loss to Michigan. A 3rd team that should be in front is BC-only one loss, and wins over Clemson, Va Tech, and Florida State.

That is the sentiment I don't understand? Who behind them has been definitely better than ND? All of those teams have had at least one scare and most of them 2 scares like ND has had along with a loss, just like ND. What teams would you put above them?

I think you might see Clemson or GT jump up into the better part of the top 10 if they can blowout each other That's certainly possible-I see that as more likely for Clemson than GT (since I don't see GT probably jumping ND in the polls, and ND is at the back of the top 10). They are both good teams that have been underappreciated though.

That ND-UCLA game was so great. Both teams played so well defensively, it was a shame one team had to lose. It seems like it is happening all over the country to the one loss teams that played anybody at all. Texas, ND, TN, and Cal have all been severely tested today (TN is still being tested). I haven't seen anything today to differentiate between the one loss teams today-they all have really struggled.

Because they got killed at home against the other good team they faced. LSU has played multiple teams of that caliber, lost them both by close margins. Florida has beaten multiple teams of that caliber. Auburn beat two teams of that caliber. Florida and Auburn definitely deserve to be up there. LSU it's hard to tell. They certainly have not proved anything. Other than their 2 losses (BTW, the Florida loss was never that close in the second half for them) they've blown out everyone they've played-but their schedule for their wins is horrible-Louisiana-Laffyette, Arizona, Tulane, Miss State, Kentucky. I really have no idea right now about how good LSU is. Arkansas is getting hurt by the USC game, preseason predictions, but also the fact of a couple of other games. Vanderbilt had a field goal try to beat them in the closing seconds, and they had to beat Alabama in OT (and Bama should have won that game other than their ST was absolutely terrible-I believe a couple missed field goals, including one very late in the game, and the game-losing missed extra point in OT). So Arkansas really has only had 1 good game all year.

How does having Glavine bunt "hugely" increase the chance for an out at third? I think he's saying because they would be playing up for the bunt for Glavine. There were other people on the Mets bench who could bunt who the Cardinals would have to at least partially respect their hitting, though.

I don't think ARam is going anywhere, but obtaining ARod or Tejada is a step backward because ARam matches them in production and the Cubs don't have to give up players for him. The only thing with that is that Ramirez's money will come off the books as well, which will allow the Cubs to sign another big-time FA. Don't get me wrong-I'll be very disappointed if the Cubs don't re-sign Ramirez. I definitely think it is a big priority that the Cubs sign him. Right now, the team is looking at signing or trading for one big hitter. If Ramirez leaves, they will hopefully just take the money and go get two big hitters instead.

I would agree with that. I don't think the Mets score either way in hindsight. BTW, the last pitch was great-but that second pitch that Beltran barely got a piece of was even better I thought. Beltran could have taken 10 swings at that curveball and might have gotten it out to the infield 2 or 3 times, and it might have been called a strike if he had taken it. It was simply nasty.

With Floyd, who has only had one other at bat the whole series? Floyd is hurt and can't run. Even if he did get a hit you have to take him out anyway. I thnk the smarter move was to bunt, then PH Floyd for Lo Duca possibly if needed. Floyd had just as much capability to drive the ball into an alley, over the fence, etc. as he would to make an out. Unfortunately for every Mets hitter in the 9th, Wainright had a very nasty breaking ball that the best hitters in the league couldn't have hit. Floyd's normally going to make an out almost 70 percent of the time. With him being hurt, his swing seemed to be off. Floyd was just as likely to hit into a DP as get a base hit with him hurt and not swinging as well as he usually does-and then a base hit does not get it to a tie.

That was one situation I definitely would have bunted. You need both of the runs. Floyd's only had 2 AB's in a week and is hurting. With the combination of those two factors, he is probably close to as likely to hit into a DP as he is to get a hit. If you bunt, you've got two more spray than HR hitters (I know, Reyes has power also) only needing a single to tie the game. Most of the times I'm not in favor of bunting-but that was a perfect bunting situation IMO.

