CubColtPacer

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.

Any team would be crazy to give Webb that. I don't think the guy deserves more than 1 mil plus incentives. I can understand why they would ask for that though. Sheets got 10 million last year in a somewhat similar situation.

So now you're arguing that it would've been a bad call because it was too hard to see that the infraction actually happened? Agreed. I actually sympathize with the argument that it was an understandable call to miss. But it still was a bad call. The only intent on helmet to helmet is determining if the player was defenseless. A QB in the pocket is always considered defenseless so helmet to helmet is never allowed. They don't measure intent or ducking their head or anything like that. In fact, they made it a point to say that the defender has to adjust to those things to avoid being called.

The first Forte call was a blatant helmet to helmet hit. Not sure how you can complain about that one at all. The second Forte call was more of a judgement call. But I don't think he ever really got completely stopped there. I can see that one as more of a complaint, but it should be looked at completely independently from the previous call which was about leading with the helmet as opposed to piling on a stopped runner. The first one wouldn't have been called if his forward progress hadn't been stopped. That's the problem. They ruled Forte was defenseless and that was why he got the protection of the helmet to helmet rules. Either that call was wrong (because forward progress had not been stopped) or the second call was wrong.

The Colts and Packers keep upping the ante for who has the worst injuries this season. Simply brutal. It would be fitting if both teams were basically eliminated on the same day tomorrow.

Yep, he's getting $8.5 million from the White Sox this year, according to Cot's. :shock: :rotfl: The White Sox are only paying 5 of that. Pierre is still on that horrific contract the Dodgers gave him after his Cubs stint. Just another casualty of the bloodbath that was the 2006 free agent period.

I'm pretty sure I see Webb as either ace or 2 starter quality or broken down and a waste of money. I find it hard to see a scenario where he settles into a 4th starter spot and pitches like one. 2007 Webb wouldn't be a 4th starter on the Phillies. I have a feeling this is not going to happen, I believe Cash goes to the rotation or the Cubs make a trade. I see the Cubs getting nixed by someone willing to offer more guarranteed. This is my feeling as well. Loved Webb pre-injury, but missing two seasons is a gamble not really all that worth taking given the current conditions of the team. If he signs a 1 year deal with someone and he does well, offer him something good next year when there is money to spend. If Tampa wants too much, start the year off with what you have and consider making adjustments at the deadline if they actually find themselves within shouting distance of the playoffs. It almost seems like Fukudome has to go in order to make improvements, which may not be making improvements once you remove Fukudome anyway. I would think it's the opposite. Webb is the exact type of player the Cubs should be signing this season. If he pitches terribly, it's not a big deal because he's not dragging down a team that is likely to contend. But if he does regain his form, he's a big piece to having the team contend. The type of team the Cubs are right now makes it a better risk than a contending team who will rue the time and money they spent on Webb if he doesn't perform. Having said that, I don't think the Cubs will get him. And there are benefits to the Cubs not getting him as well since it will open up a rotation slot for the logjam of starting options the Cubs have.

What is it about Orlando Hudson's game that makes him a true leadoff man but not Kosuke Fukudome?

Stay away from Titans offensive players. We've failed to score a touchdown for two straight games now and we really haven't come close. Think the Colts defense is bad enough that the 4 touchdowns the Titans scored against them don't count?

The Yankees have been operating in this mode for years and years. They've been amongst the oldest teams in MLB for awhile now, with very little homegrown talent making an impact at the MLB level since the days of Jeter Posada and Rivera. And obviously their payroll has grown steadily even when that growth looked unsustainable. The Phillies are now emulating them. There's no reason the Phils can't be successful with this approach, even with ~75% of the Yankees' payroll. The Yankees have Cano, Gardner, Cervelli, Hughes, and most of their bullpen that are all 28 and under. The Phillies have Hamels, 1-2 bullpen guys, and then Brown gets his first action this year. That's an obvious edge to the Yankees group. And as I've said if the Phillies truly do have the Yankees payroll they can emulate the Yankees and they'll be fine. I don't believe you can do a Yankees style model long term without the huge financial disparity that the Yankees have had on the league.

This isn't Kansas City. Big boys don't get to take 2 years off and only build for the distant future. Which is why I don't like where the Cubs are. And the point of my original comment was that the Phillies are going to have to take off multiple years soon enough and they really didn't have to. They could have had a great team now and been prepared for the future but they've utterly ruined that. That is an utterly ridiculous assumption to make years in advance. They are a successful big market team acting like a successful big market team. Successful teams don't have an entire roster of 30+ year olds with no prospects to replace them while expanding the payroll to levels that might not be able to be sustained. That's irresponsible. You can't buy an entire team through free agency...even the Yankees have taken some effort to develop young players. The Phillies did when they originally developed Utley/Howard/Rollins/Vicotorino but that was a long time ago now.