CubColtPacer

Because Caldwell has no idea how to work the clock. That's the second loss this season he's contributed to with a bad timeout call. Oh well. The Colts were probably going to struggle considerably against Pittsburgh anyway. The problems the backups were having were showing up all over the field tonight. Still an interesting season.

Which is funny because the Colts lost their 4th string safety in the first half and their 5th and 6th string safeties are both out as well so they're stuck with a guy who has only been with the team around 2 weeks. Sanchez should be able to destroy him but he hasn't yet.

Getting Greinke probably would have required a few tweaks to increase the quality, but nothing so substantial as to completely overhaul the deal. What pisses me off is that I think this is also the kind of package that could have netted Adrian Gonzalez. Maybe the Padres wanted the Red Sox prospects, I don't know. But, when you compare that package to what the Cubs gave up, again, I think a minor change or two to the Cubs' prospects to increase the overall quality would have been comparable to what the Red Sox traded for Gonzalez. Also, why do people think the NL Central will be weak this year? As far as I can tell, the Reds, Cardinals, and Brewers will all roughly be the same as or better than last year, while the Pirates (yeah, yeah) should start seeing dividends from bolstering their farm system. I get the feeling that this will be a difficult division to win, even with a good team. Some of the reports of the time were exactly that. The Cubs made a strong offer but the Padres were familiar with the Red Sox prospects and so that was a more comfortable deal for them to make. TT brings up the greatest point IMO. The prospects that were traded all have inflated values right now (at least according to rankings like BA-I have no idea how GM's value these guys). If I had to bet on if each of their indiviual rankings to go up or down next year, I'd bet on all 4 of them going down. That would have been especially true in the Cubs system. Chirinos has nothing left to prove in the minors but is a huge question mark for the majors. So another year in the minors would have just left him older and make him lose value. Guyer broke out last year and while I like him seems like a classic guy that will fall back to the pack a little bit next year. Archer's issues with control will become a bigger question mark as he needs to be major league ready soon. And Lee's value can only go up from here if he develops some power quickly. I'm not down on all the Cubs prospects but these prospects especially were projected to have higher bets of hitting their ceiling than I believe they really have. And if all of them have inflated values, their trade values being too high for this deal only applies to this offseason. By next offseason, this package of players almost certainly won't be able to get somebody better than Garza.

Tom Coughlin and Steve Marrucci haven't done too badly. The jury is still out on what Carroll is doing in Seattle. Overall though, it hasn't been the greatest of ideas. Harbaugh would seem to be ideally suited to beat that though between his playing experience, his NFL coaching experience, the fact that he hasn't been coaching in college so long that he's married to what works in college, and the fact that his brother already coaches an NFL team.

I figured the Cubs might have been waiting for a bench signing until they cleared 40 man space. Kotsay would be a terrible option for the bench though.

They've got a better, younger, cheaper guy to replace him with in Hellickson? Even more reason why they would be motivated to get less in return for Garza. Not only did the Rays need to move Garza because of his salary doubling, but they already had his replacement waiting in the wings. I think Hendry got played. It wasn't a salary dump because of the competition. The Cubs had to outbid 3 other teams for Garza. Even if Tampa would have been willing to give a discount if there was no other interest, the competition quickly drove Garza's price right back to its true value.

my god, you're being so annoyingly contrarian at this point it couldn't have made the kick any worse. Crosby kicks the ball, it goes right towards the upright, odds are like 48% it goes left, 48% it sneaks in, and like 4% or something it just clanks off the post I.E. COIN FLIP A.K.A. LUCK, HOW MUCH CLEARER CAN I MAKE THIS You're acting as though the kicker has no impact. Of course the kicker has an impact. All they're saying is that if Crosby kicks that kick the exact same way the next time, almost 50 percent of the time that kick is going in. There will be absolutely no change in talent/execution and yet sometimes there will be a different result. Obviously the team tries to be good enough to leave themselves out of such coin flips. If the Packers were 16-0 or 15-1 good, then they wouldn't have left themselves in 6-8 games where the bounce of the ball made a difference. But they aren't that good. But they probably are better than 10-6 and had some bad bounces of the ball that cost them games.

