UMFan83

Michigan will lose. Again. Rather than predict whether or not Michigan will win, its more enjoyable to predict their 3 point shooting percentage for the game. I'll go with 8-34

you're losing bad. You're right and we should all bow down to IMB!. His name is IBM, get it right

Both

The Bulls are playing really well lately, on the road no less...but I'm not going to get excited just yet. We've seen flashes of brilliance before from these guys. They do seem like they are having more fun out there though.

We'll get him if the Padres are desperate enough, unless the Braves step back in because of said desperation.

I'm glad Michigan can still recruit somewhat despite last season. Too bad its still the 3rd best haul of the Big Ten schools

I'm just worried that Fukudome is going to be in Lou's doghouse from the start and have a short leash, destroying his confidence.

Is Meph invited? What did he say he won, 7/8 leagues last year or something?

I was hoping they edited the ending like WGN once did for a rebroadcast of the Phillies' 23-22 win over the Cubs in 1979 (in the edited rebroadcast Ernie Banks then hit a 2-run homer to win 24-23). Alas, no such luck. Are you serious? That's awesome!

Imagine how much better this offseason could have been if Hendry would have waited a bit to test the market before making his major moves. He could have gotten Dempster and Bradley cheaper, would have gotten a better player than Miles for the same money, etc.

Seriously look at this guys posts. He's obviously a troll that is baiting us.

This guy is obviously baiting us.

Bottom 3 teams in the Big East (South Florida, Rutgers, DePaul) record vs. DePaul: 3-0 Bottom 3 teams in the Big East (South Florida, Rutgers, DePaul) record vs. all other BE teams: 0-24

It's too bad Manny is right handed (Career OPS against righties - .980), because he could have been good on the Cubs.

Yes, welcome! We love having respectable Cardinals fans on this board.

I don't mind this move. Relievers are a dime a dozen, and Wuertz is not a known quantity on a year to year basis, is making over $1m, and is in Lou's inescapable doghouse. I liked Wuertz, but he's replicable. I know the people we are trading are out of options, but I wonder if theres a larger idea behind all this reshuffling. It seems like the prospects we are acquiring are barely better than sending them to spring training and seeing if they can make the roster, and if not dumping them.

Stupid being at work. I would love to see my Cubs in the World Series for the first time ever.

Who cares? Do you really think another draft pick to develop is what this team needs? I've never been so apathetic about looking forward to the draft.

Still think its ridiculous for me to say that Michigan isn't making the NCAA's Sulley?

I think Heilman will be the 5th starter. I have a feeling Lou wants Marshall as a lefty in the pen/swingman for injuries. It might not matter though, I get the feeling that Harden will start the season on the DL.

And they choked a 3-2 lead to the Yankees. Kevin Millar had a fever that week.

Perhaps my biggest problem with the notion of chemistry is that, even if you assume Millar's personality somehow added just the right amount of lightheartedness to loosen up other players and help them perform better, the assumption that this is some sort of ability of his that he can bring to another team just doesn't make sense to me. It may have happened in Boston in 2004. But that team won it all again in 2007, without the help of Millar's loosy goosy personality. And Miller didn't help them beat the Yankees in 2003 either. And what about 2005, when they got swept by the White Sox? I just don't see any value in trying to recreate personality matches from teams that won in the past. The Phillies were a troubled team in a city even more title starved than Chicago, and their fans hated them for years, including during the 2008 season. They had done nothing in recent years. They got swept in the first round in 2007. But they didn't win because of some loose players. No its true. I am not saying that Kevin Millar was the only reason the Red Sox won it in 2004, or that he was even a big reason. I was noting the similarities because the Cubs also have a huge psychological hump to get over. And for the record, they didn't get past the Yankees in 03, but they did fight back from an 0-2 deficit against the A's in the first round that year. But you're right. The Cubs will have to find their own Kevin Millar most likely if it even matters in the long run. Plus Kevin Millar could be the greatest chemistry guy ever and it won't matter if he slugs .394 like he did last year.

Isn't he essentially only a backup 1B at this point? I don't see the point in Millar. His attitude wasn't nearly as important as his team's ridiculous production. Yeah, he is pretty much a backup 1B. Knowing how you think (and a lot of people here), its hard to believe that someone's attitude or clubhouse presence had a difference in the play of a team. But if it was possible, if any team could use a boost like the Red Sox allegedly benefited from, its probably the Cubs with their history and recent postseason success. A) We don't have a Yankees. B) Boston won because as often as they were good, it was bound to happen. C) If there's a team in the NL that needs some sort of mental boost, it's much more likely to be the Mets than the Cubs. That team has blown divisions two years in a row in glorious fashion. D) If Millar was any good, I'd be perfectly fine adding him in hopes that there was some sort of intangible mental benefit on the side. However, he's not any good, and he plays a position (RH backup 1B) that the Cubs really have no need for. Boston also faced a number of challenging mental situations during those playoffs that could have ate them up and spit them out including playing the Yankees who had a mental edge on them, facing a 3-0 deficit, their ace playing on one ankle. They had to stay loose somehow. There's no point in arguing it though because its impossible to quantify any sort of mental/chemistry influence in baseball. I don't even think I believe there is much effect. I just brought up Millar and his reputation for chemistry because someone was going to. And yes the Red Sox were very very good in 2004. But so were the Cubs last year.

Hoff would probably put up better numbers, but the way the Cubs think, they'd rather get someone less talented but more proven for their bench. At least Millar can come up and hit some dingers, although I wouldn't go as far as to say he could provide power off the bench, given his anemic SLG last year.

Isn't he essentially only a backup 1B at this point? I don't see the point in Millar. His attitude wasn't nearly as important as his team's ridiculous production. Yeah, he is pretty much a backup 1B. Knowing how you think (and a lot of people here), its hard to believe that someone's attitude or clubhouse presence had a difference in the play of a team. But if it was possible, if any team could use a boost like the Red Sox allegedly benefited from, its probably the Cubs with their history and recent postseason success.