CubColtPacer

I think you're reaching a bit here. Back when Lou was considering moving him from leadoff, he was pretty clear about he would hit anywhere in the lineup, but he didn't want to be juggled around. And the language barrier was still a factor. It was quite different than this: He's obviously more upset with the fact that he's batting lower in the order than the fact that he's moving around from 6th to 7th. As someone mentioned above, this looks like an athlete on the decline who hasn't accepted it. Doesn't make Soriano a bad person, and I'm sure he works just as hard no matter where he hits, but he's going to have to accept he's on the downside of his career at some point. And comparing this to Castro is a bit of a stretch too. Castro is a young player who clearly presses when he's hitting third, considering how damn good he is hitting #1 and #2. Soriano is equally bad no matter where he hits (which is basically #6 or #7 anyways, and is probably based mostly on matchups). I don't doubt he doesn't want to hit lower in the lineup, but it's my opinion that the lineup juggling is the bigger issue. When he was dropped to 6 he didn't complain, and I'd bet that if he had been dropped to 7 and left there for the most part we wouldn't have heard this, either. And no, he hasn't been "equally bad" across the 5-7 spots. And no, I don't think it's a stretch to think that almost any player, regardless of ability or skillset, is going to struggle in at least one spot if they're being bounced across at least 3 spots in the lineups for significant PA thanks to their managers crappy ability to construct a lineup. Do you know that no team in MLB has started any person in either the 6 or the 7 spot for at least 80 games? That's only half the season! The thought that anybody who is in one of those two spots can expect to stay there for most of the season is a myth. Soriano's 58 games in the 7 spot is actually pretty stable compared to most of MLB.

Pomeroy just tweeted something saying you have less than 50 percent chance of winning if you elect to tie a football game with 2 minutes left, so you may not be. Your chances are even lower if you are down by 1 and the other team has the ball though. Exactly. The Colts are in a bad situation either way, but this way at least if the Steelers had a penalty or one bad play they might go conservative and play for OT. Going for 2 and hoping you get it (and obviously the Colts offense is not working on all cylinders) and then letting Roethlisberger have plenty of motivation and 4 downs to work with is a recipe for disaster. The Colts are only 40% at best to make the 2 point conversion, and they're going to lose 50-70% of the time they make the 2 point conversion. Those are really bad odds.

Nah, giving Roethlisberger four downs to work with only needing a field goal in this situation would have been very bad. And that's if the Colts make the two. I'd much rather play for a last second drive or OT if they somehow stop the Steelers here.

Of course Painter does what he does best. I don't know anymore if the rest of the Colts team is just this bad or if they are just getting some of the worst QB play in the league.

Yup. It's especially good because that Super Bowl has to be one of the least remembered, and of course everybody associates the Raiders with futility. The Colts offense longest drive has been 49 yards and they have a chance to win this game somehow.

Ravens?? Nope.

Watching this game, it feels like the Patriots will need to be the ones to do it if the 8 year run of the Patriots, Steelers, or Colts making the Super Bowl is to continue. It's a great trivia question to ask people who has last represented the AFC besides one of those three teams. And considering the Colts need a score, might as well go with Painter. He very well might turn it over, but Collins hasn't moved the ball whatsoever during the last 3 games. It's unacceptable with the Colts receiving talent to throw 29 passes for less than 100 yards (and he was basically the same last week before garbage time).

agreed...took away the biggest advantage the bears had on most of the league. It's also helped the Bears coverage unit which has been one of the worst in the league the last few years. In fact, the differential between what the Bears average on kickoff returns and what they give up is the best this year so far that it has been in years.

Such is the life of a 6/7 hitter though. A team cannot afford to keep a guy like that in one spot all year long. If Soriano is a 7th hitter normally, he needs to move up to 5th or 6th when injuries/days off (especially for somebody like Soto) happen. And to have one of the middle of the order hitters out happens a lot during the season. It would be nice if he could stay in one spot all year long, but it isn't very realistic. The main way you can keep everybody in their preferred lineup order is to drop in the replacement in the same spot in the batting order as the regular, and that isn't a great tactic either.