So you're saying Silva is a lock to the rotation, or the team really loves Cashner as a starter? Or both? If Gorzelanny was traded then I would guess that Silva would get the last spot although Cashner would have a strong chance at it. If he didn't then I'm not sure which of Silva/Gorzelanny would get that spot and Cashner probably would only have a token chance.

Randy Wells. And I'm not sure Gozelanny is a lock to still be on the team as of March.

I'm pretty sure he made Tampa's top 30 list last year. He's probably our 4th OFer, with our current roster. Perez has had some major injuries in his career. I am trying to find out how many options he has left. At best he would be the 5th OF behind Soriano/Byrd/Fukudome/Colvin.

Definitely agreed on that. The Cubs are likely getting back a low minors live arm and somebody like Fuld who is not on a 40 man roster yet. I don't hate the deal but I'm not a fan of it either. The Cubs did manage to give up players who didn't have much of a future with them. Guyer and Chirinos were both blocked. Lee's value took a hit with Castro being there. Archer was a prime candidate to be switched to a reliever when he made the big league club (even if that wasn't necessarily the smartest move at the time). And getting rid of Fuld for any value is good at this point with his options situation. And of course since the Cubs traded them it's likely there's something wrong with at least 1-2 of these prospects that we don't know about yet. The Cubs did also clear 40 man space. So while they gave up a lot in talent they simply weren't worth as much to the Cubs. The key is going to be Garza and if he takes the next step in the NL. If he can bump that strikeout rate a little bit up and be a 200 inning pitcher he'll be a valuable asset to have. It does make me wonder if the Cubs took the prospects they were trying to get rid of in the Gonzalez trade and shifted them to Garza because they knew the values of most of the players in this deal were likely to go down next year.

We still have Wellington Castillo ready to come to the majors. You guys realize that we platooned Koyie Hill with Geo Soto right? No way is Wellington Castillo gonna stay in Koyie's way. First, that was a different manager. Second, the Cubs liked Castillo better than Chirinos so if they weren't going to dump Hill for Castillo they weren't going to do it for Chirinos.

That feels like a lot. It does, but if you're going to deal 4 guys from different ranges of the Top 20, that's not a bad list to give up. Agreed. Guyer is talented but I'm not sure the Cubs would ever give him a serious look in the OF with Soriano locked in for the next 4 years and both Jackson and Colvin ahead of him. Chirinos is just a backup for the Cubs because of Soto. Lee's future value to the team is hurt a lot by Castro being at SS. And Carpenter is just another high risk medium upside type of pitcher. This would be an example of both teams winning. Tampa gets a lot of talent but the Cubs get a player who fits better on their roster and they also trade a couple risky players while their trade value may be at its highest.

Is Gordon Wittenmeyer calling Zambrano our 3rd best starter (presuming the Garza trade)? While I wouldn't agree with it, doesn't seem that egregious. Agreed. Calling Z the ace or the 3rd starter could both be supported. Those three pitchers are so close that they really could be in any order. Wells shouldn't be thrown in with the group though. He should be the clear 4 in that scenario with the others battling out for 5.

Technically, the Bears have the hardest schedule in the division. It's just that the other three teams have to play the Bears twice which makes their records inflated. And the Bears first place teams they have to play (Philadelphia and Seattle) didn't beat up on their divisions so their records aren't that much better than the teams the other teams in the division have to play.

This is a deal IMO the Rockies didn't need to make. Gonzalez still had 4 years to go until free agency. To sign him to a big discount is one thing but this isn't a big discount contract unless he continues to be an MVP level player. They're probably saving 20 million at most with this deal and they could be giving back a lot more than that. Plus it puts him on the market again at 32 which is always a tricky time for a big player to hit the market because he will likely still be productive and yet be overpaid in his next deal.