When he put on that Jersey. I swear Duncan is a Genius or they are the luckiest team alive pitching wise. they turn lemons into lemonade consistantly. Look at Weaver for god sakes! actually weaver sucked during the regular season for the cards too... he just all of a sudden learned how to pitch once the playoffs rolled around. Sometimes the pixie dust doesn't come alive until they need it to, as opposed to just letting them run away with everything a la 2004-05. Yup..with their roster, they realized that in 2004 and 2005 their pixie dust ran out. So this year, they conserved it, like a Nascar or Indycar driver conserves fuel while in the lead. They conserved it so much that they almost gave up the lead, but have been putting a lot of it on now. Getting Yadear Molina to hit that kind of home run? They must have used the rest of it :D

Wasn't this our problem in 2004? Either we would win with the long ball or we sucked. Piniella has stated that the home field should be an advantage to us. If that is true (and I believe it is), then we had better learn how to win when the wind is blowing in at 20 mph. Power will not help us much in that situation. As with any good team (coach), you have to learn to adjust to the environmental conditions of the ballpark, particularly with Wrigley. If we want to be a playoff contending team....we have to learn how to use Wrigley as an advantage to us. Ken Other teams didn't have problems launching HRs into the wind at Wrigley. That's not quite completely true. The Cubs did much better at keeping pace with the opponents when the HR's were into the wind than anywhere else. This is my rough count of the number of HR's hit by each team in games where there was wind coming in, wind blowing out, or a crosswind. I didn't put the zeros into my number data, which is why you may see different amount of numbers for each one. BTW, as most of you probably know, the wind blows in many, many more times then it does out-or at least it did this year. Wind Blowing In Cubs-1,2,2,1,2,1,1,2,1,1,1,2,2,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,2,1=30 Opp-1,1,1,1,1,1,4,1,1,1,1,1,1,4,1,1,2,2,2,1,3,2,1,2=37 Wind Blowing Out Cubs-1,1,1,2,3,2,4,2,2,1,4,1,2,4,3,6,1=40 Opp-6,3,1,1,8,1,8,1,4,4,5,6,1,1,6,2,2=60 Cross Wind Cubs-1,2,2,1,1,2=9 Opp-6,2,1,1,2,2,2,1,1,1,2,1,4=26 As you can see, HR's did not play a big factor in losing games for the wind blowing in. Also, there is a huge difference in the number of HR's per game with the wind blowing in and the wind blowing out. There are only 3 numbers above 2 HR's in a game with the wind blowing in (all from the Cubs opponents). With the wind blowing out, with several less games to work with, there are 15 of those 3 HR games or more for one team (6 for the Cubs, 9 for the opposition). Environmental factors do play a big difference at Wrigley. I would agree with the solution though of getting more people on base to counteract that HR problem when the wind is blowing in.

I think he was pretty solid in the 2nd half actually. I remember seeing something about how he had one of the top 5 ERA's (maybe top 10) post-ASB. Still though, he shouldn't be pitching this well. Yeah, Suppan was 6-2 with a 2.39 ERA in 15 starts after the All-Star Break, so he's been amazing somehow for a while now. Pretty baffling. Perhaps the Cubs should inquire about him? Is Suppan a free agent? I'm not surprised he's not being talked about more, especially when I just looked up his stats. His highest ERA any of the last 4 years was 4.19, and he going to consistently put up an ERA close to 4. That's always a solid starter-certainly a big step down from the elite starters, but he's just as good as anyone else.

I think he was pretty solid in the 2nd half actually. I remember seeing something about how he had one of the top 5 ERA's (maybe top 10) post-ASB. Still though, he shouldn't be pitching this well. Yeah, Suppan was 6-2 with a 2.39 ERA in 15 starts after the All-Star Break, so he's been amazing somehow for a while now.

