CubColtPacer

Because it's unnecessary. Further risks the health of teams' best players. Diminishes the overall talent of the league as 18 games means more roster spots on the gameday rosters and the practice squads (due to teams being more hesitant to IR a player with more weeks to get them back). I understand the arguments against it, but do any of them stack up against that there will be 2 more weeks of football? I guess if somebody cared a ton about the playoffs and much less about the regular season than an 18 game season would be a bad idea. For me, having 2 more Sundays worth of football is wonderful. And I don't think the talent level will drop that much. There will be more players injured but there will be more time for star players to come back from injuries as well without getting IR'd (especially if there are more roster spots). I understand 2 more weeks of footbal is great, but technically there's not because they are taking away 2 preseason games too. Not that preseason football is any good. Plus, I think you have more of a chance for more meaningless games. If a team like the Colts, Pats, or Saints goes 14-0 to start the year again, they'll have 4-6 meaningless games instead of 2-3. Same is true for bad teams. I just don't think it's necessary to have 2 more games and I love football. The length of preseason football is a net negative for me so removing games is an extra bonus! Yes, there could be a few more meaningless games. But very few teams ever go undefeated for that long and it would be unlikely for a team to clinch HFA before they hit 15-0. I bet it would be very, very rare for a team to have more than 2 meaningless games in a season. And with divisional games being put at the end of the season this will be even more true. Plus teams will have slim hopes of the playoffs longer and won't pack it in just because they started 2-6.

Because it's unnecessary. Further risks the health of teams' best players. Diminishes the overall talent of the league as 18 games means more roster spots on the gameday rosters and the practice squads (due to teams being more hesitant to IR a player with more weeks to get them back). I understand the arguments against it, but do any of them stack up against that there will be 2 more weeks of football? I guess if somebody cared a ton about the playoffs and much less about the regular season than an 18 game season would be a bad idea. For me, having 2 more Sundays worth of football is wonderful. And I don't think the talent level will drop that much. There will be more players injured but there will be more time for star players to come back from injuries as well without getting IR'd (especially if there are more roster spots).

You already think he is a douche so I don't think it really matters if he had them fouling or not. :P I thought Indiana actually gave it a really good effort tonight but Jordan Taylor was just insane and unstoppable. There really wasn't any answer for that. Yeah, Taylor was hitting circus shots tonight. Agreed. I thought Indiana played well on both ends tonight. I was actually surprised at how well they were able to guard Wisconsin. Taylor just hit contested shot after contested shot.

It's very hard to give a concrete figure because of signing bonuses, deferred money, etc. that we don't know how the Cubs do the accounting for. But here's a partial list: 13.5-14.5 for Kosukue 12.6 for Aramis (if the club option is declined and after buyout is paid) 4.8 million for Grabow 4 million for Silva (after buyout is paid) 5-10 million for Pena (depending on if the 5 million deferred is counted for next year or not) 3 million for Samardzija (with Cubs declining option) and maybe 13.5 million for Dempster (if he declines player option) Of course, some of that money is eaten up by arbitration raises. Ricketts is trying to transition this team that builds through its farm system and makes key free agency acquisitions to complement that. I believe Pujols actually helps that philosophy in multiple ways and I can't see Ricketts blocking it if it came to that.

I don't think BABIP tells anywhere near the whole story for the change in this. First, his LD percentage was 18.0% in 08 but in 2010 it was only 14.5%. Second, his GB percentage went way up in 2010. It GB/FB ratio was 0.63 in 08 and 0.54 in 09 but in 2010 it was 1.11. If Pena hits that many ground balls with that small of a LD percentage he's almost certainly going to have a bad BABIP because it's very easy to play him to pull grounders to the right side. Now why he had such a small LD percentage and high GB percentage is a different story. It almost certainly could be related to the injuries and rebound this year. If it does, he'll be a very productive hitter once again.

Nope. I'd highly suggest you go download Microsoft Security Essentials and get your machine scanned. I have Norton 360 and I run scans often. puter seems to be running fine w/out any issues since this happened. Would you still recommend downloading MSE? Only if you would be wanting to download MSE anyway. The site was down for people for different lengths of time last week. During that time, there was a domain expired site that brought popups up every time you tried to access the site. So once you came back, the site was back up for you and therefore the site with the popups was gone. That's what I'm guessing was what happened to you and you probably don't have any damage on your computer from it.

