jersey cubs fan

I'm saying I think they were plenty prepared last year. They had a bunch of depth at LB, it was needed, and it worked out. I don't think it would work out any better this year if they needed it again.

I thought it was pretty obvious thats what "depth" meant in this concept. It's not like the Bears had fewer players last year. Still a 53-man roster. I think the 53-men are better on this roster than they were last year. That's better quality depth. Right, but that just gets back to my point that "best depth in years" means very little when comparing with teams that struggled to win 8 games the past three years. The Bears didn't lose 9 games last year because of a lack of depth. Maybe you can say that about the 2007 team, once they lost Briggs they started to fall apart.

to help not catch the ball

But can't you just set it up so that you win your division based on record in your division, with other games as tie breaker?

that's true. nothing ever changes in cfb and michigan's program sure seems to be back on the upswing now. i'll take 100 years of history over how michigan has played the last 2-3 years. i guess we can bet a nickel now and stop back in 25 years to settle our bet. 100 years of history tells you nothing about Florida's status in college football. Eras come and go. But again, why would PSU be the team that goes west? Why can't Michigan be in the west but still play OSU?

Everything tells me Sandberg is exactly who he wants as manager, eventually.

Because if he was hitting reasonably well in Daytona instead, he'd still be ahead of Jackson because of the age difference at the same level. We'll never know, and that's why you scale it that way. But he's not hitting reasonably well at Daytona.

I didn't look at his website, but I was disappointed to read he's already worked with the Cubs in the past and will work alongside Chuck Wasserstrom.

The Reds were probably better than the Cubs for most 25 year segments of baseball, but that doesn't mean anything about the next 25. Teams struggle. The really good ones don't struggle that long or that bad. But Michigan has really fallen on very tough times and are still in limbo with no idea if they have the right coach.

Depth helps, but not much without quality.

Deep helps though, in case of injuries. The Bears are more prepared to play without Urlacher and Tinoisamoa than they were last year because the backups got a ton of time with them being injured. I think they are no more prepared, but are less able since they lost Williams.

was very good

draft is next week, so I assume that's when stuff will start to happen.

I don't see why you can't put UM in the west but have them play OSU every year.

you're only thinking about this in terms of the last few years. going back 25 years, the top teams in the conference are michigan, OSU, PSU and nebraska. two should be in one division and two should be in the other. divisioning really shouldn't matter in basketball. Going back 25 years isn't important. Too many things have changed. Yeah, lots of people thought PSU would dominate the big ten when they first came in, but it just hasn't happened. And they are about to go through a major transition when JoePa goes. There is no reason to think of them as some sort of superpower that has to be seperated. The only power is OSU.

You know, I used to like Pompei, but I think he's been pretty terrible in the last year or more. He's full of fluff, and buys into it....and then really kind of falls in love with the players on the roster. He's unwilling to criticize anybody that matters. All the coaches are doing their jobs, and all the vets are capable of being pro bowlers.

Vitters is only a level ahead because the Cubs promoted him unjustifiably. I don't see how that can count for him when looking at rankings, because he sure as hell didn't accomplish anything to get that promotion.

Are people still talking about that? I'll admit to being disappointed with the trade when it happened, but we potentially got 3 arms that will play in the majors (here's hoping, primarily with Archer, as I think Gaub will definitely see the bigs for a bit at least) and any trade you can get three arms like that is a good. yeah, I still hear people complaining. You'd think DeRosa being awful last year would have been enough to squelch it, actually. I hear Kaplan throw his name out for no good reason, but I rarely hear anybody actually talk about DeRosa.

Do you even have to examine all that closely? I'm thinking maybe 3rd or 4th ballot. Possible 2nd. Is that what you think will happen, or what you personally think should happen? I'm guessing what will. I don't get the point of not voting for a guy on your first ballot, and then deciding he's a HOFer the next year.

time warner cable's Espn feed is dead. but I just found the espn deportes channel.

Huh? Most of the contracts are all off the books after 2012. You just have to sign the right FA to go along with whoever the farm system produces. Yeah, current contracts won't hold us back from being able to compete again by 2012-2013. Most are off the books by after the 2011 season and we'll have two FA classes to supplement what our farm system can't fill. The key will be making good decisions leading up to the 2012-2013 seasons. I don't know why people pretend that the contracts that run through 2012 are no big deal. The Cubs have a tremendous amount of money guaranteed in future years, much more than most teams. And those contracts absolutely do affect beyond 2012, because they affect what they can do right now, and right now is when you need to be positioning yourself for the future. You can't just wait up November 1, 2012 and say, okay, we can fix all this now. Every contract handed out affects future payroll flexibility.

Pompei did a piece about how this might be the deepest roster in years, which is meaningless because they've been mediocre for three years. There's an article today apparently about Knox and the receivers feeling like rookies again in a new system.

Bobby Jenks was originally in the Angels' organization and was waived because of underperformance and the Sox claimed him. He would qualify. Santos was originally drafted by the Diamondbacks and bounced around the minors until the Sox picked him up, traded him to the Giants and then 11 days later re-acquired by Chicago (weird). He would also qualify, though he hasn't exactly had a long resume of success to this point. I don't see how they qualify. Jenks wasn't some underutilized stud who wasn't given a chance and the White Sox stole him. Regardless, nobody needs to follow the White Sox model. The Quentin thing worked out nicely for a bit, but the team has been incredibly mediocre for a while now (although they have outperformed the Jim Hendry Cubs).

I guess I was thinking of quality of their football programs with my last post. In terms of value to a conference, Texas is alone at #1. But OU is still head and shoulders above any other team in the conference. I think you can reasonably refer to them as the top 2 in the conference. Historically OU's football program is better than Texas'. Since 1945 OU has the best winning percentage out of any football program, most wins, most weeks ranked #1, most weeks ranked in the top 5, weeks ranked #1 in the BCS, Weeks ranked in the top 5 of the BCS, and the most all-americans. OU has 7 national championships, Texas has 4 (i think) Ou has 42 conference championships, Texas has 32 OU has 142 All-americans, Texas has 129 OU has had 5 heisman winners, Texas has 2 OU has 21 players in the College hall of fame, Texas has 11 OU also has the record for most consecutive victories with 47, a record that will never be broken. But Texas brings more money to a conference because the size of their state and all the viewers in that state. So in terms of bringing money, Texas is number one. In terms of the actual football team, OU is by far number one. and the rest of the athletic department, correct?

Part of the problem is, you can't just "find out" by playing him this year. He could have a one off rookie of the year type season and still be no better than a 4th OF in the long run. I don't see the need to play him everyday. If Fukudome was already gone, fine. But letting an asset sit the bench because you want to see what Colvin may or may not be able to prove to you does not make sense. Unless there's already a deal in the works, I don't see how you can make a quality trade with him sitting everyday. You already have 2 other OF guys who are not 162 game players, why can't you just increase his playing time and see if he maintains his numbers? By benching Fukudome for Colvin you ensure that Fukudome's numbers don't continue to slide any further. In regard to Colvin, I don't think this is the year to treat him with kid gloves. The problem with playing him part time the rest of the year is that you have no idea what to expect next year or any indication of what the team's needs are in the off season. You may view Colvin as a 4th OF at best, but I'm almost certain the Cubs view him as a future starter. If that is the case, he should be out there everyday similar to Castro. Fukudome's history suggests his numbers won't necessarily continued to decline. And playing the guy regularly, but not everyday, is hardly treating him with kid gloves. Additionally, as I just said, playing him everyday will not prove either way if he's your longterm solution or not.