UMFan83
-
Posts
94,067 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
64
Content Type
Profiles
Joomla Posts 1
Chicago Cubs Videos
Chicago Cubs Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
2026 Chicago Cubs Top Prospects Ranking
News
2023 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
Guides & Resources
2024 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
The Chicago Cubs Players Project
2025 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker
2026 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker
Blogs
Events
Forums
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by UMFan83
-
Thanks for posting that link MrWood. All night when I've gone through northsidebaseball.com it tells me that the domain has expired.
-
Bulls record last year after December 4th against top 4 seed in both conferences (Miami, Boston, Orlando, San Antonio, LA Lakers, Dallas, Oklahoma City): 12-0 Bulls record last year after December 4th against playoff teams in both conferences: 24-6 This is a big reason why I just do not care that people are bringing up the Bulls having trouble beating over 500 teams. When healthy, the Bulls last year won every single big game and beat almost every playoff caliber team we faced. While last year is last year, the Bulls obviously had a young team and the only big differences in players are switching Bogans and Thomas for Hamilton and Lucas. If the Bulls are healthy I am quite confident we can beat every team at any arena in the NBA during the regular season. In the playoffs I'm only slightly less confident as we did struggle at times against lesser teams with the playoff style of play and then met our match. Last year I was so paranoid about getting recognition from the masses (I wouldn't be the power rankings guy for nothing) but this year I just don't care. PS I know some people tend to call out when people use convenient cut off dates to make favorable statistics, but considering the Bulls had 8 new players out of the 12 that had a role on the team, I feel comfortable allowing them a month to get their stuff together.
-
I see. So when is the cut off for "it's recent enough to be relevant"? I'm going to guess right around the time Illinois went to the National Championship game? Anything before that doesn't matter, right? How long do you get to hang your hat on that exactly? This post is just embarrassing. I was told "almost every big ten team has been more successful [than Purdue]". I responded by stating that they have the most Big Ten Championships and a winning record against every Big Ten School. Than I'm told (paraphrasing) "that doesn't count". I'm just trying to get the rules right here. So you tell me, has almost every Big Ten team been more successful than Purdue? The rules are that if a majority of your titles are several years before the shot clock is invented, you can't brag about having the most big ten titles. It's why a lot of stats are qualified as "In the shot clock era". It's barely the same sport without the shot clock. Unless you want to brag about your teams ability to stall.
-
Look at the scores of the games Purdue played in their 1932 title season to show why bragging about most big ten titles when a majority are before 1940 and the shot clock is stupid: 28-21 26-23 21-28 31-17 34-19 53-18
-
Most Big Ten championships except 60% of them are from before 1940. So yes Purdue was king back when they had to pause after every basket to remove the ball from the Peach bucket.
-
I honestly think that rumor is complete BS. I was mentioned on a radio show in Toronto or something, and from what I read it was more of a suggestion/speculation kind of thing. Of course the 24/7 media we live with has brought it into the news cycle and suddenly we have to discuss it as if it is on the table. I like Ryan Miller but it just doesn't make sense. Unless we draft one and bring them up, I am not a big fan of trading or really even signing a big name Goalie. It's kind of like giving big money to a closer. Granted goalies are more important than a closer, but you can live with an average goalie just fine if the defense in front of him is good, just like you can live with an average closer if the team can give him bigger leads to work with. Of course the problem is that the Hawks defense is in shambles, but I'd rather not trade someone like Kane for a band aid.
-
Ah, you are right my bad. The timing of their injuries is strange. Rose missed a few games, the last of which was on 1/21, the game where Deng hurt his wrist. So Rose was back and Deng was out until 2/4 against Milwaukee. After one game together, Rose's back became an issue in the next game and has been out since. They've only both been healthy together for 14 out of 32 games this year.
-
Yep, and the Bulls at full strength are worse than the Warriors. 2 game sample size > 1 :)
-
All 5 without Rose, Deng or both. With Rose and Deng they are 6-1 against +500 teams. (@Lakers, @Clippers, Grizzlies, Hawks, @Celtics, @Orlando. Loss @Atlanta)
-
Ok so the Bulls without Derrick Rose and Rip Hamilton are roughly as good as the Celtics.
-
LOL I didn't even realize the Hawks are 0 for their last 20 power plays. I have never seen such a streaky power play in my life, except the streak only goes from average to terrible.
