CubColtPacer

What does any of that mean? We had a better record head to head than Wisky, beat them there handily. Had a better non conference schedule with better wins, are we better than them? First, Illinois absolutely, positively did not have better wins non-conference than Wisconsin. That's another dream world. Second, Wisconsin had a better overall record, better Big Ten record, etc. than Illinois. That's was not the case with Michigan State and Purdue with Hummel. Records and head-to-head wins aren't dispositive, obviously. However, I see no objective calculus that shows Michigan State is better than Purdue with Hummel. I'm no Purdue fan, but they were clearly better. Hell, Purdue sans Hummel still got a better seed than Michigan State. We had pretty good ones. Who did they beat besides Duke? Just taking a quick look, it looks like Wisconsin's 3 non-conference wins of note were Duke, Maryland, and Marquette. That's compared to Vanderbilt, Clemson, and Wofford for Illinois. Unless I'm missing someone, that's an easy win for Wisconsin.

:-s :-k I mean that the Cubs are paying 8 figures to a guy who will likely not be very productive. Imagine if the Cubs offered $20 million for the 2010 version of Pavano. There would be a riot on Addison. Since there is still a little confusion on how much the Cubs are paying Silva I'll nit-pick here and say they really aren't paying him 10 million per year when you include the Seattle money. It's 6 million this year, 8 million next year, and 2 million to buy him out in 2012. Could Silva return to being an under 5 ERA type guy? Absolutely...in fact, I would call that one of the most reasonable outcomes for him this season. While ST could tell us if he was pretty much done though, I don't think it can tell us he's back to being servicable. That is the scary part because the Cubs will likely give him a month or two of pitching before we know if he is the 4.5 ERA type of player or the 6 ERA type of player.

I don't think you're going to see an approach change from Colvin very quickly. He's very likely to be an extreme low walks guy early in his career (although there still is a small possibility for him adding walks as he has shown he can draw walks when he isn't as aggressive but he doesn't hit as well either). So you have to look at the other two areas. Can Colvin add even more power to the good power he already has? And can he cut down on the number of K's? He was successful at Tennessee last year because he showed good power without a huge number of strikeouts. Then he went in the offseason and hopefully added to his power potential. If he can make further improvements in both those areas, he could be a pretty good starter at the major league level even without the walks. And the walks would likely come eventually for him as teams started respecting his power because Colvin has shown that he doesn't have a terrible eye. Colvin's a strange player because he has a huge deficiency without any great areas to complement it. But he's making it up for it by being good in just about every other area. He's good at hitting for average, he's a good power hitter, he has good speed to get those doubles and triples when hitting into the gap, and he plays good defense. The only issue is how he'll translate to the major league level. It is harder to project than it would be for a guy who walks a little more. He's a little more likely than most to get overwhelmed against advanced pitching, but he also might adjust and show his skills like he has done at lower levels. Would Garret Anderson be a good comp? Garrett Anderson would be a good comp (although I think Colvin has a slightly better chance of remaining in center than I remember Anderson having). If Colvin doesn't hit for average quite as well on the major league level than Jacque Jones would be another good comparison (a Jones that presumably would stay in center which is probably what Jones should have done all along). He definitely is along that sort of tracjectory. I'm not sure if he'd ever have the couple big breakout years like Anderson had, but I could definitely see Colvin put up the rest of their careers.

He hasn't shown his skills at lower levels, he's pretty much stunk as a minor league player. And it's hardly accurate to say the only issue is how he'll translate to the major league level. The issue is will he actually be better at the major league level than he has been in the lower levels, because he's got to do a heck of a lot more than translate. He's got to improve. .277 .320 .465 I would argue that some of his minor league numbers should be thrown out the window. Colvin hasn't exactly had the smoothest minor league career. First, you have the fact that twice Colvin has changed into a dramatically different player presumably at the request of the coaching staff. His strikeout rate went way down, his walk rate went way up, and he stopped hitting for a month or two. And then twice he has been exactly the opposite player once again. If I went back I could find you the exact dates that these turnarounds happened. Dramatic shifts of your entire game over months at at time don't happen naturally. Then you add in that when he started last season he was coming off TJS and then quickly got into a nasty collision in the OF that he was also bouncing back from. So if you're really going to look at him, Boise in 06, his whole 2007 season, parts of 2008 (specifically April where he wan't good at all and August where he was excellent), and Tennessee 2009 are the times that should get the most weight. Some of those stops were very good and others were not so good but those are the places where the aggressive Tyler Colvin showed up. He's not going to walk as much going foward as those career numbers would even indicate but I would argue that it is very likely that he is a better hitter than that.