It sounds like Memphis pulled out. Good thing too-that deal with have been a minor loss for the Pacers and a major loss for the Grizzlies.

I really like this trade for the Pacers I don't know what to think of this deal. Didn't Mayo punch a teammate on a plane and get busted for roids? And he's shooting 41% on the season? Someone inform me please. I admittedly haven't seen Mayo play much but I don't quite get this deal either. It feels like an overreaction to having Dunleavy break his thumb the other night. The Pacers already have Granger, Rush, George, and Jones at the wings. They have a somewhat small offensive first point guard. Why get a shooting guard that is also somewhat small and offensive oriented? And who are they going to play at power forward other than Hansbrough? On a talent level I get this deal. Mayo has more upside than the first round pick the Pacers were likely to get. I just don't see how he fits the team at all.

Yes, he should be shot for not taking this team of 5-star recruits to the Final 4 by now. Who said anything about a final 4? He should be winning more than 1 out of 6 Big Ten games, protecting the home court better, and beating Iowa or Northwestern at least once in year 3, however. Well, the 1-17 in year 1 had to be completely expected. That team had several decent players surrounded by walkons who were playing a ton of minutes. Year two was an injury to Creek and still not enough talent. Still an improvement to 4 Big 10 wins was reasonable. Year 3 has been the only disappointing one. It was mostly caused by whiffing on a true big man back in the 09 class, mostly whiffing on the 2010 class (although I like Sheehey and Oladipo as role/energy players), Creek's injury, and the fact that the Big 10 is really deep this year. So they've maybe underperformed in the Big 10 over those 3 years, but maybe to the tune of 5 wins combined. Really the only major thing that has been done wrong is that guys like Pritchard and Bawa were never developed properly. Elston doesn't have the size and Capiobanco has no skills to develop with.

With a legitimate post player, I think IU could be a much better team. I've been impressed with Oladipo and Sheehey, and Watford/Jones/Hulls/Creek are all solid players. Adding Zeller to the mix could make them a tourney team next year IMO. No. If Creek was completely healthy I think there would be a chance. But I have serious doubts about Creek contributing at all next year so I think IU should be very happy with an NIT berth next year with the huge jump coming the year after. They just won't have quite enough depth next year at any position. Next year they'll still be missing 1 more good guard and 1 more good post player that they would need to really be good.

Good catch on Ohio State. They will end up having the easiest 1 day rest of all 4 (coming home from an afternoon game to play a night game). As far as I can tell the IU-Wisconsin game time and date was also not set until late. So it wasn't moved but there was potential earlier in the season for that game to be on Wednesday instead.

It is an awfully quick turnaround. Only 3 Big 10 teams will have to play on 1 day rest at any point during the Big 10 season (Iowa, Indiana, Northwestern). The other 2 had games that started at 4:30 and 7:00. But my guide shows only 1 mens game being shown on the Big 10 network that day. If all the other Big 10 games are on CBS/ESPN/ESPN2 and if the Big 10 network was contractually obligated to show a game at noon then it's not their fault that the IU/UI game wasn't attractive enough to the other networks. If they had the freedom to move it, they should have moved it to 2 or 2:30 (to not interfere with the women's games that are on that evening). Really, the Big 10 shouldn't have planned a 1 day rest time when all the start times were left TBD anyway. There is a school of thought though that it's unprofessional for a coach to publicly complain about anything no matter how legitimate and Crean is definitely on shaky ground in regards to his professionalism.

If Vitters isn't ready after this season and Ramirez performs well in 2011, instead of taking a chance on Smith for a season, why not pick up the option on Rammy? With all the other money coming off the books next season and the level to which Ramirez performs when healthy, I think the Cubs could afford it and it would likely be worth it, especially if Ramirez plays more than 130 games. For 6 consecutive seasons prior to last year, he posted an OPS of .898 or higher. Setting the money aside for a moment, ask yourself if the Cubs could find a replacement at 3B who could put up that kind of production? If it were possible to have Ramirez on the team in 2012 and still sign Pujols, I would want to do it. Fukudome 13.5 million Silva 9.5 million (11.5 million - 2 million buyout) Pena 10.0 million Grabow 4.8 million Samardzija 2.0 million Total 39.3 million The nice part about the players above is that their replacements are already on the team or in the system, meaning they're all expendable and they won't cost anything to replace. Sign Pujols for 30 mill and use the 9.3 million for raises, and keep Ramirez. C Soto 1B Pujols 2B ? SS Castro 3B Ramirez LF Soriano CF Jackson RF Colvin SP Garza SP Dempster SP Zambrano SP Cashner SP Wells RP Marmol RP Wood RP Marshall ? ? ? That's not a bad team. The Cubs are only paying 6 million for Silva this year with Seattle paying the other 5.5 so that takes some money out of the equation. But I would agree that they would at least consider keeping Ramirez even if it meant raising the payroll a little bit (or maybe trading Byrd who you don't have in your lineup).

