UMFan83

Yeah, most of the teams in our division (St. Louis, Cincinnati, Houston) can operate as larger market teams, probably not top tier like NY, Boston, Chicago, but a step below, but have chosen not to. Pittsburgh and Milwaukee operate like mostly small market teams (Milwaukee is the smallest market in baseball but has decent corporate backing, new ballpark, and owners willing to spend), but can open up the pocketbooks when the team is winning and fans are showing up every night (in the case of Milwaukee last year). The division is actually quite a nice mix of large, medium and small market teams.

The Big 10 needed to be winning coming into today to have a shot. Even if Tyler Hansborough is out, I don't see MSU having much of a shot. It's going to be an ACC blowout.

Wow the Orioles are slowing talks down? That's strange because usually when the Orioles get involved in trades they happen like instantly. /sarcasm

By wearing another player's uni? My junior high football coach actually had a player do that once. The kid got thrown out and they had him switch jerseys right on the sideline. He wasn't even that good. Well I meant the court injunction, but that might work too.

I still think they are going to play the rest of the regular season.

Hater.

That's horrible. My thoughts are with the Blanco family. I have a feeling this causes him to retire.

Who sees him suddenly turning his career around on another team next year?

You can't suck and go 10-6. This team isn't great by any stretch. But teams that go 10-6 in the NFL are absolutely legit playoff teams and going 4-0 down the stretch is in no way shape or form "backing into" the playoffs. You can't suck, but you can be mediocre and be 10-6. See 2007 Cleveland Browns. They won over: Bengals (7-9) Ravens (5-11) Dolphins (1-15) Rams (3-13) Seahawks (10-6) Ravens (5-11) Texans (8-8) Jets (4-12) Bills (7-9) 49ers (5-11) Winning % of teams they beat: .343 (55-105) Bears have beat: Colts (8-4) Eagles (6-5-1) Lions (0-12) Vikings (7-5) Lions (0-12) Rams (2-10) Winning % of teams they beat: .326 (23.5-48.5) If they won out that would include a 4-8 team, a 6-6 team, a 5-7 team and another 5-7 team. I'm not doubting their deficiencies. I'm saying it's absurd to say that a 10-6 Bears team sucks, if they end up 10-6. And winning 4 straight to end the season isn't backing into the playoffs. Take a look at the AFC East teams who have fattened up on incredibly weak divisions. Arizona is going to have the benefit of having nobody in their division, and whoever the heck wins the AFC West will have benefitted as well. The competition is the competition, if the Bears win 10 games they will be a legit playoff team. If they lose some more games and still win because Minnesota falls apart, then that would be backing in. But that's a different story. You're right. Your previous comment just caused me to think about and create a comparison between the 2007 Browns and this years Bears. In the NFC, I can only definitively say that the Giants, Cowboys, Redskins, Panthers, and Buccaneers have better rosters top to bottom than the Bears. There might be a few more (Eagles, Vikings, Packers, Cardinals, Saints are up there).

You can't suck and go 10-6. This team isn't great by any stretch. But teams that go 10-6 in the NFL are absolutely legit playoff teams and going 4-0 down the stretch is in no way shape or form "backing into" the playoffs. You can't suck, but you can be mediocre and be 10-6. See 2007 Cleveland Browns. They won over: Bengals (7-9) Ravens (5-11) Dolphins (1-15) Rams (3-13) Seahawks (10-6) Ravens (5-11) Texans (8-8) Jets (4-12) Bills (7-9) 49ers (5-11) Winning % of teams they beat: .343 (55-105) Bears have beat: Colts (8-4) Eagles (6-5-1) Lions (0-12) Vikings (7-5) Lions (0-12) Rams (2-10) Winning % of teams they beat: .326 (23.5-48.5) If they won out that would include a 4-8 team, a 6-6 team, a 5-7 team and another 5-7 team.

That's really bizarre that the Dodgers didnt offer it to Furcal, who seems ready to sign elsewhere anyways.

Hardly. Lots of obstacles need to be overcome. If Hendry can't even offer Wood arby, the Cubs have financial issues that obviously need to be resolved before taking on Peavy's contract. Where do you arrive at "can't"? By all appearances, it's more "won't", as he prefers to go with the younger and cheaper options on the team. This doesn't look like a regrettable hands-tied move, it looks like a strategic redistribution of resources. Why wouldn't he offer arby and get the draft picks when Kerry leaves? Because he's worried about Kerry accepting arbitration. And why is he worried? Because he doesn't want to have to pay Wood $9 million to play baseball next year. His hands were actually tied in this decision. Why else would he forego potential first round draft picks?

