CubColtPacer

I know this is popular sentiment but there is really no reason this team can't contend for the division in 2011. There's a lot to be done. They're not particularly good at anything, besides quality starts. The only entire component they were horrible in was bullpen though. And the below average offense was dragged down by 2 positions last year (2B and 1B). Both of those positions were awful last year. One of them they've upgraded to be very close to average during the season, and the other one they have the ability to turn from a major weakness into a major strength this offseason. Every other position was above average to great and if they keep Fukudome all of them would be projected to be above average again next year. They're definitely going to need a couple breaks. They'll need to not have everything go wrong with the young pitching as what happened to the bullpen this year and they'll need some decent starting pitching health. But they definitely have a shot and they're not nearly as far away as it might initially appear when looking at the roster player by player.

why is saragin the only ranking that matters? Illinois is not the 30th best team in the country and SDSt isn't 40th. They're not the only ranking that matters: Colley: Illinois 43rd, San Diego State 44th Wolfe: Illinois 38th, San Diego State 40th Massey: Illinois 39th, San Diego State 42nd Anderson/Hester: Illinois 39th, San Diego State 45th And the computer ranking that functions more like a poll where preseason rankings matter a bunch (Florida is still 8 spots ahead of Missouri in this ranking!) Illinois 44th, San Diego State 81st The point isn't to say that Illinois is exactly 30th or San Diego State is exactly 40th. The other computer rankings show those two teams as very close around in the 40-45 range. The point is that based on the results this year it is debatable on if Missouri or Alabama's schedule has been harder. Of the 3 computers which post SOS numbers, Colley has Missouri's schedule as stronger, Anderson/Hester has Alabama's as stronger, and Sagarin has it at a dead heat. The schedules are certainly close enough that Missouri as an undefeated team should definitely be ahead of 1 loss Alabama at this point even before the Oklahoma game, and they probably should be ahead of Alabama even if Missouri loses this week and Alabama wins (since Missouri's schedule will certainly be harder than Alabama's this week after Missouri plays Oklahoma and Alabama plays Tennessee). The only way they probably shouldn't be ahead is if they absolutely get embarrassed. But a close loss probably still gives them a better resume than Alabama. I don't agree. Teams that haven't been really good lately aren't going to get the nod over proven teams, esp the defending national champion. That's even more true when the best win the other team has is Illinois. The burden is on Missouri to establish that they're actually good. Beating a bunch of crappy teams and Illinois isn't going to convince a lot of people. Of course that's the way it is. That's also the lazy way out. The burden should be just as much on Alabama as it is on Missouri. It's not even like Alabama has the same team back. Half their starters from last year are gone. I would agree with you that the perceived difficulty is harder for the teams on Alabama's schedule. That doesn't make it reality though.

why is saragin the only ranking that matters? Illinois is not the 30th best team in the country and SDSt isn't 40th. They're not the only ranking that matters: Colley: Illinois 43rd, San Diego State 44th Wolfe: Illinois 38th, San Diego State 40th Massey: Illinois 39th, San Diego State 42nd Anderson/Hester: Illinois 39th, San Diego State 45th And the computer ranking that functions more like a poll where preseason rankings matter a bunch (Florida is still 8 spots ahead of Missouri in this ranking!) Illinois 44th, San Diego State 81st The point isn't to say that Illinois is exactly 30th or San Diego State is exactly 40th. The other computer rankings show those two teams as very close around in the 40-45 range. The point is that based on the results this year it is debatable on if Missouri or Alabama's schedule has been harder. Of the 3 computers which post SOS numbers, Colley has Missouri's schedule as stronger, Anderson/Hester has Alabama's as stronger, and Sagarin has it at a dead heat. The schedules are certainly close enough that Missouri as an undefeated team should definitely be ahead of 1 loss Alabama at this point even before the Oklahoma game, and they probably should be ahead of Alabama even if Missouri loses this week and Alabama wins (since Missouri's schedule will certainly be harder than Alabama's this week after Missouri plays Oklahoma and Alabama plays Tennessee). The only way they probably shouldn't be ahead is if they absolutely get embarrassed. But a close loss probably still gives them a better resume than Alabama.

