Cubswin11

Nebraska certainly deserves to win, but I don't think their offense is capable of getting the 25-35 yards here to get into field goal range.

HUGE completion there, and wow Suh is an absolute beast 11 tackles 3.5 sack.

I thought Cameron got busted for weed?

He posted a .310/.383/.427 line last year. He has a career .738 OPS and he has been pretty solid every year since 2005 (first year he became an everyday player) outside of 2007 when he was miserable. He has had OBP above .340 every year except one since 2005 and 3 times he's been above .350. For the right price I am interested.

I could see us filling 2B with Castillo (trade) or O-Dog/Felipe Lopez (FA). That would "balance" out the lineup a bit and provide us with some decent lead off options. Castillo/Hudson/Lopez 2B Theriot SS Lee 1B Ramirez 3B Soriano LF Fukdome RF Cameron CF Soto C

I am down, 1 yr. for $6-8 mil. and a club or mutual option for a 2nd year. :good:

4 years around $36 mil. http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/10474818/Source:-M%27s,-Figgins-on-verge-of-$36M-contract

$2.15 guarantedd, with a mutual option. Not a terrible deal, should be a decent upgrade over Kendall and it will allow them to bring up one of their young guys and they can slowly work him into the lineup. http://twitter.com/TBrownYahoo/status/6346397128

WTF kind of inbounds play was that? 4.9 sec is enough time for like 5 dribbles a pass and a shot. Serious about storming the court here Badgers?

Phantom foul there

That's a steal, IMO. I think he's still got some left in the tank. A "steal" would be a deal under $3 mil. IMO. This is a pretty average to an actually bad move to me given the monetary commitment to a guy who has been marred with injuries the last few years. Also when you consider the Braves don't generally spend a ton of money this is a good chunk of money to commit to a closer with all of Wagner's question marks at this point in his career.

Ron Artest admits to having drank at half time of NBA games (probably not the first or last guy to ever do it, but still). Real class act this guy. http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4706474

Pretty sure it was known he has a tear in his shoulder and it could "go" anytime, but when he took the physical for the Indians it was worse than expected and prolonged contract negotiations

This seems a lot like the Wood and Sheets decisions last year. Both pitchers entered FA from their teams with neither being offered arbitration or any indication that their previous teams cubs/brewers would offer any sort of contract. Both teams fanbases were upset to see both leave without a contract offer, or at least not being offered arbitration. But as it turned out both were hurt more than what was common knowledge (only their organizations knew of injuries) and as it turned out both had problems passing physicals. Wood's contract, iirc, took like 1-2 months to finalize with the Indians and this was widely believe to be based on injuries Wood had and problems passing the physical and it revealing injuries not known. With Sheets he accepted a contract with the Rangers and he couldn't pass a physical and had to sit out the year recovering from surgeries, when everyone thought he was at least healthy enough to pass a physical and even if he had to miss time he would have been able to pitch at some point last year. So while both of those moves last year at the time they happened had both fanbases scratching their heads and angry with management, looking back on it they were both correct decisions. For the Cubs sake I hope it's a similar situation with Harden.

We will all forget about this Harden thing once the Peavy trade gets completed at the winter meetings

Chip Caray is out of work at the moment...

Need 3, 2 need to be RB's Rashard Mendenhall v. Oak Laurence Maroney @ MIA Jamal Charles v. DEN Brandon Jacobs v. DAL Percy Havin @ ARI Same thing need 3, 2 have to be RB's Matt Forte v. STL Joseph Addai v. TEN Fred Jackson v. NYJ Steve Slaton @ JAC Roddy White v. PHI Hines Ward v. OAK

He made $1.5 mil. last year, but that was because he was a huge injury risk iirc he was coming off that experimental procedure so he could avoid TJS. Apparently it worked as he stayed healthy all, if not most of, last year (55 appearances) so I would think not only will he be looking for $3+ mil. a year, but also a multi year deal. I am fine if we get him around what he made last year but no longer than a year (maybe a mutual or club option) but to commit another $5-8 mil for 2-3 more years for yet another aging MR is not something this organization needs to be doing right now, or ever.

