Outshined_One

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.

Come on Jim, it's almost midnight in Indianapolis. You know someone like Dayton Moore's in the hotel bar knocking back highballs. Go downstairs and get this trade done.

Could be an interesting reclamation project following his injury. He walked a lot more batters in 2008 compared to 2007, which makes me wonder whether his struggles could be attributed to injury/fatigue or whether something more troubling happened to him.

That bracket was posted in this article originally.

Saw this online today: http://l.yimg.com/a/p/sp/tools/med/2009/12/ipt/1260176065.jpg

I think there is legitimate criticism that can be directed towards how the Cubs approach scouting and player development when it comes to position players. On the one hand, you are correct that we should not write off the Cubs' top position players because of the past failures of guys like Choi, Kelton, Patterson, Harvey, etc. Each guy goes through different trials and tribulations and each of them handles it in their own way. Some of the Cubs' past busts may have been busts with any system simply because of who they are, rather than their coaching. On the other hand, the Cubs' track record in terms of how they have handled particular players is troubling. There still seems to be bias in favor of players who are aggressive at the plate and do not take many walks, although I think that has been changing in recent years. While some guys may have been busts no matter what, others may have panned out better with the Cubs if they had received the appropriate coaching, playing time, and the like. This team gets impatient with its young position players. What I'm saying is, while we should not write off all of the Cubs' position prospects simply because they are in the Cubs' system, I think we need to look at prospects with an understanding of how this team has developed its players in the past few years. I don't think that would discount the value guys like Vitters and Castro have, but I would keep it in mind in discussing potential trades. However, if you write off the Cubs' pitching prospects because they're in the Cubs farm system...well, frankly, you're an idiot.

1) Youth relative to league (19 years old in A+ and AA) 2) Plus defensive tools at a premium position (SS) 3) Plus speed 4) Contact Ability Yeah, the guy could bust, but even before the AFL he was a Top 40 prospect in all of baseball. Considering there have been rumors going around that the Cubs might make him the everyday SS in 2010 with Theriot moving to 2B, he clearly has really good potential to be a special player. Remember how you said those previous top-level prospects with the Cubs panned out with other teams? I'd rather not see that happen with the Cubs and Castro, especially if the Cubs didn't get appropriate value for him. I don't think Granderson for Castro plus other prospects would be a good deal for the Cubs.

from mlbtraderumors.com Definitely couldn't complain about that. The royals are going to ask for more than just bradley, they'll probably ask for a pitcher or two. How would you guys feel if they asked for Marshall on top of bradley. Depends on how much money changes hands. Meche's shoulder injury makes me leery.