Yeah, I don't remember anyone throwing 60+ pitches on that little rest after a normal start (obviously if a pitcher gets knocked out in the first 2 innings or gets thrown out early they might come back on very short rest). The closest example I can remember is Beckett throwing 4 innings and 45 pitches in game 7 in the NLCS on only 2 days rest coming off a complete game 115 pitch game. I'm sure there's another example or two out there but it's rather rare because most managers are so much more careful with their pitchers in the last 10 years.

The Colts released Bob Sanders today.

Remember that the last time it wasn't just a hometown discount though. It also gave Pujols long-term security. Plus he was still three years from free agency when he signed his last deal. It's also interesting to note that the Cardinals deferred money to sign Pujols to his last deal. They already are paying him until 2029.

Coello could be interesting. He's only pitched for 4 years so it's not surprising he still has some control issues (he was a catcher before that). He also looks to have all 3 options remaining. Here's a scouting report: http://www.soxprospects.com/players/coello-robert.htm

If the Cardinals are not willing to increase payroll, they're in a very difficult position. Obviously they need Pujols really badly. But at the same time, signing him to a 30 million a year deal means they between him and Holliday they only have 50-55 million left for the other 23 players. Next year they would have 3/4 of their payroll tied up in 5 players (and that involves them dumping both Carpenter and Molina). They haven't shown enough of a commitment to their system to support that kind of philosophy. If Pujols were coming from another team, there is no way that the Cardinals could even think about signing him to that big of a deal. With the effect on the fanbase of him leaving, it becomes much more complicated.

I love long extra inning games and all the roster decisions that come with it. In fact, I'll turn on a random game that I wasn't interested in before if I see that the game is in the 13th-15th inning. I also hate ties so IMO this suggestion would be horrible. And I think most fans would agree with me when comparing two All-Star games. The 14 inning game a couple years ago was considered one of the best ever. Meanwhile, the tie in the 2002 All-Star game was met with outrage.

Hamilton was 25 at the time. He was a #1 pick who had barely played in several years. He was just a random name that had promise a long time ago. Matt Bush has the same profile now and nobody's beating down the door of TB to get him.

The cubs wouldn't have drafted Hamilton due to character concerns. The hamilton trade was the offseason of the bad guy purge. No, it wasn't. The Hamilton trade was the Cubs spending splurge offseason. The main guy they got rid of that offseason was Pierre and that certainly wasn't because of character concerns.

It depends on which Pena shows up. 1B for the Cubs was a black hole last year to the tune of a .254/325/.397. If Pena 2010 shows up, him and his backups will probably be around the same. If the Pena of several of the years before that show up that position will be a whole lot better. Even if he's in between and puts up a .790 OPS the Cubs can probably get a .775 OPS overall out of first base. Over a 50 point upgrade is certainly meaningful.

Ugh. To defend that comment a little bit, I think she's probably talking about all the questions about trying out Soto at 1st or 2nd in the lineup. Is it still poor philosophy? Sure. But I don't think that she ever meant by her comment that Soto should stay at the bottom of the order.

I don't see how that offense is slightly below average. Last year's team was a little below average offensively and you have two major upgrades (Pena over Lee and Ramirez being a ton better). Then you have Castro being better and DeWitt being the same which is an upgrade over what Theriot gave the Cubs last year. To counter that, you only have 1 position getting worse. If all that goes true, the Cubs are probably a top 5 offense.

Too valuable in the pen, too many question marks about being able to start a full season, lots of decent starting options for 1 spot. I feel bad for him, but transitioning him to the rotation would be a major mistake at this point. Even if I knew he was going to be successful (4.00 ERA, 180 innings for example) I'm not sure I would do it because it blocks the young pitching even further (especially someone like Cashner) and hurts the bullpen so much.