CubColtPacer

I suggested he do that a couple days ago, only said Byrnes instead of Hoyer. So I'm really smart. i wonder what tim wilken is thinking right now. The reports were that Epstein has a lot of respect for Wilken so I'm not sure he would have any problem with this string of hires.

http://sonsofsamhorn.net/wiki/index.php/Jason_McLeod What would this mean for Wilken? He is reportedly not coming over as a scouting director but will be taking another position with the Cubs.

He really fills up a stat sheet (good and bad). Is there anybody comparable to him who's had success in MLB? That's the only thing that's holding me back. Otherwise, I love that combination of power, speed, and the position he plays. He has that horrible BB/K ratio, but he's good in every single other area.

What would Epstein do in that scenario? He doesn't want to handle the business aspects of the club. He wouldn't be in charge of the baseball part. Why would the Cubs pay all that money for what is basically just an advisor?

For a first rounder too Possibly 2 first rounders. A horrible deal for the Raiders although they might feel desperate to get back in the playoffs. I'm not even sure Palmer is in the top 20 QB's in the league at this point.

I have no problem with players who end up playing better than their draft status or prospect status. Sometimes people get lost in the shuffle and sometimes people improve. It happens. But when you have 2 guys who play a position where a ton of offense is expected, have been terrible before this year, are really old for their league, and have some worrying signs in their numbers for this year it doesn't fill you with that much hope. Could Rohan or Jones be the real deal? Of course they could, but the track record for those types of players is not very good. That's the issue here. It's not that these types of players cannot succeed, but history shows they're not very likely to. And when you have something as scarce as playing time especially at a position like first base, there might be better risks to take than to take a risk on them trying to continue those types of numbers.

What Kevin Goldstein fails to understand is that while refusing to let Epstein go gives Boston the appearance of leverage, it is only real leverage if they truly want to keep him. Clearly, they don't. They let Theo interview, and they will be paying Theo 6.5 to 7 million dollars to be a lame duck GM for one more year all after effectively naming Cherington their new GM. Theo would then leave next season, and presumably take the generous offer from the Cubs, while Boston would be out the 6.5 to 7 mil. So long as Ricketts is willing to wait a year to get his man, the Sox hold none, NONE, of the cards at this poker table. PR wise, it's an easy out for the Cubs. We have to wait a year for our "savior" because the Red Sox are being f*#@wads about this. Instead of mortgaging a decent part of the Cubs future, we'll call their bluff. However, this is a PR nightmare for Boston. They are already looking like an organization in disarray after a bad September collapse, firing their manager, leaks about what was going on in the clubhouse, apparently bad mouthing of Francona and Epstein, and then keeping Epstein around for one pointless season at the expense of 6.5 to 7 million bucks. If Ricketts isn't willing to wait a year to begin rebuilding and for some reason feels the need to get this done, then he will cave, and then and only then, does Boston have any leverage. But if Ricketts is willing to call their bluff, Boston will fold like a piece of origami. Boston's choice is clear. Accept something reasonable in exchange for Theo or pay him big bucks for a very uncomfortable year and then let him walk for nothing. I could easily see Josh Byrnes being named GM this year, and next year having Theo be named President if this does happen. I wouldn't be surprised if this is what the plan is now, Theo being named President and hiring Byrnes to be "GM." How many GM's around the league don't actually make the decisions? In most organizations the GM makes the decisions even if there is a president that is over them. Are there ones where the president is the one running things even when they don't also have the GM title? Plus there's the issue in that scenario of asking Byrnes to run things for a year just to ask him to step back after that.

Caldwell sucks as a HC. I thought he was the MVP for the Jets in last year's playoff victory over the Colts. I can't remember exactly what it was he did though...I just remember at the time I thought "wow, this guy just handed Los Yets the game"...must have been something since I usually hate the whole "lets lay everything bad on the coaches" thing that gets done in football analysis. The Jets were content to try an upper 40's field goal with a kicker who had been inconsistent. Caldwell called a timeout which caused the Jets to try another pass play and gave them a much closer field goal. That was probably the worst example from the playoff game, but finding Caldwell mistakes is pretty easy. I laughed during yesterday's game when they said Caldwell had finally had enough of Lacey and pulled him in the 2nd half. Fans have been mystified about Lacey starting since training camp. With Manning the Colts would still have been 4-2, 5-1. It's a perfect storm without him. The defense is on the field too much and they are getting worn down at the end of games. The offensive line isn't good enough to just line up and run the ball, and for an offense that is a timing passing game the accuracy of Painter and Collins has been awful. Add in the multitude of injuries and there just isn't enough left to win games. Manning would have minimized many of those flaws. They've still had a chance to win each of the last 5 games in the 4th quarter though. This could actually be a really good thing for the Colts especially if they can find a way to get the #1 pick. For years Indy fans have talked about how after Manning leaves it will take a long time to rebuild. Getting the #1 pick and either getting Luck or trading him for a huge haul of draft picks would be a significant step towards their future. I'll gladly take 1 year of horrible play for that.