1 - I thought we were discussing Bradley and his production. 2 - I never said I wanted a team full of Ecksteins or Theriots or Reed Johnsons. Trust me, I don't root off of pure emotion. What I don't do is fall in love with numbers and think that is the only way to judge a player. Do you think Bradley's teammates worry about his OPS when he is a complete jerk to them and is not helping them win? There is a reason Mr. Bradley doesn't stay on a team for very long. That fact cannot be discounted and made to go away by statistical evaluation. 3 - While I understand OBP and OPS are important stats in judging a player, to discount RBIs seems disingenous to me. Yes, guys have to get on base and get themselves into scoring position but someone also has to drive them in. An infield hit with two outs and a guy on second improves individual stats, but if the next hitter makes an out and the team doesn't score, the infield hit really wasnt any different than an out. Don't get me wrong, I'll still take the hit but the point is that type of hit in that situation doesn't necessarily mean the hitter is productive. 4 - Yes, I remember those comments about Ramirez and don't agree with them. I would like to see everyone hustle but pulling a hammy or straining a quad on a routine grounder to 2nd for a guy like Ramirez isn't worth it. I watch a lot of Cardinal games and Pujols coasts as much as any player in the game on a ground ball to an infielder. I don't blame him. Look, all I want is for the Cubs to win the World Series. If Bradley is the starting right fielder in the clinching game, that is fine with me. This is not a matter of falling in love with numbers, as you so casually suggest before considering the argument. It's a matter of being in love with a team and using the proper numbers to accurately digest just what happened last year, so as to have the most informed opinion of what the future holds. We are talking about Bradley and his production. His production is relevant to that of his teammates, of which Bradley was in no way the biggest issue on the 2009 Cubs. Your logic just doesn't make any sense... with the train of thought you are using, if Bradley hits a double to the gap and there is a strong defensive play and Theriot is thrown out at home, the double was worthless and not productive. That simply isn't true. Look, I agree that personalities make a difference. I work for a living, just as i assume you do, and i know what it's like to work with jerks. But that does nothing to stifle my production, and actually, i become a harder worker for that. And yeah, i complain about the other guys from time to time, or will let out a sigh of relief on days on which they call in, just like some of the Cubs were said to have when Bradley was suspended. However, if Reed Johnson is worse, or if Mike Fontenot suddenly can't hit because they don't like a teammate of theirs, and their teammate has better numbers, then the problem is with the guys who all of a sudden can't perform. I don't discount RBI anymore than it should be discounted. It is no different than a starting pitcher and wins. You can't tell me that Zach Greinke in 2009 wasn't better than, say, Joe Saunders or Scott Feldman. Do better pitchers win more games than bad pitchers? By and large, yes. But do slightly above average pitchers on teams with very good offenses win more games than good pitchers on teams with bad offenses? Quite often, yes. So, then, how do we know that Greinke was a better pitcher than Joe Saunders even though they have the same amount of wins? You look at statistics. The real statistics that are independent of what other guys are doing. And those statistics say that Milton Bradley was a productive player in 2009, and suggest that he is going to be at least as productive in 2010 as whatever else they end up putting in right field. And yes, it does mean that that player was productive in his at bat, and it also increased the chance of his team scoring a run, even if it didn't happen in your instance. I will take that infield hit to put runners at first and third every chance I can take over an out. You only get 27 outs in a game, it is the most important commodity in baseball. I will take a guy who gets on base at a .378 rate, because he gives his team more of a chance to score runs than someone who gets on at a lesser clip. It's quite simple, and people who cling to RBI are not giving themselves a chance to give themselves the best possible chance at understanding what it takes for his or her team to put together the best possible team to have the best possible chance to win a world series you say you want. I would take a whole team of guys who get on base like that, because you end up with at least one guy on base an inning. And whether that is a weak infield hit, or a walk, i will take it. Now, obviously an extra base hit is more valuable than a single or a walk. I am not questioning that. And part of the problem in the Bradley equation is that people expected a power hitter, which Bradley has never been to the degree of expectation. I fell into the trap of thought, too, thinking he was going to hit for much more power. However, knowing what i know now, and understanding just what Bradley brings to the table as a baseball player, to trade him for something lesser just makes the Cubs chances of winning a world series that much worse. Now and in the future, as the team will be eating salary it won't be able to justify in terms of production out of the initial contract and the resulting fallout. People just got caught up by the media in Chicago, who knows that their industry is going under and needs to find targets they can dirty up to sell newspapers. Did Bradley do some boneheaded things? Of course. I was screaming as loudly as anyone when he tossed the ball into the stands. Did Bradley get off to a slow start? Yeah, for sure. So all of this is going to fuel a fire, one that Bradley got caught up in and didn't help put out. BUT. If everyone, Bradley included, can kind of take a step back and look at the situation critically, I think it becomes clearly apparent that Bradley is the best fit for the Cubs right field position next year. Hendry is not going to get equal return in overall production (i am counting headaches in this) in any realistic deal involving Bradley. I could live with Millwood, but i don't think it's very likely to happen. I will not live with Burrell, however, and if you are okay with that, then get ready for 2005 and 2006 all over again. I, for one, am not ready to accept that sort of mediocrity from a team i unfortunately spend much too much time thinking about. Tell us what you really think, ;)

