dew1679666265

I've heard the public requirements for the position don't fit Wilcox at all. Seven years of NFL experience and other things that Wilcox hasn't achieved yet. Doesn't mean he isn't the frontrunner, though.

I haven't seen any of the 30 for 30s other than this one. I planned to see the one about Miami, but didn't get around to it. I loved the part where the writer was remembering during the SMU/Notre Dame game when Forrest Gregg asked the players who didn't think they could beat ND and a player answered, "I don't think we can beat these guys coach." That was pretty classic.

Not a thing. There hasn't been anything said about the opening since the rumors first started. I'm not a member of the UT Rivals board, though, and that seems to be where TheVolCub gets his info from, so he may know something I don't. Wilcox was made available to the media a few days ago, but gave the standard line that he's received no offers and is happy in Knoxville.

Probably with a pretty hefty raise. After watching Pony Excess on espn, you know they have some money. He's done a great job in a short period of time too. Yeah, he was already one of the highest paid non-AQ coaches in the NCAA before the Maryland flirtation. SMU boosters have got some money. And the Pony Excess 30 for 30 was awesome, by the way.

Probably with a pretty hefty raise.

I've heard Maryland is a pretty business-like administration that may not mesh well with Leach's laid back, quirky personality. Malzahn or Jones may mesh better with administration and that may be why it's taking so long to finalize something.

If those are the two options Maryland is in a nice position either way. They apparently interviewed June Jones as well. I expect SMU would pony up the money to keep Jones there, but if he's interested, he'd be my number one choice without a doubt. I'd take Leach over Malzahn, though. Both great offensive minds, but Leach has a track record as a successful head coach while Malzahn does not. Of course, Leach is more than a little crazy and Malzahn is not, so there's that to consider.

Meaningless game for the Titans Sunday. It won't happen, but I'd like to see them start Rusty Smith so he can get some more game action. I'm far more interested in the offseason and what's going to happen with the Vince soap opera and the coaching staff than this game, though. And I'll bet the players will be as well, which is good news for the Colts.

He said there isn't a 10-win player, not a 5-win player. Pujols, on average, is an 8 WAR player.

Narveson had the second highest WAR of any starter the Brewers threw out there last year. Outside of Gallardo's 4.6 WAR, Narveson was the only Brewers starter to be worth more than one win (1.7 WAR). The Brewers would be much better off replacing Dave Bush or somebody like that instead of Narveson.

I don't know who said he'd only be a 2-win pitcher, but the likelihood is that he'll match his 2008 and 2010 numbers and be about a 5-win pitcher for the Brewers, I'd guess. You're probably giving away a win or two by starting Betancourt over Escobar, though, which damages the overall impact Greinke's improvement provides. As for Marcum, in a career year he was worth 3.5 WAR and previously has been no more than a 2 WAR player. I'd really doubt he'll provide 4 WAR for the Brewers. The likelihood is, the Brewers got about 6 wins better right now with the additions of Greinke/Marcum/Betancourt and hurt their future severely. If Cain has a big year for the Royals, going from him to Gomez will hurt as well, unless Gomez improves significantly.

What is, outside of peripherals I guess?

What don't you like about Luck?

If you're going after a free agent veteran reliever, he's one to target. Sub-3.00 xFIP every year but one. He is 40, but it's just a one-year deal, significantly minimizing the risk if he falls off a cliff. Good move.

This isn't the best method (and may not be a good method, but it was quick and seems interesting, if nothing else), but here are the total average WAR of the four players you listed for each team: Cubs: 10.3 Brewers: 11.5 Reds: 10.7 Pirates: 8.4 Astros: 16.3 Cardinals: 12.6 (8 WAR per year from Pujols) So the Cubs are fifth by that method (ahead of only Pittsburgh), but basically in a tie with the Reds and only a win behind the Brewers. Consider we didn't even see the peak of Prior because of injuries (not the fault of Cub development) and one other (Castro) has only just made the majors, and it would be pretty easy to rank the Cubs ahead of the Brewers, who are all established veterans at this point and we know what their peak is/was – whereas we don't with Prior (had he stayed healthy) and Castro. Also, I'd take any of the Cubs' three over the Cardinals' three other than Pujols. You still give them credit for Pujols, but none of the others have been great to this point and Ankiel's been terrible overall. I don't think the Cubs are ahead of most of the teams in the division, but I don't think they're that far behind any of them either. Z is only 29, Soto is 28 and Castro is 20 – there's still a lot of good they can do going forward. Their minors really haven't been very productive. Ankiel is comparable to Corey Patterson for the Cubs and, other than Pujols and Rasmus, they haven't developed much. They've been carried by Pujols (developed), Chris Carpenter (FA) and Adam Wainwright (trade) for a while now without a bunch of good production from their minors. I'd probably take the Cubs all day over the entirety of the Cardinals' system, though Pujols changes that. The Braves' focus was on pitching (Maddux, Glavine, Smoltz, Neagle, Avery, etc) and piece in offense where they could get it. They did develop some good bats (Chipper, Andruw, Javy in particular), but that wasn't their focus. Their stated organizational philosophy was focus on pitching and add in bats as needed. They did a really good job with pretty much everything through the 90s, though, so they exceeded that and developed some really good bats. The Cubs' problem, I think, is they've rushed some offense players because of their weak offensive clubs and haven't given them the proper time to develop. Patterson was rushed way too fast, Pie wasn't rushed as badly but wasn't given much time to learn in the majors, for example. With the kind of players they've targeted (leaning toward raw, low patience players), they've needed to be more patient with those players and they haven't been. The way you fix that is either target more patient, developed players and/or give them more time getting to the majors and once they're here.