I'm gonna laugh when Rickey Henderson uses his HOF induction speech to campaign for a non-roster invite for next year.

SCREW YOU DAN. I thought you were cool :( If I had a HOF vote, I would rescind my vote for you.

You make it seem like getting rid of Marquis and a majority of his salary will be easy. Who is going to pay $9.875M for a back of the rotation starter next year? I'm assuming the the Cubs would pick up some, but I would think the team trading for him would have to pay him at least $7M next year. How much is a league-average starter worth for a one-year contract? Maybe not $7 million in this market, but it can't be that much less. You forgot to include the word durable. Marquis is a durable, league average starter. And there is definitely a market for that. Not at the price the Cubs are going to have to pay, but if they pick up 3 or 4m of that contract, you will definitely have some teams interested. Especially small market teams that don't have a shot at the higher end starters. True, and its not a long term commitment as he will be a FA after this year. I still don't think its as easy as saying 'all we have to do is get rid of marquis and we have Peavy". I don't think there will be a market for Marquis until several of the middle range FA starters get signed.

I guess we'll all have to stop supporting college football.

You make it seem like getting rid of Marquis and a majority of his salary will be easy. Who is going to pay $9.875M for a back of the rotation starter next year? I'm assuming the the Cubs would pick up some, but I would think the team trading for him would have to pay him at least $7M next year.

So I missed out on a bye by 16 measly points, so now I have to win 3 games instead of 2 to win the championship. And I get stuck with a horrible matchup this week. So, who to start, who to sit. I can start 2 of the following: Chris Johnson vs. Cle Brandon Jacobs vs. Phi Clinton Portis @ Bal Also in my other league, start 3 of the following: Marshawn Lynch vs. Mia Clinton Portis @ Bal Ronnie Brown @ Buf Steve Slaton @ GB Finally, select 2 of the following: Marquis Colston vs. Atl Lance Moore vs. Atl Steve Breston vs. Stl Thanks for your help.

Hardly. Lots of obstacles need to be overcome. If Hendry can't even offer Wood arby, the Cubs have financial issues that obviously need to be resolved before taking on Peavy's contract.

Blah blah blah sample size. Is there anything specific about Peavy that makes you think he's inclined to pitch poorly in the playoffs? No...by blah blah blah sample size I meant that because of the sample size, there can't be any real correlation drawn between his playoff performances and what we could expect out of him in the playoffs, but its still funny to point out that for a team that struggles to put together good playoff performances from its "stars", its funny that they are trying to acquire a guy whose been as bad as Peavy has been in the playoffs. I should have worded that better.

Figured I'd get this started. A perfect day would be a Bears win and a Vikings loss to Detroit, but that's not going to happen. I was worried about this game because of the Jags talent level, which is not matching their performance this year, but they looked awful last night.

Blah blah blah blah sample size, but I wish a team that is known for unclutch playoff performances wasn't trying to acquire a pitcher that has given up 19 ER in 15.2 playoff IP (including the 1 game playoff).

Well, Ricketts is a Cubs fan. So hopefully that means something. He recently met with Steve Stone to get some feedback I'm told. I'm glad that a potential Cubs owner is consulting a White Sox announcer. That's helpful. Say what you want about Stone but although he's a White Sox announcer, he's a Chicago baseball guy. Wasn't Steve Stone interested in buying the Cubs at one point?

Wow before reading Meph's post, I assumed it was a foregone conclusion that if Florida beat Alabama on Saturday, they would secure one of the spots in the NC game

So, this leads me to two possible conclusions about why Hendry declined arbitration. 1) He thinks he can re-sign Wood. 2) Teams are declining arbitration in order to keep their budgets down, as more draft picks require more money to be spent and someone accepting arbitration could result in the team paying more money than expected. Does anyone know about this rule change, by the way? It's still cheaper to sign first round picks then have to acquire your talent by overpaying for them on the FA market. Unless of course internally Hendry doesn't trust his scouts enough to make competent first round picks. If that's the case we have a problem.