That's not what I was getting at. Last month everyone was talking about the gauntlet that Alabama would have to go through. Now it comes out that it was a bunch of teams that are back end of the Top 25, if that. They played PSU at #18, Arkansas at #10, Florida at #7, and South Carolina at 19. Now those teams are NR (no votes), 21, NR (no votes), and 19/20. Not enough people stop to reconsider that. No doubt those teams were overrated. But all NR (no votes) teams aren't created equal. Would you rather play PSU, Arkansas, Florida and South Carolina or McNeese St, Miami OH, and SDSt? Those unranked teams on Bama's schedule are closer to the the top 25 than the teams on Missouri's schedule. Comparing the two by the Sagarin ELO chess ratings: Alabama's schedule: South Carolina-29th Arkansas-31st Florida-47th Penn State-60th Mississippi-76th San Jose State-121st Duke-166th Missouri's schedule: Illinois-30th San Diego State-40th Colorado-45th Texas A&M-51st Miami-Ohio-78th McNeese State-131st Maybe the teams on Alabama's schedule are closer to the top 25 but that's mostly on reputation. Florida and Penn State have done nothing this year. Arkansas has had one close win against Texas A&M and their next best win was against a bad Georgia team. South Carolina has a win against Alabama and their next best win is against Southern Miss. And Alabama has played 3 really poor teams so far while Missouri has only played 2. How do we know Missouri has only played 2 really poor teams? Illinois has only beaten PSU (who you acknowledge has done nothing) and Northern and Southern Illinois. They've lost to every decent team they've played. Same for Texas A&M. That's the definition of a mediocre team there...they've beaten up on the poor teams and lost all their games against good teams. Texas A&M and Penn State both fall into this. Colorado and Florida have 3 losses but also have 1 win over a decent team (Colorado over Hawaii, Florida over Kentucky). Illinois and Arkansas have wins over one mediocre team and only 2 losses which puts them a cut above those 4 teams mentioned above. I included Mississippi and Miami-Ohio in the poor teams, but you could easily exclude them both and say that Alabama's played 2 poor teams and Missouri has played 1.

That's not what I was getting at. Last month everyone was talking about the gauntlet that Alabama would have to go through. Now it comes out that it was a bunch of teams that are back end of the Top 25, if that. They played PSU at #18, Arkansas at #10, Florida at #7, and South Carolina at 19. Now those teams are NR (no votes), 21, NR (no votes), and 19/20. Not enough people stop to reconsider that. No doubt those teams were overrated. But all NR (no votes) teams aren't created equal. Would you rather play PSU, Arkansas, Florida and South Carolina or McNeese St, Miami OH, and SDSt? Those unranked teams on Bama's schedule are closer to the the top 25 than the teams on Missouri's schedule. Comparing the two by the Sagarin ELO chess ratings: Alabama's schedule: South Carolina-29th Arkansas-31st Florida-47th Penn State-60th Mississippi-76th San Jose State-121st Duke-166th Missouri's schedule: Illinois-30th San Diego State-40th Colorado-45th Texas A&M-51st Miami-Ohio-78th McNeese State-131st Maybe the teams on Alabama's schedule are closer to the top 25 but that's mostly on reputation. Florida and Penn State have done nothing this year. Arkansas has had one close win against Texas A&M and their next best win was against a bad Georgia team. South Carolina has a win against Alabama and their next best win is against Southern Miss. And Alabama has played 3 really poor teams so far while Missouri has only played 2.

The strangest part of this year is that the current undefeateds were not teams that were rated highly at the start of the year. There are 11 undefeated teams. Here are their rankings in the preseason coaches poll: 5. Boise State 7. TCU 8. Oklahoma 11. Oregon 16. LSU 23. Auburn 24t. Utah 37. Missouri 39. Oklahoma State 41. Michigan State 49t. Nevada So what past trend is more likely to be wrong? The thought that small conference teams will always be jumped? Or the thought that teams who start way outside the top 10 always get stacked at the end of the undefeateds? That should be an interesting conundrum when dealing with teams like Michigan State, Missouri, or Oklahoma State. Could those 3 teams finish behind the 2 small conference teams in the polls even if they go undefeated?

I'm not a fan of prorating any of the bonuses but you definitely shouldn't prorate Silva's. It's not like the Cubs are going to account for the signing bonus that Seattle paid him originally.

I think it might have just been a numbers game as well. They have definitely soured on him but in a normal year he might have been left on. But 2 players were going to have to come off to accommodate the 2 players coming off the 60 day DL. Since the Cubs have 24 pitchers, 1 of those almost had to be a pitcher. And Dolis, Gaub, and Parker were the only 3 pitchers IIRC that didn't make the majors this year that were on the 40 man roster.

I don't agree that Gore has been a big disappointment. Looking at the 1st round RB's so far in a standard league: Johnson: 16.2 P/G Peterson: 18.5 P/G Jones-Drew: 10.2 P/G Rice: 10.8 P/G Gore: 14.2 P/G Turner: 10 P/G Jackson: 11 P/G D Williams: 7.8 P/G So he's not doing as well as the consensus top 2 picks but in the next group of RB's that he was lumped in with on draft day he's easily been the best. On the other hand, Rivers is probably going to have to continue to throw a lot to keep the Chargers afloat. Moss is more likely to be consistent than Jackson. But the Pittsburgh defense is a must start and has much better fantasy playoff potential than TB (who doesn't have the worst schedule but it's not great). It's pretty close but I lean towards the Schaub/Gore side.