I believe the rule was changed 2 years ago when the Chargers went 8-8. They got to host the 12-4 Colts in a playoff game and after they beat them they got to pick 11 spots ahead of them in the draft. They also got to pick ahead of teams who missed the playoffs and that was considered an unfair advantage. I don't think that is right. The Giants and Ravens picked 30 and 31 (only 31 teams at that time) in 2001 after playing in the Superbowl. Or did that just affect SB teams at that time? Yes, the rule used to be that the SB teams were the last two picks and everybody else was seeded by record. Now that rule extends to every round of the playoffs.

I believe the rule was changed 2 years ago when the Chargers went 8-8. They got to host the 12-4 Colts in a playoff game and after they beat them they got to pick 11 spots ahead of them in the draft. They also got to pick ahead of teams who missed the playoffs and that was considered an unfair advantage.

If that's true, then NBC picked an AFC game first for some reason. That's odd. Maybe they were thinking NY market and one of the most marketable stars in the league was worth accepting the NFC West game. Of course that game probably won't be competitive, but it does involve last year's champs and an exciting team to watch, and possibly against a young upcoming star in Bradford. Not the route I would have gone though. The NFC West game might get some ratings on NBC just because it would be the first game of the playoffs. There's no playoff fatigue factor and with the popular Saints in the game it might not bomb as badly as it would have in another time slot. The Colts-Jets game got very big ratings last year so maybe NBC is trying to replicate that. Still a little surprised they wouldn't try to put Vick in that game though since he could still be a huge playoff story.

Think of a little better Colvin out there. Can play center if needed but is primarily a corner outfielder with pretty good range and a pretty good arm out there.

It was almost certainly going to be Philadelphia or Indianapolis (if they make it) hosting that game. They weren't going to give that slot to Kansas City or the St. Louis/Seattle winner. The other three slots are harder to predict.

I think you are talking about two different things, the NFL's motives and Disney's motives. I think Disney wanted to keep MNF. Also, NBC wanted back in. So instead of trying to outbid NBC for both, they kept their favorite and moved it to their sports specialists and kept it a premier product. I don't think ESPN's leverage increased though by getting MNF. In the process, they lost SNF. And now that flex scheduling is in play, the matchups for MNF are often even worse than the old SNF matchups used to be.

I don't know that what you linked really justifies the move to cable though. I mean, it's doing great...for cable. But you could still make the argument that it would do better on network tv. I'm having trouble finding much in the way of ABC MNF ratings info other than record highs and record lows though. Yeah, but the complaint was cable ratings would be terrible. Meanwhile, since that decision was made cable TV has blown networks out of the water in terms of performance, if not overall ratings. It was exactly the right time to make the move. Cable is a much more viable place for quality/profitable programming than its reputation was when they switched. Gotcha. Yeah, I agree cable was the right move. Though I wonder if ABC ever wishes they still had it...Monday night is not a strong night for them. Disney made a concerted effort to move away from ABC sports and toward ESPN sports. Don't they call their ABC college lineup something like ESPN College Football? ESPN was already a cable must, but after MNF I think their leverage to demand more from providers increased. Do you really think MNF was that much more valuable of a property than SNF by the time ESPN got it? That's the part I didn't understand about the controversy about moving it. You still have 1 primetime game on cable and 1 on a network just like it used to be. That's especially true since the NFL quickly made SNF the marquee attraction after the switch. It was a good change to switch it though because having the premier games be scheduled for Sunday night is IMO a better solution.