I'd rather a manager be removed from the dugout when his team is at bat; less chance he'd screw up. The thing I care about is knowing how to handle a pitching staff. Beyond that, just be a in a trance for all I care. Maybe in the first 6 innings. It can be very helpful to have a manager make good decisions in the last 3 innings. Sure it can be. If they make smart moves it feels great. But the problem is the more they try to do in the name of "making things happen", instead of just letting the players play baseball, the more it can hurt the team. I'm just saying that what might be called overmanaging is very useful at the end of close games. Where mangers get into trouble is that they try to apply those principles throughout an entire game. Bunting before the 8th inning for example should pretty much never be done by a non-pitcher. In the 8th or 9th the math would expand the number of potential bunting situations greatly.

I'd rather a manager be removed from the dugout when his team is at bat; less chance he'd screw up. The thing I care about is knowing how to handle a pitching staff. Beyond that, just be a in a trance for all I care. Maybe in the first 6 innings. It can be very helpful to have a manager make good decisions in the last 3 innings.

What the holy hell? I can't believe anyone involved in any of this thinks this is a good idea. Anyway also of note is that the Big East is supposedly going to invite Air Force and Boise State as football-only members and UCF, Houston and SMU as all-sports members, although I don't know how that's affected by this asinine merger. Wow how does that conference deserve a BCS automatic bid with those teams. Big East would be: Rutgers West Virginia Cincinnati Louisville South Florida Connecticut Air Force Boise State Central Florida SMU Which of those teams is going to be able to beat the Big Ten/Big 12/SEC/ACC champ in a bowl game? Hell, which one is going to sell even half their ticket allotment? That's better than the Big East has been since Miami, VT, and BC left.

The question about LaHair is-where did that power come from? That was always his failing as a prospect-he simply didn't hit for enough power as a first baseman to get a long look in the majors. So why suddenly 38 HR? Was it a swing change or was it just an unsustainable hot streak? What does get my attention is that some of the minor league experts have indicated that he's more than just a career minor leaguer, that he has a legit chance, and that scouts are telling them the same thing. That makes me wonder about him. And then his time in the majors showed that he does have some serious power in that frame, but that he also will swing and miss a lot. It's much more likely that he is nothing, but those things do give me pause and wonder if the Cubs should keep him on their bench just in case. He would have enough power and walks combined to probably not be an awful bench player, and then it's just the question if there's a spot for a player with limitations like he has.

Fair points, and those are the concerns. But if it works, he's worth 5 WAR every year. If it only kinda works, he's still probably going to be worth 2.5 (Randy Wells 09-10 range). If you don't think he can even replicate Wells, then sure, leave him alone. The problem becomes that it's much easier to find a starter that can put up a 2.5 WAR than a reliever. Marshall would almost have to put up 4-5 WAR as a starter to match what he does in the bullpen. There's a big roster spot and playing time adjustment to factor in. In a vacuum, Marshall as a decent starter is just as good or better to the Cubs than him as an elite reliever, but I don't think the reality matches that. That's especially true for a market like the Cubs where playing time is a more scarce resource than money.

the self-imposed sanctions are a tad harsh. if the infractions were any greater, IU might have had to force itself to buy the NCAA a coke. Apparently there were 3,041 reported secondary violations last year overall. Unfortunately, this one being committed with Harris is going to make it more of a story.

OK, awful is exaggerating it, but we have substantial money tied up in mediocre to OK players and have a good amount of guys who are overpaid and don't have bright prospects of getting better. Isn't Soriano the only guy signed past this coming season? Marmol is also signed through 2013 but that's it.

Campana's numbers are fascinating. They have him worth 1.5 WAR in part-time play. If he had been up the entire season he could have been a 2.5-3 win bench player. That's why I would be happy to see him on the bench next season. He's a guy who can generate lots of positive value because it's so obvious when to use him, and he's really amazing at the things he does well. I think they might be overrating him a tad (I could buy his range is the best in the league but his defensive numbers seem to be too absurdly good) but he is still one of the only guys in the league who can overcome his awful bat with defense/baserunning.