I don't think you're going to see an approach change from Colvin very quickly. He's very likely to be an extreme low walks guy early in his career (although there still is a small possibility for him adding walks as he has shown he can draw walks when he isn't as aggressive but he doesn't hit as well either). So you have to look at the other two areas. Can Colvin add even more power to the good power he already has? And can he cut down on the number of K's? He was successful at Tennessee last year because he showed good power without a huge number of strikeouts. Then he went in the offseason and hopefully added to his power potential. If he can make further improvements in both those areas, he could be a pretty good starter at the major league level even without the walks. And the walks would likely come eventually for him as teams started respecting his power because Colvin has shown that he doesn't have a terrible eye. Colvin's a strange player because he has a huge deficiency without any great areas to complement it. But he's making it up for it by being good in just about every other area. He's good at hitting for average, he's a good power hitter, he has good speed to get those doubles and triples when hitting into the gap, and he plays good defense. The only issue is how he'll translate to the major league level. It is harder to project than it would be for a guy who walks a little more. He's a little more likely than most to get overwhelmed against advanced pitching, but he also might adjust and show his skills like he has done at lower levels.

Yep, they signed Tim Jennings to a 2 year deal. Most Colts fans are very, very happy about this. He was the favorite whipping boy last season and there were a lot of people that were scared the Colts would re-sign him if he stayed on the market all summer. He of course is very small (his 5-8 listing for height might be generous). Most times with the Colts he played in a different zip code than the receiver. He'd line up 12-14 yards off and teams would complete 7-8 yard outs all day against him. They would also pick on him because of his size on the goal line. At the same time, the Colts made pretty bad mistakes by lining him up against players like Brandon Marshall in the red zone. When he did play occasionally play close to the receiver he was better and can make some athletic plays. He seemed very scared of getting burnt. And he is a pretty good special teams player. I would say overall in Indy he was a little unfairly maligned but he can be a very frustrating player to watch.

Giving Colvin a chance would be leaving him down in AAA. If you bring him up now, he's likely never going to get to play enough to shed the label of a backup OF. He'd need some major injuries in order to be able to get enough of a shot to impress. Plus, he could use some more minor league at-bats. The TJS set him back a little bit, and now he just made a major change to his weight over the offseason. He needs at-bats to get comfortable playing at the new weight. He will likely stay in the realm of good 4th OF/possible average starting OF. But if he has any chance of breaking out beyond that, then he needs at-bats that are only going to come in the minors.

It's more like the end of May for his arbitration clock. It's the middle of April to gain another year until he hits free agency. As Jersey said, sometimes it can make the player upset. But in this case, I can't see that with a reasonable option at the major league level and with Castro still being so young. Holding him down is the right option for the future and shouldn't really affect the present. Plus if he continues to succeed in the minors and pushes his way onto the team there will be pressure to give him some time to work through his struggles at the major league level.

If Theriot and Fukudome were hitting in the top 2 spots in the lineup, you might as well hit Theriot first to avoid all of the double plays he'd ground into with Fukudome on base. Possibly, but I'm not looking forward to the hit & runs Lou will be tempted to call with Theriot on base and Fukudome at the plate. I would guess that Lou's more likely to bunt or hit and run with Theriot at the plate and Fukudome on first than the opposite. Plus this will likely cause Lou to try straight steals less with Fukudome who would be much less likely to be efficient with them than Theriot.

