CubColtPacer

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.

Blanco appears to be the only one on the 40 man out of that group that is out of options. Fuld has an option and so does Hoffpauir. Tracy has a decent chance but of course could be stashed in the minors also unless he has a release clause. Snyder and Millar probably have no chance. I think Blanco and Fuld likely have the spots to start the year, but I think even if Fuld wins the spot to start the year he'll be the casualty as soon as an IF gets hurt or Lou decides he wants more pop on the bench.

Quietly isn't exactly the adjective I'd use. Theriot and his agent have watched Hendry hand out ridiculous contract after ridiculous contract. Why shouldn't Theriot ask for a ridiculous contract as well? Based on that really awful Aaron Miles contract alone, I'm guessing Theriot will win. Not exactly sure what he's going to win in the big picture, but he will probably win this particular stand off. Theriot can't use the contract of Miles or any other free agent contract in his arbitration hearing. They aren't relevant to his case.

If they structure 96 like I think they might (top 32 given a bye) I think it would be great for all schools involved. There would actually be incentive to be an 8 seed while now people would rather often be a 10. The small schools at the bottom of the tournament will still get to play a big school and get exposure, but playing a 9 seed will give them a much better chance of an upset than a 1 seed. Even with an expanded field, there will probably be less mismatches overall as the 1-2 seeds will likely have a decent opponent from the very first game. And then of course the benefit to all those schools who will get in the tournament from the beginning. I think this is pretty much a win-win.

Did some mad scientist combine Tom Moore and Jim Mora? :D Apparently. I can't tell you how many times I have done that. "Playoffs!" And Tom Moore has no plans to retire. The Colts offensive line coach Howard Mudd is retiring. But Moore has said that he will coach until they don't want him anymore. He almost had to retire last year because of the pension situation, but now that's been settled and Moore should probably be there through at least the end of the Peyton years.

I would want to go for it because the alternative is not bad. The Jets backed up on their 1 yard line are not going to do anything fancy. They aren't going to take any chances that early in the game of giving up the turnover that changes the game (or a holding call on Freeney or Mathis in the end zone). So they'll punt it right back to the Colts and the Colts will probably have it in Jets territory. I think Stover can be pretty accurate from 45 in, so the advantage of having the field goal being so close isn't that much. I do understand the argument of only needing a certain amount of points, but I feel that pinning the Jets on the 1 yard line is going to give the Colts an extra 2-3 points anyway on average from having them out at the 23-25. So I think it's a very minimal risk to go for the touchdown there.

That would have been a pretty impressive day by him if he had made both. 44, 48, 52. On average a good kicker will miss one of those. Of course the Colts probably wouldn't have let up on the last drive and simply ran the ball on all 3 downs near the goal line if the Jets had 23 either.

I think it was supposed to be a quick snap sneak but the ref would not let them snap the ball for some reason. They should have stepped back and called another play when that happened. I haven't seen the Colts call that play in 2-3 years though. And I definitely think they should have gone for it there.

The Cubs are in a similar situation as last year regarding Pie. They don't have room to carry 5 OF's all year. The 5th OF has to have options left (which is one reason why Gathright couldn't stay on the team for long last year). The Cubs may carry 5 OF's to begin this year, which leaves a bench of Hill, Blanco, Baker, platoon partner, and Fuld. As soon as they want more pop off of the bench or one of the infielders gets hurt for 4-5 days, Fuld will be back in the minors. Pie might have been an option in trade for the open CF spot earlier in the offseason, but the signing of Byrd pretty much eliminates any opening for him.

Mike Fontenot as the only viable backup shortstop? Is there someone he's forgetting? It will probably be Hoffpauir instead of Branyan, but I have a hard time seeing another backup infielder making the team right out of camp. Hasn't Lou basically said Andres Blanco will be the backup SS? Yes, Lou has said that he says Blanco as the backup SS. It will probably be down to either Hoffpauir or Fuld for the final bench spot with Fuld having the edge right now.

So if the Colts and Vikings make the Super Bowl, the AFC Pro Bowl team will now be missing: All 3 QB's, two of the 4 WR, starting tight end, starting left tackle, backup center, both starting defensive ends, and the backup free safety. The NFC will be missing: 1 QB, 2 RB, 2 WR, 1 starting tackle, 1 starting guard, starting center, 1 starting defensive end, 1 starting defensive tackle, 1 outside linebacker, 3 CB, a kick returner, and the special teams player. And that's assuming that all the members of the losing teams from the conference championship games show up. I don't think that's a good assumption to make but I don't know how many to knock out because of that. So that's 27 players missing with potential for more out of 84 including many of the most high profile players.

Yeah, it's kinda funny that there is so much demand for predictions in the media when their predictions aren't any more or sometimes less accurate than any joe blow predicting. The media in general pick horribly. They only seem to care about what happened the last 3-4 weeks and base their predictions on that. Here are some examples: -The Saints dominated all year, scoring the 9th most points in NFL history, having a very opportunistic defense, and a legit home field advantage. Unfortunately they couldn't go undefeated, losing at home to Dallas, and with nothing to play for anymore lost their last 2 games. This caused everyone to jump ship and choose a team that gave up 45 points last weekend over the Saints at home after a bye week. Simply idiotic. - A nitpick although I mostly agree with your overall point, but the Saints still had something to play for in their second to last game. They were playing for homefield advantage when they got beat by Tampa Bay. They then had to wait for the Monday night game when the Bears beat the Vikings in order to clinch. So they had a 2 game losing streak entering their playoffs with their last game not counting since they didn't even play Brees.

Dempster was a good #2 last year and was an ace the year before that. Is there anything that makes you think he's going to collapse from what he did last year? I'm not sure I'd call the rotation a big question mark. Sure, it would definitely help if they signed a risk like Sheets who could provide another possibility of great production. But this rotation as it currently stands is at worst average and most likely above average in the National League. And that's anticipating a severe regression by Wells and Lilly missing a month or two.

I don't have access to the article but the Cubs payroll obligations for their already signed players is around 100 million in 2011 (that includes Ramirez coming back on the player option). I'm not sure where they are getting the almost 125 million unless they are doing something really strange with signing bonuses. That's still poor but a huge difference when talking about a payroll of 140 million overall. The Cubs don't really have many contracts where the player is well overpaid. Their problem is that they have a couple badly overpaid, a bunch of guys who are making about what they should, and simply not enough discounts on their roster (either cheap free agents or young players). They've been so risk averse because of the endless pressure to make the team perfect to win that year. The whole point of discounted players is that they have risk and the Cubs have caved and paid for safe production over and over again. If they let the current core ride for the next two years, they really aren't in that horrible of shape. The current team has a chance with hitting the right breaks to compete during that time frame. And the rebuilding with a new core can happen gradually during that time. The Cubs are starting to have the farm system that can help with that and they just don't have many contract anchors that will really destroy the process. Now if the Cubs go out and sign several of their players whose contracts are coming up in the next year or two (Lilly, Lee, Ramirez, Fukudome) to more big deals, then they will be in serious trouble. But all those players are reasonable bets to be good to great over the course of their current contracts.

If that's what you want, that's fine with me as well.

Well, they are paying 9 million for Lugo to play for the Cardinals this year. Ortiz will almost certainly be overpaid this year. Lowell is a huge question mark and will likely not be worth anywhere near his salary this year. When you include the posting fee Daisuke has been a disappointment so far and it is uncertain if he will ever live up to that huge deal. Their contracts they handed out this year are risky but it is too early to call them poor. I didn't look at their short contracts for their bench players and relievers. They don't have a Soriano on their roster, but they have several examples of questionable to poor type of contracts.