CubColtPacer

i think you would have seen creek really flash his skills if indiana would have been losing by 20+ for most of the game, it really would have been his time to shine! Creek has lost 5 games in his Indiana career by 10 points or more and I'm pretty sure that in each of those games he played at least as well if not better when the game was close. Just thought I would discount that before somebody actually believed you and repeated it!

Indiana really needs Maurice Creek to be himself again. It's obvious they're running the offense (even the transition offense) to get him open looks and he's just not making them this year. It will continue to kill them in games where they need to make shots to make up for the lack of size.

Pick 3: Roddy White Calvin Johnson Andre Johnson Matt Forte

his performance has nothing to do with what spot in the lineup he bats. His career splits don't agree with you. So when do we use stats and when don't we? Ok, over a 162 game schedule we can expect certain things from Marlon based on his career averages. None of his numbers would suggest he is the type of hitter most people would bat 3rd. While I would agree he is far from the type of guy you would ideally put in the three spot (kind of like most Cubs) his splits in different spots in the order are just meaningless. I don't see how you can assert that. Can you prove those splits are meaningless? Because it seems to me that a hitter's mental approach would be a big factor in his effectiveness; are you saying that you know for a fact that hitters never change their approach based on where they're hitting in the lineup? I'm genuinely curious here. The splits might not be meaningless but many hitters have splits that extreme after a couple hundred at bats only to have those splits normalize as time goes on. Byrd hit very well in the 3 spot in 76 at-bats in 2009. The fact that he went through a major slump in the 3 spot in just over 200 at-bats this past year is almost certainly due to other factors than what spot in the lineup he was. Is it possible that he struggles in the 3 spot? Maybe. But there's no reason to change where he's batting until we have gotten much, much much more than a half season of evidence because history tells us that it's almost 100% chance to just be statistical noise.

Michael Young likely isn't going to be a better hitter than Alfonso Soriano in 2011. No, but hypothetically the combination of Young/Colvin is probably better than Soriano/DeWitt.

Up in the air. Originally the idea was for an outdoor only stadium but then you lose any chance of hosting the Super Bowl, Final Four and any kind of events/conventions/concerts when the weather isn't great. So then having a retractable roof became the main target but that's more expensive to build and get the funding for, which is the main issue. removable top. Thats what HKS had designed. What would be the point of a retractable roof? That's a lot of extra money for the roof being open for 4-5 home games a year.

Hendry's MO is that he never gives up any prospects he values in a trade (whether that's a good quality of his or a bad one is open to interpretation). He's one of the least likely GM's in the league to give up multiple top prospects in a deal.

From Bruce's blog:

I like the deal. There could be something mechanically wrong with his swing that caused the problems last year. His ground ball percentage went way up and his line drives went down even further. The BABIP was low but he's definitely going to need to be more of a flyball hitter like he was in 2007-2009 if he's going to be successful. But there isn't much risk in this deal and he at least has the potential to have a great year next year which is what the Cubs would likely need to have a decent chance of contending. Besides, he's another Carlos to add to the bunch.

Agreed. I think people put way too much emphasis on defense at first base. IMO, in some ways yes and in some ways no. Since athletic ability is not nearly as important and skills are more important (scooping the ball, footwork, reflexes) there are bigger gaps. There are certain first basemen who are naturally skilled at those things and that can be a big help. There are certain players who can't learn those skills whatsoever and they'll be a liability there. But 96-98 percent of players are around the same ability level at first base. It's not nearly the continuum that other positions are and first base defense is largely overrated. But at the extremes the differences get larger quite quickly. If they're just looking for a plug in for 1 year LaRoche isn't bad but he's absolutely not a guy you lose any flexibility over.

You have forgotten Wells on that pitching staff and I think he would have to be a lock for the rotation. That would probably push Marshall back into the bullpen which is good because the bullpen needs at least a little stability down there. As for Gorzelanny, if the Cubs don't see him in the future rotation plans because of his injuries and walk rate then I can see why they would be shopping him because they weren't a fan at all of his ability to relieve. They might be thinking they can just trade him for an actual reliever. I wouldn't like that deal but I wouldn't hate it either since Gorzelanny is still a pretty big question mark and could very well get squeezed out of the rotation soon even if he remains on the Cubs.