The USC bandwagon is probably the most annoying around. While they aren't as good as they were in the early/mid 2000's when they had Bush, Leinhart, Palmer, etc. I still consider them and "elite" program. They will still continue to bring in 4-5 star recruits and have a solid coaching staff. They will still be a top 10 probably in pre-season polls next year and be favorites to win the PAC-10. Also I think USC's "fall," if that's what you want to consider it, over the last few years is more associated to Pac-10 teams on a whole improving more than it is USC getting worse.

Big W for Baltimore, the Steelers just can't seem to get things going this year.

With him being young, cheap, and having no influence on where he can be traded/not traded to, he is going to cost a ton. I would assume it would take one of Vitters or Castro + JJ, Cashner, and another top 10 prospect and a guy who can play at the ML level this year (Marshall/Stevens/Gaub/Caridad/Wells). Might be too costly, but the guy is a stud.

I am a little surprised he signed so quickly for so little. I know he isn't anywhere near the player he was in ATL, but he did post a decent line last year of .214/.323/.459 (.782 OPS) with 17 HR. His babip was only .221 so if he gets a little more lucky he is easily a .800+ops guy. For close to league minimum I like this deal. Maybe Jones just wanted security and signed the first decent offer he got and he didn't want to go the whole offseason worrying about where he was going to play.

While I agree that would be good to get from CF, that's the HIGH end of what to expect from Byrd. More than likely, you'd probably get an OPS in the .770-.790 range. The one good thing I can say about him is that he hits lefties and righties pretty much equally over the course of his career. To me, he's just not the bat the Cubs need, especially for the money and contract length he wants. I agree, I would rather we sign Cameron. Offensive production would be similar, Byrd would probably hit for a higher average, while Cameron draws more BB. OPS wise they come in about the same give or take .010 points. Cameron is going to play superior defense and is apparently a great clubhouse guy. IDK what kind of guy Byrd is, I would assume with the Bradley fiasco "character" and "team chemistry" is going to play a factor in who we bring in this offseason. I would rather have Cameron for 1-2 years for $4-6 per. Than Byrd for a 2-4 year deal for around $8-10 per. I'd definitely rather have Cameron too. I was just pointing out that Byrd's a pretty good option as well. That being said though, Cameron comes with plenty of risk too. He's going to be 37 next year. Next year could finally be the year where he stops producing. However if he keeps hitting and playing D like he always has then he's definitely the best and most cost effective solution. The difference he makes to our club, just defensively alone, would be huge. If you trust UZR, then conservatively, Fukudome's something like -10 runs in CF and +10 in right field; Milton Bradley's probably something like -5 runs in RF; and Cameron is a +10 guy in CF. So we're talking about something like a +20 run swing in CF and a +15 run swing in RF. That's even before taking into account the offensive improvement from a typical Cameron year to Bradley's down 2009. Just a potentially huge improvement, although it does come with some risk. I like Byrd, he'd be a good option for the right price. But it appears Cameron will be cheaper and offensively they are very close while defensively Cameron is clearly better. Like you were getting at we could take on Cameron and even if he regressed to say 15HR and a .750 OPS his defense alone (along with moving Kosuke to RF) would be a major improvement to the team from last year.

While I agree that would be good to get from CF, that's the HIGH end of what to expect from Byrd. More than likely, you'd probably get an OPS in the .770-.790 range. The one good thing I can say about him is that he hits lefties and righties pretty much equally over the course of his career. To me, he's just not the bat the Cubs need, especially for the money and contract length he wants. I agree, I would rather we sign Cameron. Offensive production would be similar, Byrd would probably hit for a higher average, while Cameron draws more BB. OPS wise they come in about the same give or take .010 points. Cameron is going to play superior defense and is apparently a great clubhouse guy. IDK what kind of guy Byrd is, I would assume with the Bradley fiasco "character" and "team chemistry" is going to play a factor in who we bring in this offseason. I would rather have Cameron for 1-2 years for $4-6 per. Than Byrd for a 2-4 year deal for around $8-10 per.