I guess Tracy and Fuld. Colvin would be the best option but I'd like to see him get another year in the minors first to see if he can generate even more power with his new weight. Hoffpauir is probably just a little too limited to keep on the bench. If we knew he'd hit a lot, then then there could be room found for him. His struggles last year throw too much doubt on him though. Blanco does fill a need but I would argue that need isn't very important. Theriot started 147 games last year. Since they won't put Blanco at SS when both he and Theriot are in the game, that minimizes Blanco's value to only the games that Theriot sits. I don't think you can keep a bench player to be an upgrade for only 15 games. The Cubs have options if Theriot goes down for a short time (Barney) or a long time (Castro). They could live with Fontenot at SS very occasionally. Millar doesn't really offer much of anything to the team anymore. Scales is the only one of the 3 left that I'd consider but he just doesn't hit enough to make the squad. I chose Fuld because I think he might fit in as the pinch hitter when nobody is on base and also as a defensive replacement. He also will be needed at the start of the season as the 4th OF when Nady is still gimpy. But I don't see Tracy as a lock. In fact, with the way they are talking about him, it sounds like he might be a longshot to make the squad.

I would mostly agree with your positions; though I think a CB is more likely than a LB in round one (a TE in the top three or four rounds is another luxury that wouldn't surprise me). I am definitely hoping for offensive and defensive linemen uber alles early though. After Polian's post-Super Bowl loss comments about the offensive line -- reminiscent of last year's anti-Addai comments leading to Brown's drafting -- I have to believe that's the most likely position to be drafted in the first. Second, I hate how this draft has gone so far for the Colts (unless I'm missing someone). I was realistically hoping for maybe Pouncey for guard, Odrick/Price for defensive tackle, etc., would be available. Right now I see Charles Brown at OT, Everson Griffen at DE, Tyson Alualu/Geno Atkins/Arthur Jones at DT, and Sean Weatherspoon at LB. Honestly, I think I'd trade down at this point in real life. Some of those players I think you could get later in the draft; others I'm not necessarily sure they're tons better than players you could get later. I suppose Weatherspoon is the best value, but I doubt the Colts take a LB in round one. I'd probably decide between either USC player with Brown being favored. I wasn't much help, sorry, I just got out of two trials and haven't kept up on this much at all. I just don't think the Colts are too concerned with CB right now with the way players stepped up last season. I think they'll add one for depth but not IMO in the first round. I completely agree with the rest of your post. This has been a terrible draft for the Colts so far. Weatherspoon is the best player, his scouting report screams a Colt, and the Colts could definitely use a possible starter at outside linebacker. But that isn't the Colts draft strategy at all. Charles Brown also sounds like a Colt but with the Colts releasing Lilja in order to get bigger and improve the run game I'm not sure Brown is the right answer to a new look Colts offensive line. Plus it looks like the Colts will want someone to fill an immediate need and I'm not sure anybody on the board will do that (they all seem to be raw with upside). The DT's don't interest me and Griffen's weaknesses turn me off. So I would agree the Colts would try to trade up or down in this draft. With their pick considering Polian's comments, they reluctantly pick Charles Brown, OT USC and hope they can continue to help him get bigger and stronger since he has the height.

I'll wait for Exile to chime in before I make my pick. I'm looking primarily at anywhere along the offensive line, anywhere along the defensive line, or LB. All those places could use a first round player and I think a first round pick would a luxury anywhere else.

Fuld has an option left. And if Castro came up it would certainly spell the end for Blanco if all the infielders were still there at that point of the season.

It still depends on if he can continue to handle CF now that he has bulked up. He probably can be a player that can do something like .285/.320/.480. As a decent CF he can be just fine as a starter. He would never be anything special but not a weakness either. It is basically the Jacque Jones career path and if Colvin moves to a corner like Jones he will struggle a bit (his good years would be just fine for a corner but he would have some down power years that would be a disappointment).