Friedman with triple the budget is basically Friedman with more room for error. I'm hoping the Rays ownership does something silly that makes him want to leave. It also means greater expectations. That impacts a general manager in a lot of ways: less chance of letting productive players go to get draft picks to build up a roster, less chance to play the kids and hope it works out. I agree with UMFan that a successful small market GM isn't always the greatest fit for a large market club. While managing a large market club is easier than a small market, they do take different skill sets. There is some overlap, but it requires a very different way of thinking when managing a large market club. You can't just take small market principles and apply some extra money and free agent signings on top.

And you're 200% wrong. So, because I think Ryno should be manager and you don't makes me a troll? Well done. No. Because you keep saying things like "He's paid his dues" and "It's called buying what the manager is selling." Not to mention citing his hall of fame career as a reason he is qualified to be a manager. So how do managers ever get their chance in your world? Minor league manager, former player? Not named Ryne Sandberg? It would help if they verbalized a good managerial philosophy. Sandberg has done the opposite which is a big reason many on the board don't want him. And what does Sandberg have that Quade didn't? Is the Hall of Fame career it? Do you think there is anything else Sandberg has that Quade doesn't?

Oh, I see. Players who have hall of fame careers, take bad minor league teams to the playoffs and have the backing of hall of famers such as Pat Gillick misunderstand the game because they bunt in the minors. How do you define a bad minor league team? Minor league teams are almost by definition different from year to year and many times from month to month as promotions and demotions change things.

Believe it. The Devil Rays traded their best player at the time, (Randy Winn) for Lou. Manny Sanguillen who was a very good catcher was traded to the A's for Chuck Tanner. I don't know that the Red Sox would ask for Castro or Garza, but I think it's worthy of being discussed. It sounds to me like most people would dislike it, that's fair enough. I'm not sure how I feel about it. Who would be a good player(s) to trade for Theo? There's nobody that's quite like Winn on the Cubs roster, but the closest comparison would be much closer to Sean Marshall than Castro or Garza. Winn was a guy who struggled on the minor and major league level until he had a big year the year before he was traded at age 28. He also was about to start getting more expensive. There was no expectation that he was any kind of great player.

Zambrano's probably going to be worth 10 million or less to the Cubs next year (potentially much less) and would be worth even less to an AL club. Then add in the potential PR headache. There's no reason for a team to touch him if they either have to give up anything significant or if they have to pay more than 1/3 of his salary. There are too many other pitching options that can produce like Z can at this point in his career that are less risky. If they get a bargain because of the risk and only have to pay him 3-5 million, that's one thing. But IMO, no team is going to want to pay Z 10 million dollars, and I don't think he'd get close to that if he was on the free agent market.

Until 3 of OU, Okie Lite, Bama, and LSU lose, then yes its too early to say that. Yeah, the problem for Wisconsin is that their schedule is likely going to be the weakest of all the national championship contenders. They had a very poor non-conference schedule, the Big 10 is not great this year, and missing both Michigan and Iowa will hurt them as well. It's quite possible that some 1 loss teams will end up being ahead of them in the computers.

It wouldn't have been fair to Auburn either to put the time back on the clock though. If South Carolina had the time initially, they would have only had time for a desperation Hail Mary because the clock would have started running before the field goal team would ever get on the field. If the officials had put time back on the clock, South Carolina gets to kick a field goal. And it's a little different from the Texas-Nebraska game. In that game, the clock had to stop right when the ball hits out of bounds and then didn't restart until the start of the next snap. In this game, the clock stops when the officials signal it's a first down after the player is down and the clock starts on the ready for play. Putting time back on may or may not have been the most accurate thing to do (SC probably deserved time but it depended on when the official made the signal to stop the clock for the first down). But to put time on would have penalized Auburn more than not putting time on penalized South Carolina so not putting time on probably was the most fair thing to do.

With 5 games left, the Rays were 2.5 games behind the Red Sox. But if there had been a second wild card, the Angels would have only been 1 game behind the Rays. On the National League side, Atlanta was up 3 games on St. Louis with 5 to play. If there had been a second wild card, St. Louis was only up 2 on the Giants. At that point, it looked like 2 wildcards would have ended up causing closer races. Now it turned out this season that in the final 5 days both Boston and Atlanta choked and let the teams right behind them catch up. So yes, the final day or two would have been devalued (although those teams would have still been fighting for who gets to be the home team in the play in game). You can't really predict how many playoff teams will cause a race to go down to the final day. Sometimes 1 wildcard will cause things to go to the last day and sometimes it will be 2. But the more teams you let in, the more chance there is for races in the final 2-3 weeks. More often then not it's going to cause more drama not less.

Ricketts of course has the authority to fire Quade, but he's not the manager's direct boss like he is for the GM. I don't think Ricketts wants the image of being meddling unless he has a very good reason to do so.