I remember the Mulholland error, but it wasn't game 162. Actually, I can't find it being anywhere down the stretch, which is strange. August 15th was that game.

The Mulholland play was not on the final day of the season. That game was in August of that year. Mulholland did start the final game of the year and gave up the 2 runs to tie the game but it wasn't on an error. Beck gave up the winning run in the 11th in his 3rd inning of work.

Aramis has to be a pretty good bet to miss at least 30-40 games. He's done it 4 out of the last 7 years. And how are they going to fit all those upgrades within the payroll? After Aramis and Fielder, the payroll is pretty much gone. I'd be open to signing him to a very team friendly deal but that necessitates declining his option first. To me, I don't see how the Cubs can compete with accepting Aramis's option. They just have too little payroll to work with after that to get the upgrades they need. I'd decline his option, float a 2/20 deal his way (8 the first year (which includes the buyout), 12 the second) and live with it when he inevitably declines it. And if the Cubs are very unlikely to compete with Aramis, then why keep him around when they could be using that money on players who will help them for longer and who are very likely to be just as valuable as Aramis is?

You don't have to fight to keep a guy under contract that is hard to trade. You tell your owner you gave it the old college try but did not feel comfortable with any offers and would feel more comfortable to try and make it work with him than dump him. The Cubs already suck and will have a tough time to be good next year. Letting Ramirez walk and paying Zambrano to go away is just going to make it harder to conted next season. I'm just saying it's not worth it for a GM to get blasted in the press about a new GM and the same lack of accountability on the Cubs (which is a running theme with a decent part of the fanbase already) to protect a guy who's likely to put up between a 4.2 and 4.8 ERA for the Cubs next year. Yes, the Cubs would likely be better with Z there than with trading him. But the difference is pretty marginal and it's hard to imagine that a GM would want to risk a small part of his job security to gain that small difference.

wasn't it hendry that said that? i'm hoping that with both hendry and quade done, we at least give him the chance to come back and create a little more leverage for a trade. Ricketts has all but ruled out any chance of keeping Zambrano. i really hope ricketts isn't planning on running the team. I can't see a new GM sticking out his neck to keep Zambrano. There's so little upside for a guy who had his worst strikeout rate, worst K/BB rate, worst HR rate, second worst LD percentage, and worst swinging strike percentage of his career this year. And with his history, it could very well be arm related damage and not just an off year. If there was potential for Z to be still be great, then maybe he thinks about it. But when you're hoping for acceptable and could take a big PR hit in year 1 if it doesn't work, then there just isn't a big reason for a GM to fight to keep him.

Also they signed DeRosa that year which was the best of all the second base options. It was a horrible strategy to spend that much money in that manner, but the Cubs did a really good job of scouting the FA market that year. And a contract like Daisuke looks even worse when you consider that the Red Sox paid 51 million dollars as a posting fee in addition to his contract.

I think the decline Ramirez's option camp is working off a few premises: The Cubs want to get either Pujols or Fielder The Cubs need to upgrade their starting pitching in some way in order to compete in 2012. Ramirez will want a multi-year deal after 2012 that the Cubs will not (should not) want to pay so basically his last year in a Cubs uniform if they choose the club option will be 2012. Does anyone dispute any one of these premises?

It really isn't that smart to bench Soriano and Byrd too often either. Those are guys that the Cubs are counting on next year as well and getting them upset isn't the right way to do that. Soriano has had 4 days off already in Septmber and Byrd has had 3. That's a lot for them. Colvin's in a tough spot. His at-bats against right-handers have been taken by LaHair, and it doesn't do him much good to play mostly against left-handers. Add to that he hasn't really proven that he deserves more at-bats (he had time in AAA to prove that and failed) and it's just been hard to get him in there.

This is all correct except the Rams-Ravens will be on CBS. Thanks for the correction.. I accidentally switched CBS and FOX in the last sentence. Bears/Packers on Fox, Rams/Ravens on CBS for the secondary market.