I don't think it necessarily looks like crap. It could easily be crappy, but easily could be fine. It's little different this year from last minus Gregg and Heilman. Sure, you had Guzman last year, but he also missed time due to injury and you could argue that what he did was offset by Marmol's difficulties for most of the season. There's nobody who is considered a "reliable reliever" that the Cubs could get now without having to overpay. It doesn't matter if they're "available;" any team that's contacted by the Cubs for a reliever this early is going to realize that the Cubs think they're backed into a corner and it'll cost way too much. It's been 3 games; I'd prefer it if they waited to waste resources on relievers after seeing what guys are looking like as they get more into regular season form. I agree that a bullpen made out of organizational parts could still be very good, but this bullpen makeup is going to be completely different than the one from last year. The Cubs only have 45 percent of their innings returning this year (this is not including Patton who likely won't see the bullpen this year but includes players like Marshall, Samardzija, and Gorzelanny and one of those players will not be in the bullpen). Out of their big four last year they have one returning. It will probably look a little closer to the bullpen that finished last year but that was a significantly different bullpen then the one that was there for most of the year. A homegrown bullpen for the Cubs this year might be good for them going forward though. They were starting to have a logjam of possible relief pitchers piling up and their major league experiences have not been long enough to show if they are going to sink or swim (and some haven't even been able to get into the majors quite yet). A year of significant roles in the major league bullpen will show the Cubs which pitchers they need to continue to protect before their options are exhausted. On the 40 man right now they have Caridad/Berg/Gaub/Gray/Parker/Stevens who are all probably ready right now with Dolis/Mateo/Parisi/Patton and maybe even Atkins as also possible options. That is a lot of pitchers who are already on the 40 man and have the bullpen in their future. Several of them need to be given a chance. It's definitely a risk to rely on them, but the Cubs have been developing this area of the farm system as a strength. They have to turn that strength into results at some point.

While they had the second fewest SB attempts, I'd love to know how they compared with the rest of the majors in hit & run attempts. They probably rank pretty high in that figure which is why they rank so low in stolen base efficiency (a low amount of straight steals and high rate of hit and runs will always spell disaster in the efficiency department). The SB figures actually look better if you figure in that a club did lots of hit and runs because most of the negative of hit and runs are factored in to those numbers already while very little of the positive is.

I hope Lou realizes soon enough that this team just isn't built to steal bases. They didn't try much last year (2nd fewest attempts in the majors) but they were absolutely horrible at it (last in the majors in efficiency). There are certain teams who can use it to great effectiveness (it's a great weapon for the Phillies for example) but the Cubs just don't have the personnel for it.

The Cubs did save money by trading him instead of releasing him. Silva's contract is for more money than Bradley's but the Mariners are paying for part of his contract so the Cubs are actually paying less money to Silva than they would have to Bradley.

What you do know is very little. That immediately calls into question the conclusion that your theories and assumptions can be characterized as "perfectly reasonable". I prefer "completely speculative", personally. We know plenty. Thinking that there's something horrible that Milton did that has been totally hidden and necessitated his being moved is not realistic given who runs this team, how this team is run and how they've dealt with variations of this issue in the past. Please explain how much you know? All I know is what has been reported through the media and to claim the fans would know everything about the day to day interactions or problems is ridiculous. What's been reported through the media? I've seen nothing reported by the media that shows Bradley cost the teams wins with his attitude. The guy's a jerk, oh well. Well, it was reported that he refused to go into a game (which theoretically could have cost the Cubs that day) but I think that's the only on field issue that has been reported on.

Colts and Brackett reach a 5 year deal worth 33 million. That's actually a little less than I expected. It's probably a little more than he could get on the open market, but he's turned into such an important player on the defense that I still think it's an excellent move. I really can't believe how much better he's gotten in run defense even with his size.

