Outshined_One

This is the one area where I take some issue with the argument that the Cubs should trade Zambrano for financial reasons. While this is a substantial amount of money in real terms, I don't think the Cubs need to dump Zambrano just to clear up the space needed to be a team that spends a lot of money on the draft and in player development. The new ownership was going to divert existing resources to doing exactly that. I don't think the Cubs need to use all of the $17.875m owed to Zambrano in order to strengthen the farm system. The resources needed to do that are available to the Cubs; they just need to divert or develop those resources accordingly. Tim was basically saying you could use a portion of the savings toward that upgrade for one year, not the entire thing. I know he wasn't arguing that the Cubs should put the entirety of the $17.875m due to Zambrano to use on the farm system (although that would be a rather interesting experiment). My argument was that the Cubs didn't need to trade Zambrano and use a portion of the money saved to upgrade the farm system. My basic argument was that the Cubs don't have to trade Zambrano if they want to upgrade the farm system.

This is the one area where I take some issue with the argument that the Cubs should trade Zambrano for financial reasons. According to BA (subscription only), the Cubs spent $4,044,200 on this year's draft. The Nationals came in at #1 as the top spender at $11,511,500. Now, in fairness, they handed out a historically large contract to Strasburg and also had a second first round pick in Drew Storen. Only one other team handed out anything close to that (Mariners at $10.9m). While the Cubs were on the low end of the spectrum, there was only a few million separating the Cubs from being in the Top 5 in draft spending (the Padres clocked in at #5 with $9.1m). While this is a substantial amount of money in real terms, I don't think the Cubs need to dump Zambrano just to clear up the space needed to be a team that spends a lot of money on the draft and in player development. The new ownership was going to divert existing resources to doing exactly that. I don't think the Cubs need to use all of the $17.875m owed to Zambrano in order to strengthen the farm system. The resources needed to do that are available to the Cubs; they just need to divert or develop those resources accordingly. Plus, as we have seen in the past, successful drafts don't have to involve throwing around money like a teenage billionaire. I'm fine with the idea of trading Zambrano, waiting a year or two, and using the money to splurge in free agency. However, I don't think the Cubs need to trade him in order to put together a better farm system.

My fantasy team would appreciate it.

With Slaton down, they don't have one good one. Even when Slaton was healthy, they misused him rather impressively.

What are the odds the Cubs turn around and re-trade Silva?

How about UVA? Their athletics are mediocre, but their academic programs are excellent and they'd open up new recruiting/television possibilities. Virginia Tech might be another option, although I'm not sure how their academics compare to Big Ten schools.

As in a poor end for Mr. Hendry, or the thread devolving into name-calling and sarcasm? The former is a possibility, but the latter is an inevitability.

I predict this thread ends poorly.

Arkansas? It'd make sense, but that always seems to be more of a fan-driven thing rather than anything Arkansas actually wants. Utah might also work for that reason, although I'm guessing the geographic logistics would be a problem.

If Mizzou were to join the Big Ten, what teams would the Big XII look into as replacement candidates?

yeah, the locker move is a noggin scratcher, especially after the bradford situation. I'm guessing his situation is like Samardzija's a few years ago. Locker signed with the Angels earlier this year after they drafted him.

Academics Every conference should have a drunken party school. It's the only thing Indiana brings to the table And even then, they can't hold a candle to Wisconsin.

Yeah how does the Astros NLDS marathon make it, but not the Astros-White Sox marathon in the actual world series?? Heck, you could make a strong case for Game 2 of the 2005 ALCS when Pierzynski advanced to first base after striking out in the bottom of the 9th.

The link you provided also shows that he's a 5-time gold-glover. But I think he's lost a step or two over the years. His footwork is almost wooden. /Aisle seat to Hell, please

Geesh, imagine if they hadn't traded Lee. That would have been an amazing rotation.

ESPN 5 years, likely over $82.5m.

Good rebound win for Wisconsin. They needed that.

Don't expect him to be anything worthwhile in CF.

"Milton Bradley was spotted singing 'New York, New York' in a bar." "According to Milton Bradleys agent, hes dissapointed because hed already gotten used to life as a member of the mystery team." I envision Bradley donning a costume like this: http://media.southparkstudios.com/img/content/season13/1302.jpg

"Milton Bradley was spotted singing 'New York, New York' in a bar."

So you're saying it'll be like the 2004-2005 offseason?

The boo birds like this signing.

Are you defending the current system, or are you arguing against an 8 team playoff? Also, as a nitpick, Wisconsin was #7 and Boise State was #8 in 2006. Auburn (10-2) was #9.

Who would you have put in last year? Obviously the conference winners would go, giving you Oklahoma, Florida, Penn St, USC, Cincinnati and Virginia Tech. But after them you have (by BCS rankings) No. 3 Texas, No. 6 Utah, No. 7 Texas Tech and No. 9 Boise State. If you let in the first two teams, Texas and Utah, then you're still leaving out an undefeated Boise State team. If you let in Utah and Boise State because they're unbeaten, then you're leaving out the No. 3 team. Texas Tech was ranked above Boise State, but had one loss against Oklahoma and played a substantially more difficult schedule than BSU. TCU played a more difficult schedule than BSU and had losses to Oklahoma and Utah. Ohio State also played a more difficult schedule than BSU and had losses to USC and Penn State. All of those teams had good arguments to be ranked above Boise State, yet were not. I wouldn't feel bad at all if any of them were shut out of an 8 team playoff. Each had opportunities to climb the rankings, win their conferences, or what have you, but they did not do so. Saying "blew it for various reasons" may have been overstating my case a bit. My point is that I think an 8 team playoff would be more equitable to teams than the current system. In this case, Boise State did not have a particularly strong schedule, especially when compared to Texas and Utah. I think they represent more of an outlier than the norm. Plus, I think shutting BSU out of the 8 team playoff is a better outcome than shutting out TCU and Cincy from the national championship game.

The problem I have with the plus one is determining the four teams. Yeah, this year is an anomaly with five undefeated teams, but I'd be more concerned about years where there are one or two undefeated teams and a slew of teams with one or two losses. That seems to happen quite frequently, especially considering teams could get screwed over in the polls. With a playoff that has eight or more teams, that problem continues to linger, but you'd be talking about leaving out teams that are substantially flawed and had multiple opportunities to climb in the rankings, but blew it for various reasons. Plus, as a fan, a playoff would mean more football. I mean, it's one thing if you're concerned about injuries, academics, and so on. However, could you imagine weekends where the NFL and NCAA both had playoff games? For example, with an eight team playoff in the first round, think of a schedule like... Thursday night: NCAA Playoff Game Friday night: NCAA Playoff Game Saturday: Early afternoon NCAA Playoff Game, Late afternoon & Evening NFL Playoff Games Sunday: Afternoon NFL Playoff Games, Evening NCAA Playoff Game As a football fan, I'd absolutely love to see something like that.