I think Butters will get it in Columbia, but we'll be blacked out in St. Louis, since it's a home game. Can they do that? It's the Fox national broadcast. If so, that BS. Yup. Under NFL rules, the Bears-Packers game should be blacked out in St. Louis this weekend. They'll show games on FOX and CBS at noon and then show the St. Louis game at 3. In the secondary market for the St. Louis game, IIRC they'll show Fox games at noon and 3 (the 3 oclock one almost certainly will be Bears/Packers) and then on CBS show no game at noon and the St. Louis game at 3.

I think there could be more of a case made for Beane over Friedman if they were just in different parts of the life cycle. If Beane had been rebuilding the farm system over the last few years and Tampa Bay was in the period where they have major league success and a declining farm system, then it could be argued that they are just both small market franchises at different points. But TB has a much better major league team and a much better farm system. TB has managed to have a very good major league team and still have a ton of extra draft picks. Beane however has traded away some great major league talent while it was still cheap. And who knows what type of players Beane actually values? He valued OBP when it was undervalued. Now he values speed and defense because it is undervalued. What types of players will he try to acquire when he has money?

The point I've been making this entire thread is that we should let Aramis walk to (hopefully) free up the money to sign Wilson and one of Pujols/Fielder. Wilson is a better short and long term investment than Aramis at this point. And that isn't a very smart point to try and make. Your solutions to fill the position are garbage. My solutions are salary-based - you shoot a little higher if Ricketts bumps payroll up at all. If it stays as is, then you make do with what you have. Baker is extremely productive against lefties and as long as Flaherty/LeMaheieu is decent, we'll have above average offense at third. Why do you think an aging, injury prone 33 year old slugger is a better 3 year investment than a 31 year old elite pitcher who only has 2 years of ML starting experience under his belt for 4-5 years? Your 3B production would blow. You are talking about guys who might have a chance to be backup middle infielders. Flaherty has a good chance to be better than a backup middle infielder but handing him the job right now would be incredibly risky IMO. Keeping Ramirez isn't a great option either. He's barely been worth his contract this year even with his hitting and being more healthy than he's been just about every year. He has considerable downside risk. You're basically hoping he has a year like this year and is just worth his contract, but he very well could decline or get hurt. The Cubs should consider the club option, but signing him to anything beyond that is asking for trouble unless they sign him to a ridiculously team friendly deal.

So...convenience is a problem? He doesn't want their recruiting limited to competing for midwestern kids. I don't see how having a schedule like this: Michigan, Michigan State, Nebraska, Iowa, Northwestern, Minnesota, Purdue, Penn State, USC, Navy, and two rotating games is going to be any worse for recruiting then a schedule of Wake Forest, Maryland, Boston College, Clemson, Florida State, NC State, Pittsburgh, Georgia Tech, USC, Navy, and two rotating games. I'd prefer ND goes to the Big 10, then the ACC, then the Pac 12, then the SEC. I like the rivalry possibilities better in the Big 10 and I think the non-conference schedule is easier to complete than if they were in the ACC.

I hope so. He's the better QB from what I've seen. Rees is a turnover machine.

ROFL...I'd really like to see this. Fun fact: Pulaski Academy is an 5 minute drive from my house. Okay, so it wasn't all that fun. But yeah, this coach is definitely has a unique outlook on football. I definitely think there's merit to his position on punting at the high school level, but as the average talent and execution level increases, I feel it would become less effective. From what I remember from what the statistics say, in college and the pros that you should almost never punt on 4th and short (3 or less) from anywhere on the field, although I've only seen a few coaches ever do it deep in their own territory (Bill Belichick being the most famous one). As you start to cross midfield the amount of yardage starts to go way up from when you shouldn't punt, and you should almost never punt from any down and distance inside the opponent's 40. Of course the rules are predicated on average offenses-the better either your offense is or your opponent's offense is the more often you should go for it, and the worse either one is the more often you should punt.

The season isn't over. Next game is tomorrow night. And I doubt the Cubs put Clevenger on the 40 man roster this late into September. Dolis might come up but they might decide it's just not worth the hassle (by the time he could get to Chicago they would have less than 10 games left).