-
They were talking a lot of Hawks on the Score last night an one of the things they said was worth thinking about. They speculated that the asking price for potential trade targets has probably gone up during this losing streak. They believe the other team gains a lot of leverage. I am not sure how much I buy that. If we're looking at an impact player it's highly unlikely the Hawks are the only team interested so the market isn't going to be set by the Hawks alone. That said if the Hawks are targeting a 3rd pairing defenseman on a team that doesn't have to unload that player, you bet the Hawks are going to have to give up too much. Other teams also know the Hawks have a ton of young talent and will be trying to snatch as much as possible for them. At this point I am not even sure if we should bother. I don't think the Cup is much of an optin this year. If the Hawks play like this or similar all year it's going to be more than 1-2 moves away from contending. I'd rather play it conservative and see what we can do in the offseason. At some point very soon you have to get really agressive or watch your core sit around and get older but with the supposed core all locked up you can afford to be patient at least this season assuming you have a plan to take the next step in the offseason. Next February I don't think you have that option.
-
Ps I'm now certain they renovating the RF bleachers and eventually installing that LCD. I walked by there last night and the whole area is blocked from view and there are nets hanging on the outside under the overhang to prevent debris from falling. The lights have been on at Wrigley the last 2 nights and there are portable lights particularly focused on the RF bleachers. Hopefully we can get an interior view as I'd love to get a preview of the finished product.
-
Laughable NL Central position rankings by ESPN
UMFan83 replied to Schwarber Fan's topic in General Baseball Talk
I was flipping though a fantasy baseball book today looking at position rankings and boy were the Cubs ugly. Granted fantasy rankings only have some relevancy to real rankings but it was brutal none the less. Castro was the highest rated Cub at his position, ranking 3rd among SS. Soto was 15th among C. But after that we had Barney coming in something like 27th among 2B (recalling from memory), no Cub was mentioned among the top 50 at 3B. LaHair was 37th among 1B. Then in the outfield, they ranked the top 100 OFs and only 1 Cub was listed - DeJesus at 67. Same story with SP. they ranked 100 names and Garza was the only Cub in those 100 at 29th. I don't remember exactly what Marmol was for RP, but it was somewhere in the middle of the list of 30 names. Don't expect a lot of people to have Cubs on their fantasy team to start the season at least. -
ESPN's MLB Future Power Rankings
UMFan83 replied to jersey cubs fan's topic in General Baseball Talk
Yeah, whether or not you are at your teams financial limit, how many bad unmovable contracts you have, etc. -
Thanks for '05 buddy. Don't you mean Bill Self?
-
Amazing post TO play
-
But wait...
-
Wow...that was stupid
-
That has been my impression this entire time as well. It's funny how all the sudden the Cubs have dropped off in terms of teams that are said to be going hard after Soler.
-
ESPN's MLB Future Power Rankings
UMFan83 replied to jersey cubs fan's topic in General Baseball Talk
For those that can't see the article, the Cubs ratings were (on a scale of 1-30, 30 being the best) Majors talent: 6 Minors talent: 11 Finances: 25 Management: 27 Mobility: 20 Most of that seems fair except the minors talent category. That should be in the 15-20 range IMO. The Cubs have good management now, and they obviously have or will have money to spend so those categories are good. The Cubs have a lot more mobility than they had even a year ago, but still have some players (Soriano) and contracts (Zambrano) on the payroll that hamper them so 20 is about right. -
I don't like the way the Marlins built their team this offseason. Maybe it will work but it's not the way I would have done it. Of course their main goal was/is to make a splash and bring lots of attention to the team so that fans will show, but the moves are not necessarily baseball smart. The Hanley/Reyes situation was handled poorly, and I'm never a big fan of a team that tries to piece their rotation together with veteran pickups like Buehrle and Zambrano. And I definitely hate big money closers. So a lot of people say Soler is possibly the better player of the 2, but they go hard after Cespedes to garner attention but when he signs elsewhere they have no interest in a potential 5 tool player. Just kind of proves that they aren't really willing to spend extravagantly, but they are willing to pretend that they are trying to. If they have $30+ million to throw at Cespedes, to me 25+ million at Soler is a smart backup plan. anyways, [expletive] the marlins
-
Jersey, are you even bothering to goto the Rangers game on Thursday?
-
that's definitely not true They are doing construction in the bleachers as we speak. I'm pretty sure its preparing to install the LCD screen in right.
-
Misc. Free Agent News
UMFan83 replied to Clem Fandango's topic in MLB Draft, International Signings, Amateur Baseball
Yeah not a bad deal at all for the Sox. That said, the guy is 35 and is only productive in spurts. 750K seems about right for him.