I'm surprised more Cashner backers aren't seeing this angle. Is Cashner even pitching somewhere this winter to get stretched out? So that come ST he'd be ready to be a starter and possibly start the year in the MLB rotation instead of having to go to AAA to get stretched out to be a starter and come up later in the year. Stretching out won't be a problem. All pitchers in ST have to go through that process. The problem becomes how many innings he'll be able to throw in the rotation next year before he needs to be shut down.

What I thought was ridiculous was Herbstreit yesterday said he thought (not necessarily he believed it was right) that if Oregon lost, TCU would get in but if Auburn lost, that they would probably stay above TCU. I get that Oregon would be losing to a weaker opponent, though that would be on the road rather than a neutral site, but I think if you'd keep one ahead of TCU ahead with a loss, you have to keep both. If you're going to drop one below TCU with a loss, you have to drop both behind TCU. The difference is the Auburn will likely be #1 in the computers even with a loss. Oregon won't. Either one of them with a loss will have some people drop them below TCU and some of them keeping them above. In Oregon's case, that wouldn't be enough as TCU's computer rankings would be stronger. In Auburn's case, that might be enough to keep them in that spot.

I've heard a lot of people say that TCU in the championship game would be a disaster for the BCS, but I don't get it. Ratings likely wouldn't suffer that much and while a BCS conference would be losing out on a lot of money this year, wouldn't it ultimately be good for the BCS to have a non-AQ make it to the championship game? It's an example they'll be able to point to as to how the system is fair to non-AQ schools. The thought is that if the precedent is set where a non-AQ undefeated gets in over an AQ 1 loss team that the BCS conferences may decide to change the system. I don't think this year would cause that though...but if it happened multiple times, the big schools would not be happy. It probably comes down to who you think has a better chance of changing the system...the outsiders (small conferences, Congress, the public) or the insiders (mostly the BCS university presidents).

Understood. Earlier dew pointed out that signing Dunn to this deal would've been "a different story" if the Cubs were better positioned to contend for the WS. And I'm saying the Cubs took that same "one player away" mindset into the Bradley situation. As we all know, that ended very poorly. For some reason that was labeled a "really, really ridiculous take." I dunno, seems spot on to me. :shrug: Because it's really, really ridiculous. Adam Dunn and Bradley are completely different in every sense of the word and Dunn IS the type of player that can put a team over the top. There was no reason for the Cubs to go into next season effectively surrendering in such a weak division, and that's what they've effectively done by not landing the one difference-maker FA they had a shot at getting on the market right now. People can spin it all they want, by any combination of dinking and dunking moves they make instead of getting Dunn isn't going to do anything except almost certainly result in a mediocre team that can't even compete in a division this weak. Your overgeneralization is a silly take on this, and the Cubs easily could have been just one player away given their competition, and Dunn is that type of player. To compare it to Bradley in any way is just absurd. The Cubs very realistically were just a Dunn away from being competitive and having a real shot given the circumstances of their division whereas Bradley was nothing but an oft-injured role player at best. You're drastically undervaluing Dunn's impact on this team to make your point. You're wrong. The Cubs may have "kicked the tires" on Dunn, but they never actively pursued him. Berkman and Pena are the options for them at 1B this winter, so stop living in a fantasy world. Secondly, the Cubs aren't "just [one] Dunn away from being competitive ... ." This team seriously lacks leadership both on and off the field. While Dunn may have provided some home runs, there weren't leadership qualities there, as there is with other players the Cubs are pursuing (i.e. Berkman, Kerry Wood, Brandon Webb). Besides, did the team get anywhere by hitting solo home run after solo home run last year? No. The Cubs were one of only 2 teams in the NL last year to hit more home runs with runners on than solo shots (and most of the teams weren't even close). They had a huge lack of solo home runs last year not the other way around.

They're going to almost certainly fill the Fukudome hole from within. Dempster will probably be back for 2012. And 3B they'll probably have to sign a journeyman. They won't have to spend out nearly as much money as they're losing.