I think your list should include Wood, Marshall, Wells and Theriot - depending on what your standards are for the list. I'm not entirely sure what the standard is for listing players there, but all three of those players were productive for the Cubs - very much so for Wood and Marshall. Also, if you're going to include Garcia, Alvarez and Stubbs, I think you also have to include Colvin for the Cubs. I know the feelings on the board about him, but he was still productive last season and could continue that. Also, Ankiel shouldn't be on that list if you're listing good players. He had one good season and has been mediocre to bad since then. If Ankiel makes the list, there's no reason Rich Hill shouldn't. Also, I don't think it's fair to downgrade Prior. He was drafted by the Cubs, developed (for the little the team had to do) and was highly productive. Our farm system had nothing to do with his injuries. There has been a pretty big lull, but with a purpose. The strategy of the MacPhail era was to focus on pitching first and foremost in the minors and fill offensive holes through free agency/trades. Much like the Braves' model. We've had the elite pitching off and on, but signing a good, but not great, player to an elite player contract (Soriano) has hurt our offense. The Lee, Aramis, Soriano moves were right in line with that strategy, but a fringe elite bat and two good bats just aren't enough to lead an offense.

Yeah, I didn't want to get into why Pie hasn't been productive, but at this point it's hard to say he's anything other than a bust. If he can continue to show signs, he may get a shot and start producing (I'd love to see it), but he hasn't produced much as of yet and that's why I didn't include him.

That list was just off the top of my head in a couple minutes of thinking, so I could well be forgetting some players. I also didn't include guys largely developed by the Cubs who moved on (Speier, Nolasco, Mitre, etc) in trades. I'm not sure the full list would be much larger, but I probably forgot a few guys here and there. As for comparing to other teams, I honestly would have no real idea. My guess (and it's a pure guess) is that we are middle of the pack in developing talent. I think the pitching side has been pretty solid, but we're lacking in developing bats. Part of that might be drafting at the bottom of a bunch of drafts, part of it might be having a really poor farm system while John Stockstill was in charge and some of it might be poor strategy/execution by management. Basically, I think the development over Hendry's tenure could and should have been better, but I'd be surprised if it was in the bottom of the league. The positive is, we have what appears to be a strong system now and it's only getting stronger as the high-end low class players are developing.

Marshall was the Cubs' top 6 and 7 prospect for two seasons. Soto was the Cubs' #2 prospect entering the 2008 season, likely highly valuable at that point. Neither was likely to net the Cubs elite players, but both were top 10 prospects in the Cubs' system, which is significant and likely means they were coveted to some degree. Also, if the problem is that the Cubs haven't developed any talent outside of Castro, then how did these players nobody coveted make the majors and be productive (and in some cases, great)?

I didn't mention Pie because he hasn't been particularly productive. Patterson was very good for a season and was decent for another couple of seasons. Not up to expectations by any means, but much better than "anything" which was your standard. Your point was that the farm didn't develop anything outside of Castro. That's completely incorrect and those players show it. And it's futile to debate the availability of any of those players because there's no way we can know for sure. But that's not the point you made. You said the farm system has sucked and it hasn't.

You're forgetting: Soto Theriot Wells Cruz Marmol Marshall Zambrano Wood Patterson And that's not counting guys like Nolasco, Justin Speier, Eric Hinske and others who were developed by us but were productive elsewhere. The farm system has developed primarily pitchers, but it has been productive over Hendry's tenure. Also, before Hendry was GM he was the farm director - Tim Wilken's current role. He would have had significant input (and perhaps final decision making) in all matters of the farm - including drafting Prior.

Would Willis have been in the majors in 03 for us? Management liked Estes for whatever reason and I think we had Cruz behind him on the ML roster. One of the reasons I didn't dislike trading Willis in that deal is because he was blocked for the forseeable future and likely wouldn't have reached the majors for a while for us. That said, that would have been a fantastic rotation if it had happened.

Hendry's been very good in his time in Chicago about not trading away prospects who end up being good. I think Tim's point was, just about none of the prospects Hendry has dealt have turned into good MLB players outside of Nolasco and Mitre (somewhat) in the Pierre deal. He's not one to trade away prospects on a whim.

On one hand I hope you're right, but on the other I'd rather see the Colts in the playoffs than the Jags. I'm still holding out that tiny sliver of hope that everything falls right and the Titans make the playoffs, though.

Freeman I'll give you, but McNair sat for 3 years behind Chris Chandler before taking over. That's exactly what I'm arguing should be done with Newton - get a stable, veteran QB in front of him and give him time to learn and adapt to an NFL offense. It does depend on how serious a player is about studying, putting in the extra work and learning the offense. If you're looking for a QB who can contribute immediately, the chances are much better with Mallett and Luck than with Newton, though, because Mallett and Luck have played in much more NFL-oriented offenses and have no choice but to go through progressions and make good reads. Newton hasn't been in an offense that's required him to do that.