Dempster probably won't be gone after next season. While he could probably get at least close to what he'll get in 2012 on the open market he loves Chicago so much that my guess is that he'll exercise that player option. If the Cubs are going to go after any starting pitcher it should probably be an ace but it's probably still a bad use of resources. The Cubs don't have the money to sign an ace and a top flight bat and fill their other needs and they need the bat more. They still have plenty of starting pitching depth. I don't think signing Lee is an absolutely awful move but it probably should not be a high enough priority for it to be feasible to get him.

That was the Soriano offseason, in fairness. Plus, Jacque Jones signed after the 2005 season and Izturis was acquired in the Maddux deal at the 2006 deadline (ugh ugh ugh ugh). And Koyie Hill was signed as AAA depth that offseason (the majors had Barrett and Blanco). Plus DeRosa wasn't seen as a wizard at 2B and while Theriot probably fits the comparison best he was seen as likely to get a job before the Cardinals won the WS. I don't think that year's comparison works at all. Some of the others work better although the same problem applies where several of the players that can fit into that year's "mold" were already on the team to begin with.

With TCU 3rd (although one computer ranking is still not out). But of course Boise and TCU should slowly fade in the computer rankings as the season goes along. It's going to be an interesting season.

Is a depressing 2 paragraph run. That first paragraph is a gun shot to the nuts. I'm all for improving defense, but focusing on errors? Improving offense? Sure!! Move runners over and hitting with RISP. Did Hendry hack into Ricketts' email account? That one paragraph pretty much ruined the off-season for me. IMO it's meaningless. We have no idea if Ricketts believes this or not. If Ricketts thought that errors and hitting with RISP were important he would write that paragraph. If he thought that those things were meaningless but that the offense and defense needed to be improved he would still write that same paragraph because that's what most of his season ticket holders want to hear. So that paragraph was basically guaranteed to be written the same way regardless of what he actually believes.

But since you're under 50 percent to make a 2 point conversion (and presumably they are as well) you're going to go to OT more often. It isn't a horrible move to go for 2 but I don't see why it makes sense.

Not likely at all. There likely won't be a ton of 2 loss teams in the poll next week and Illinois is well behind several 2 loss teams in the national perception even with a win against MSU.

I think those two games will push TCU over Boise St in the BCS. I'm not sure about that. Boise State has a big game left as well against Nevada and the WAC is right there with the MWC this year. Plus Boise is getting all the headlines and it's really hard for teams in the top 5 to jump each other this late in the year unless somebody loses.

What a horrific call by the Cardinals right there. Just keep playing back and force the Saints to drain most of the clock. Instead they come with a 7 man blitz and the Saints throw the 43 yard TD with 1:49 left. The Cardinals still got the onside kick so they'll likely escape but that could have turned ugly for them.

Not unless they lose a lot of #1 votes no. Their computer rankings should be ok as teams lose around them and the schedules for the minor conference teams continue to get worse. If it got to be a point where Ohio State was a close #1 over an undefeated Oregon at 2 and an undefeated Oklahoma at 3 where there were lots of mixed ballots on which order those 3 teams were in then it's possible.

That doesn't sound right. 6/7 while being #2 in the human polls (now #1 probably)? It's true. The simulations had them 6th because of a bad computer average. But that's just a function of the computers not having shook themselves out yet and OSU having a particularly poor schedule so far this year. Several of the teams who were ahead of them in those rankings where OSU is poor in (Kansas State, Alabama, Michigan, UCLA) have already lost and more might tonight so they'll continue to slide up fast. It's also partly because the teams behind them (Oklahoma, Boise St, TCU) the computers really like right now and Oregon the computers at least have as a decent bit better than OSU.

I'm not sure either of those things will happen. Hill is probably the more likely one to happen but the Cubs might decide to go to Castillo just to save a few hundred thousand with as tight as this offseason's budget might get. And Hendry has repeatedly said how much he loves how these young bullpen arms have stepped up at the end of the season. He might not add a veteran arm especially an expensive one.

So the Seahawks have traded for LenDale White, Leon Washington, and Marshawn Lynch all in the last 6 months (and have signed Michael Robinson). Am I missing anybody?

Wilken like many in the organization is fiercely loyal to Hendry and people are certain that he'd quit as soon as Hendry was fired. Huh, I had no idea. So it's assumed that firing Hendry would essentially result in an effective cleaning house of the front office regardless if anyone else is fired? I believe that yes that is the assumption.

Wilken like many in the organization is fiercely loyal to Hendry and people are certain that he'd quit as soon as Hendry was fired.

For Ricketts the reason seems to be that they don't want to lose Wilken. It seems like they think Hendry has done OK but that the scouting/development is the best it's ever been and it's not worth it to replace the GM and lose that farm system.

Aside from consistently starting Hill over Castillo, what has Quade done to make you think he isn't a good manager? i didn't care for the "castro is being dumb so we're going to pull him out of the lineup and make him watch games" bit. He was also injured at the time. What was he hurt with? I don't remember him being hurt at that point. He got hurt a few days after that with the collision with Wallace and missed a few more games.