That is true...but first round picks are still incredibly important because that's typically where you find your impact players. The Colts have been the best example of how to use first round picks where they basically built their team from the ground up using them (Harrison, Glenn, Manning, James, Wayne, Freeney, Clark in a 8 year period). I would agree though that constantly replacing your good (not great) players with low round picks is essential to having a long run of success. As for the Cutler trade, if he doesn't ever become an elite QB he probably won't be worth what the Bears traded for him. Returning to Denver numbers won't be good enough IMO to trade 2 1sts and a 3rd (if you assume Orton was traded for the 5th). That's way too much value to give up for a QB who has turned it over too much his whole career. He still has plenty of time though to try to learn how to not make those horrible throws and to label him a bust after one year is premature. I definitely believe it is an uphill battle though because it's really hard to make that leap into the next echelon of QB's.

I can't think of a draftee that really matches that description. Colvin I suppose, even if he's not super high on the athleticism scale. They have a lot of guys who are pretty good athletes and maybe strike out too much(Thomas, Flaherty, and Jackson immediately come to mind), but they all walk a good bit and don't match the Pattersonian model that it seems you're talking about. Cool. I was actually asking, not being rhetorical. I'm not that up on the minors these days. The recent years they seem to have gone after a bunch of somewhat safe, minimal ceiling guys all over the place, as if the new goal is to produce as many guys as possible who can make the major leagues, even if none of them are particularly good. Of course there's still Vitters, but he's not all that athletic. I disagree that they are going with a safe approach at least at the top of the draft. Their first 3 rounds (where you are going to get the potential elite players) have had at least as many risky with big upsides as safe picks in the last 3-4 years. I'd put Vitters, Thomas, Shafer, Carpenter, and Jackson as the risky picks. Donaldson, Cashner, Flaherty, and Lemahieu are somewhat safer picks with Kirk somewhere in between.

I think it's only a result of how the schedule shook out. This 5 game stretch was pretty much guaranteed losses/blowouts from the beginning. I remember telling somebody at the start of the Big 10 season that this would be the ugly part. IU matches up just horribly with Wisconsin. They never play well at Minnesota. Michigan State was very likely to overwhelm them. Ohio State was the only chance for a close game if IU shot well from 3 point land, but mostly they are another terrible matchup. Who did you expect them to really play well against? Out of the 9 straight losses, there have only been 2 that have really disappointed me. IU should have played better in both the Iowa and Northwestern games. The Illinois and Purdue games they played well and fell just short. I'll be a lot more disappointed if they aren't competitive in 2 out of the last 3 games. But most of their winnable games were in the first part of their schedule (Michigan, Illinois, Minnesota, at Penn State, Iowa, and maybe at Michigan or at Illinois). This middle stretch just grouped together all the teams they never had a chance against.

I would say yes. The only reason he might not is because he has an option left, but Fontenot is still the most likely option to get the bulk of the starts at second base. One spring isn't going to send him from a starter (even a platoon one) to off the team completely. I would love to find a way to get Blanco off of the team. The Cubs minimize his value anyway by putting him at second base often when he's on the field. Barney could come up if the Cubs need a short term fix at SS and if Theriot got hurt for a long time they would likely bring Castro up rather than play Blanco anyway. And I don't think they are looking for a spot for Millar. It's more likely they're looking for an extra spot to get another significant bat on the bench if that is Chad Tracy or Micah Hoffpauir (probably Tracy). I don't think they'll be able to squeeze either one of them in because I doubt Lou will be any more satisfied with Fontenot's defense at SS, but they can try.

if you are extremely average at absolutely the highest level of your profession, you're going to be making very good money no matter what you do, unless you are a lunch lady or something. that's not really the point though, is it? His '09 salary was "very good money." It's not about whether he makes a lot of money. If you're average for your job (even if that job is the highest level of your profession), it's not common to get a raise to 5-times your prior year's salary. It's the nature of baseball contracts, but I think Derwood's point is still fair. As you said though, it's the way baseball contracts work. Most employers don't get to pay someone who's average for the top level of the profession near minmum wage for that profession for 3 years. The only reason Theriot's contract escalated that much is because the rules allow him to be very underpaid to begin with. The arbitration process is designed to slowly let players get closer and closer to their true market value. So in some ways the fact that Theriot got that much of a raise this year shows how much baseball rules are unfair to players and not the other way around.