Outshined_One

Yep.

Kubiak's going nowhere.

Maybe they'll keep everyone on board. :banghead:

Those sound like pretty marginal changes. The fact that our new OC will be working for a coach on the hot seat (read: lame duck) will limit our choices. A new DC will be brought in, but again, for a lame duck coach and likely another Lovie type guy. So the defense will essentially be the same -- unless Lovie magically decides we should try a new defense. I wonder if they'd be interested in bringing in a potential future HC type of guy at one of the coordinator positions. Let him get his schemes and players set for the team, then, when Lovie gets canned after next season, have a seamless transition to the new guy, who will already have familiarity with the rest of the coaching staff, front office, and players. I don't think it'll happen, but if there's a promising guy out there who's a position coach, it couldn't hurt to try it.

Sounds like Tom Cable's going to get launched. Link

Yep. I can see Jerry Angelo hiring a new OC and bringing in a DC to do the play calling in an attempt to get Lovie frustrated and have him quit.

That sums it up. This isn't a bad deal, but it's not something I like that much, either.

I don't think it's any more difficult than identifying who can become a great starting pitcher. UK can go more in-depth on this particular subject if he wants to jump into the conversation, but Huseby can be a good example of this. I'm not Huseby's biggest fan for various reasons, although I still think he could be a good relief pitcher if he makes the majors. He has very good deception from the right side to go with two plus pitches. He has qualities that should make him an effective relief pitcher in the majors. Assuming he stays healthy and his development continues on its current path, he should be able to make the majors and be an asset in the bullpen.

I would like to thank Mike Leach for his efforts in adding "Concussion Closet" to my vocabulary.

This subject came up in the NSBB Prospect Chat, particularly in the context of Jay Jackson versus Andrew Cashner. In one camp, those who supported Jay Jackson over Andrew Cashner made the case that, if Cashner became a top-flight reliever and Jackson became a 2-3 starter, Jackson would be more valuable since he would pitch more innings, be an above average starter, etc. However, the other camp made the case that a top-flight relief pitcher can be just as good as, if not better than, an average/above average pitcher. With Cashner, he has two devastating pitches in his fastball and slider. Not only does he profile as a closer/top-flight setup man as a reliever, but he profiles as a really good one. In other words, they would take a great relief pitcher over a very good starting pitcher. Granted, I think those same posters would take a great starting pitcher over a great relief pitcher. My point was mostly that Sickels falls firmly in the former camp. I tend to follow that particular line of thought, but the opposing viewpoint has given me food for thought.

Sickels places a much higher value on starters than relievers. I think he's only willing to rank relievers high if they either are really talented or if they are close to the majors (Caridad, Parker, Gaub, etc.). That explains Huseby. I'm not totally sure why he was down on the rest of them, though.

Has there ever been a year where all of the Week 17 matchups were also the matchups in the first round of the playoffs?

Just added Sickels to the first page. I'm annoyed I overlooked Beliveau in making my list. I'm still not 100% on where I'd add him to my list, since he had substantial control problems, was a touch old for the MWL, and didn't spend his entire season logging substantial innings. However, there are some parallels with Rich Hill, where a few mechanical tweaks and repetition in his delivery could see him fly through the minors. He doesn't have the same stuff as Hill did, though. I'd probably slip him into my 20-30 range.

If Lovie's fired in the offseason, Jerry Angelo and everyone else in the front office will probably get to keep their jobs for another two years since the team will want to give the new coaching staff as much leeway as possible. However, if Lovie gets another season and the Bears lay another egg, I think there will be a bloodbath in Halas Hall from top to bottom. I'd be okay with that scenario, especially since a lot of the problems with this team seem to stem from poor decision making on the part of the front office.

Hopefully Jaws will finally figure out how to properly pronounce Aromashadu's name.

Regarding Nolan Ryan's philosophy, is this something they are solely implementing at the major league level, or are they also implementing it in their farm system?

Yeah. They are looking awfully good. Having them in the mix and playing great will only make the playoffs that much more interesting, from my perspective. If they didn't have Norv Turner as a HC, they'd look like a much more legitimate playoff threat.

More like a steal from the Yanks. Eh, they only get a year of Vazquez along with Boone Logan. The Braves get $12m in salary relief, a league average OF, a decent left-handed reliever, and a very intriguing prospect in Vizcaino. I think the Yankees won this trade, but not as much as people might think.

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.