This. But I'm sure we'll blow one of the final two games and McCarthy will stay. It seems to me that McCarthy really has a built in excuse with all the injuries. I think I heard Hub Arkush say you guys had 6 starters on IR, and 3 of the backups that filled those spots are on IR? And that's not even including Aaron Rodgers missing the Pats game. Something like that....that's nuts. Meanwhile the Bears starters have missed a total of 3 games due to injury. Tinoisamoa has missed 2, and Cutler missed 1. Is that really true? Wow. The Colts key contributors list goes like this: Addai has missed 8 games Gary Brackett missed 4 Donald Brown missed 3 Austin Collie has missed 5 (and got knocked out of 2-3 more early) Kavell Connor has missed 4 (key backup and starting linebacker now) Brody Eldridge missed 2 (starting tight end) Pierre Garcon missed 2 Mike Hart missed 5 due to injury (runningback who would have started all those games) Kelvin Hayden missed 2 Charlie Johnson missed 1 Antonio Johnson missed 2 Jacob Lacey missed 4 Jamey Richard missed 1 Clint Session has missed 9 Justin Tryon missed 4 And the IR players Melvin Bullitt missed the entire season (starter last year) Dallas Clark has missed 8 games Cody Glenn has missed 3 (special teams starter) Anthony Gonzalez has missed 12 Ramon Humber has missed 12 (special teams starter) Devin Moore has missed 10 games (kickoff returner) Jerraud Powers has missed 4 games Bob Sanders has missed 13 games Tom Santi missed the season (would have started a lot at TE this year) Jamie Silva missed the season (special teams starter and would have been starter at safety this year after Sanders and Bullitt were lost by game 1) Kevin Thomas missed the season (would have been 3rd corner) I didn't try to go too deeply into the reserve DB's because it was too hard to figure out who was starting when. For example, the Colts have lost 8 safeties so far this year. Several people have blamed the cover 2 scheme on it because it's emphasis on small, fast players inevitably leads to more injuries. That might have some effect but I doubt it does to that degree. I wonder if Packer fans are trying to blame their injuries on anything in particular. I'm a Colt fan and knew all that. However, it's still pretty stunning to see listed out. Not to be overly pedantic, but Melvin Bullitt did play four games this year before being placed on IR. Now, he played so poorly that he didn't necessarily help the team, but he didn't miss the entire season. The one player I didn't look up to be sure...thanks for the correction. I was already thinking of Silva when I typed that out for Bullitt. I'm not as pessimistic about Oakland as you are though. The Colts have stunk badly on the road but they've still been very, very close to winning their road games (besides the Houston game). It will be a tough game that won't surprise me either way who wins.

This. But I'm sure we'll blow one of the final two games and McCarthy will stay. It seems to me that McCarthy really has a built in excuse with all the injuries. I think I heard Hub Arkush say you guys had 6 starters on IR, and 3 of the backups that filled those spots are on IR? And that's not even including Aaron Rodgers missing the Pats game. Something like that....that's nuts. Meanwhile the Bears starters have missed a total of 3 games due to injury. Tinoisamoa has missed 2, and Cutler missed 1. Is that really true? Wow. The Colts key contributors list goes like this: Addai has missed 8 games Gary Brackett missed 4 Donald Brown missed 3 Austin Collie has missed 5 (and got knocked out of 2-3 more early) Kavell Connor has missed 4 (key backup and starting linebacker now) Brody Eldridge missed 2 (starting tight end) Pierre Garcon missed 2 Mike Hart missed 5 due to injury (runningback who would have started all those games) Kelvin Hayden missed 2 Charlie Johnson missed 1 Antonio Johnson missed 2 Jacob Lacey missed 4 Jamey Richard missed 1 Clint Session has missed 9 Justin Tryon missed 4 And the IR players Melvin Bullitt missed the entire season (starter last year) Dallas Clark has missed 8 games Cody Glenn has missed 3 (special teams starter) Anthony Gonzalez has missed 12 Ramon Humber has missed 12 (special teams starter) Devin Moore has missed 10 games (kickoff returner) Jerraud Powers has missed 4 games Bob Sanders has missed 13 games Tom Santi missed the season (would have started a lot at TE this year) Jamie Silva missed the season (special teams starter and would have been starter at safety this year after Sanders and Bullitt were lost by game 1) Kevin Thomas missed the season (would have been 3rd corner) I didn't try to go too deeply into the reserve DB's because it was too hard to figure out who was starting when. For example, the Colts have lost 8 safeties so far this year. Several people have blamed the cover 2 scheme on it because it's emphasis on small, fast players inevitably leads to more injuries. That might have some effect but I doubt it does to that degree. I wonder if Packer fans are trying to blame their injuries on anything in particular.