If that happened, I'd be perfectly fine with no NFL in 2011. Hell I'll be pissed if 11-5 doesn't make it. I still think its insane that the Pats went 11-5 a couple years back and didn't make the playoffs. How the hell is that not good enough to play in the playoffs? Heck, 10-6 and no playoffs makes me angry too. The worst thing about that 12-4 and no playoffs scenario is that I think the NFC west team qualified for the playoffs at 8-8. Could you imagine the backlash if a 12-4 team didn't make the playoffs and an 8-8 team got a home playoff game? It wouldn't be that different than the 2008 season you mentioned. The 11-5 Patriots missed the playoffs and the 12-4 Colts had to go to San Diego to face an 8-8 Chargers team.

If Theriot is usable at any position it's at SS. He's fine as a backup middle infielder or maybe a well below average starting SS. Having him primarily at 2nd is a mistake as there are better players that can play that position.

This was quite literally my first thought. If Hudson has always been a Hendry favorite, why wasn't he pursued at all in the offseason leading up to 2009? Why were we saddled with Aaron Miles's multi-year contract? Hudson ended up signing for 1 year and 3.3 millions. A bargain. Because Hendry like the rest of the league didn't want to give up a first round pick for Hudson which is why he ended up going so cheaply. That first rounder for the Cubs ended up being Brett Jackson.

No one said they were, genius That's pretty much the running ideas that the Cubs can pull off if they can't sign Dunn. If they can't afford Dunn then it's tremendously unlikely they'll be able to afford either Fielder or Gonzalez next year given the demand that they'll command. If they sign someone like Pena I'll bet it's a multi-year deal since they'll be able to get him cheap. I don't think they will be able to get Fielder or Gonzalez but they'll almost certainly be able to afford them. Fukudome will likely be replaced for cheap (with either Colvin or Jackson). Silva will be gone and so will Grabow and those might be replaced in house.. If they also buyout Ramirez, they'll have holes at 1st, 3rd, and possibly a starter or reliever. But they'll probably have between 30-50 million to replace them.

They have (or at least very close to that). The problem is that the offensive line has never been this bad. Manning only has around 2 seconds to throw if that. The injuries have exacerbated that problem because Addai is a fantastic blocker, Clark was a better blocker than Tamme, and Collie stretches the field. They aren't even running the same plays anymore because they don't have the talent to run their normal plays. Last year the Colts were a very, very good team that won every single close game they played. This year they're not quite as good and they've struggled in close games. The difference between the Super Bowl team and this one is really not that large though.

Why do you think the Rose Bowl will pass on Stanford? I think that they're forced to take the minor conference team this year if that team is not in the national title game. They have to take a non-AQ once in this bowl cycle if either the Pac-10 or Big Ten champion plays in the national championship game (but not if a non-AQ also plays in the championship game). They'd probably be best off taking a #3 TCU considering they might be left with worse options in the next few years, especially if the team they're passing on is one with a smaller fan base. Everything I'm reading suggests the Rose would be forced to take TCU if they don't make the national title game. The Rose would have had a choice of whether to fulfill their obligation this year or delay it to another year in this cycle if one of the minor conference teams had made the title game and the other one was eligible as an at-large. But in this scenario they'll be forced to pick TCU. Stanford is going to be lucky that they're likely to automatically qualify because they'll move up to #4 in the BCS. Otherwise they may have had a hard time being selected because the Sugar and Orange would be worried how they would travel across the country. Now one of those two bowls will be forced to take Stanford (or possibly the Fiesta if the Orange decides the Big East champion is actually a better pick than Stanford).

Why do you think the Rose Bowl will pass on Stanford? I think that they're forced to take the minor conference team this year if that team is not in the national title game.

It's almost certain to have two Big 10 teams and two Pac 10 teams in the BCS and yet they are almost certain not to play each other in any of the games.

Northwestern has a harder SOS than Boise State. Unless you're talking about preseason. 2 of the 3 computers that easily show schedule strength had Boise with the harder schedule before this weekend. It will likely remain close.