I just looked it up. Piniella was asked about managing at Wrigley. He was talking about the park, and I think he is referencing that at Wrigley the wind blows in more than it does out. Here is a quote right after the ones that have already been mentioned in this thread:

Parker and Housh are the two I feel most confident about, then I would start TO and Jones next. I'd select Coles as my flex player. Johnson doesn't score enough, Addai and Jones-Drew are risky (they are big one week, not so big the next week right now-it depends on how the game goes if they even get double digit carries right now)

There wasn't really any time for their to be a market for Glendon. One site I'm looking at has Glendon being signed on Halloween last year. I'm not sure that's quite right, but I know it was before free agency actually started. I'm sure somebody would have given Glendon at least a couple million dollars last year, just like somebody will give Jason Marquis that money this year. Marquis sucks, but comparing Rusch's career to his is doing Glendon a big favor. Is it? Throw out this year for Rusch (since I'm comparing each one of them before going to free agency-so Rusch before last years free agency, and Marquis before this year's free agency) Here are their last 5 years before that free agency Rusch:01: 8-12, 4.63 ERA, 1.45 WHIP 02: 10-16, 4.70 ERA, 1.44 WHIP 03: 1-12, 6.42 ERA, 1.75 WHIP 04: 6-2, 3.47 ERA, 1.23 WHIP 05: 9-8, 4.52 ERA, 1.57 WHIP Marquis: 02: 8-9, 5.04 ERA, 1.54 WHIP 03: 0-0, 5.53 ERA, 1.50 WHIP 04: 15-7, 3.71 ERA, 1.42 WHIP 05: 13-14, 4.13 ERA, 1.33 WHIP 06: 14-16, 6.02 ERA, 1.52 WHIP I'd rank their seasons in this order: Rusch 04, Marquis 04, Marquis 05, Rusch 05/Rusch 01/Rusch 02 (they are all about the same season), Marquis 02, Marquis 03, Marquis 06, Rusch 03. So Rusch in their 10 combined seasons before free agency had 4 out of the best 6 seasons-I don't see why the comparison would not be valid whatsoever.

My thought always would be on that-if you could only buy one and keep it on your shelf, which one would it be? Which ones are such classics that you can continue to enjoy them?

I agree with all of those-Bond movies could even be split up by actor possibly (since people look at the different movies very differently). Also, the Terminator movies, possibly the Superman and Batman movies. I'm sure there are more important ones out there that I'm not thinking of.

Two others that quickly come to mind for me are Back to the Future and the Rocky movies.

There wasn't really any time for their to be a market for Glendon. One site I'm looking at has Glendon being signed on Halloween last year. I'm not sure that's quite right, but I know it was before free agency actually started. I'm sure somebody would have given Glendon at least a couple million dollars last year, just like somebody will give Jason Marquis that money this year.

A comment that was made by somebody else got me thinking about a new contest. What about doing movie franchises as a contest? The franchise would have to be at least a trilogy to be eligible, but it can be more movies than that. Franchises with big breaks in them that have at least 3 movies on each side (like Star Wars or Star Trek old/new) can be divided up into each section. What do all of you think about that idea, and if you wanted to do it, what would be some nominations that you would want to see in the contest?

It was simply a combination of factors for 2006. One was that a significant amount of our money did not give us much this year. Wood-12 mil Lee-9.5 mil Maddux-9 mil Prior-3.65 mil That's over 34 million right there that didn't produce past April (and some of them didn't produce at all). Wood, Lee, and Prior were due to injuries-and Maddux's contract was seen as the overpaying to get us over the top which did not happen. There was about 10 million in contracts given out to non-producing players as well-so add that in there. The key to the Cubs was this year simply was their depth. They did not build enough depth into their starting pitching or the middle of their order-and those are the two places that got hit by the injury bug. That's what destroyed them more than really anything.

I'd be fine with a Lugo signing, but I'm a little scared of him. He's gotten much better the last two years, but really struggled when he came over to the National League. If Izturis was traded and Lugo played short, I would be fine with him-at second, I'd rather look at some other options first.

What is the general consensus on Matthews? My guess is that he will get a deal too expensive and too long for his skills. Other opinions? I would agree with that assessment. He has a chance of being productive enough for his contract, but he's probably not going to outperform his contract, and there is a pretty good possibility he won't live up to his contract. It wouldn't be a very good risk IMO.