dew1679666265

We're going to lose half our staff after just one season. I hope Kiffin replaces them well. Any room for Rodney Garner at this point?

According to Fangraphs he was worth $8.2 million. Their dollar figures are a bunch of crap. They have tended to be high on some players. It definitely shouldn't be taken as definitive, but it's one piece of information to look at.

According to Fangraphs he was worth $8.2 million.

I don't think we're really looking at him. I think he's trying to leverage a raise. I take it back. maybe he is a candidate. which sucks. According to ESPN, the finalists are Holtz, Gill, Brewster, and Butch Jones. Of that, I'd want Holtz or Gill. Yeah, I'd probably prefer Holtz and Gill out of that group. Though Butch Jones is an interesting candidate.

Sorry about that, I knew you knew far more about the details of UZR than I did.

In Hawkins' bad years, his WHIP has been similar to Grabow's, but his BB/9 has been better. Grabow's K/9 is consistently better, though. Grabow has been consistently better in his K:BB, though again, he walks more than Hawkins. I can see the reasoning behind the comparison to Grabow.

I think it is, though indirectly - i.e. it measures outs recorded in the fielder's area and assists would likely be part of that. Somebody like Rob or TT would be able to answer more thoroughly and accurately, though.

I'm not convinced that after a string of decidedly average-mediocre seasons Hawkins has regained his dominance at age 36. I'm not high on Grabow at all, but I don't think the Hawkins signing is any better than his. it isn't, really. I think it's better, but not significantly so. I think Hawkins is better, but Grabow is younger and less likely to decline.

I'm not convinced that after a string of decidedly average-mediocre seasons Hawkins has regained his dominance at age 36. I'm not high on Grabow at all, but I don't think the Hawkins signing is any better than his. That's the thing, there's been no string of average-mediocre seasons. He's been very inconsistent, but was above average to good in 2004, 2007 and 2009. He was average or worse in 2005, 2006 and 2008. Evaluating with that, he's as likely to be dominant this year as he is to be mediocre. Being 36 doesn't help, though. Grabow has pretty consistently had poor peripherals.

Just from watching him, he does make some memorably odd plays out there. Overall, however, he's usually average to above average.

It's also unfortunate that Ryan Theriot can't hit like Hanley Ramirez. To be fair, there was a time when Soriano was a passable second baseman, there's never going to be a time when Theriot hits like Hanley. Not to stray too off topic, but was there ever a time when Soriano was a passable left fielder? I'm not even sure why he was moved in the first place. At least his offense was plus for a bad defensive 2B. Now he's just an about-average offensive LF that plays dreadfully amateurish outfield defense. UZR/150 had him at 22.4 in 2007 in left and at 5.2 in 2008.

Cubs projected win total in 2010 just went up by 2. hawkins has been pretty badass over the past 85 or so innings. Hawkins is a pretty decent reliever. Until you make him close. This is true.

Cubs projected win total in 2010 just went up by 2. hawkins has been pretty badass over the past 85 or so innings. Hawkins is a pretty decent reliever. He's decent, but last season looks somewhat anomalous, as it was clearly his best since 2003. He certainly isn't worth 2/7.5. This is a Grabow-esque signing. It's too much money, but I think Hawkins could be better than Grabow. Hawkins was very good in 2004 for the Cubs (2.63 ERA, 69:14 K:BB, 1.02 WHIP), struggled in 2005-2006, but was pretty good again in 2007. Then he struggled again in 2008, but was very good last year. He's very inconsistent, but generally has had better peripherals than Grabow. Again, I wouldn't have given him that much money, but I'd take him over Grabow.

Charlie Strong will be the next coach at Louisville.

Cubs projected win total in 2010 just went up by 2. hawkins has been pretty badass over the past 85 or so innings. Hawkins is a pretty decent reliever.

I have the exact same quandary on one of my teams. I've got Schaub, but he's hurt and may not be real productive this week, and I've put in a waiver claim for Flacco. I'm leaning toward just starting Flacco whether or not Schaub plays. The Lion defense is pretty horrible and I think Flacco will rebound nicely against them. I heard Ryan might be out for the year, but I could have head wrong.

Pirates about to sign Bobby Crosby for 1-year, $1.5 mil. Boof Bonser will also be DFAd. Any interest on a cheap contract?

I'm surprisied it's taking him this long. It's odd that they're investigating before the recruits sign (or even commit in some cases), but yeah, not particularly good.

There were 3 undefeateds before the bowl season in 2004 as well. Regardless, why, is "undefeated" the salient standard? The same issues apply if there are one undefeated and multiple one-loss teams, or no undefeated and multiple one-loss teams, or no undefeated and multiple two-loss teams, and on and on and interminably on. This is a good point.

There were 3 undefeateds before the bowl season in 2004 as well.

No Chance. Even if they win like 55-10 and Texas wins like 17-14? I agree that there's really no chance whatsoever. The most recent human poll had Cincy receiving all of 1 vote for first - and that from Brian Kelly. Not enough voters would be swayed, I don't think.

this isn't true either. just this year, i can think of two-loss ohio st playing psu, iowa and michigan and needing to win all three to make a high-prestige bowl (rose), and two-loss oregon had huge games at arizona and against oregon st to make the same bowl. if two-loss iowa beat minnesota in their last game, they had a good chance of going to the bcs and at very worst the capitol one; with a loss they could have ended up in the champs sports or outback bowls. penn state's last game (michigan st) possibly meant the difference between a champs sports trip and a bcs bowl. (as it is, they're playing in a very good non-bcs bowl). wisconsin and northwestern each had multiple losses but there was plenty of interest in that game; as a result of the upset, northwestern gets to play in the outback bowl while wisconsin was relegated to the champs sports. if you're looking at things purely in terms of the national championship, sure - losing a game or two reduces the interest. but there is still plenty of interest among fan bases because of the desire to see your team play in a high-quality bowl game. There's some interest, but not nearly as much as there would be if Ohio State, Iowa, Penn State and Oregon all still had a chance at winning a championship. National titles breed more excitement than anything else. If you can increase the number of teams who have a legit shot, then that will be more exciting for more people than fighting for a bowl that may pass over you because you don't draw well enough. Legit shot is important, by the way. I'm not arguing that a March Madness-style 64-team bracket would be a good idea. Any more than 8-16 teams and you're getting out of the realm of teams that legitimately could win their way to the title game. And Wisconsin was passed over because they wouldn't draw as well as Northwestern. Not because of much of anything else.

Less exciting for some. Those games you just mentioned lose some meaning, but might still remain important for seeding purposes. However, there may have been games played in the final couple of weeks that determined who makes the playoffs and who doesn't. Instead, they were played for the right to go to a meaningless bowl or a less meaningless bowl. And even then, the games didn't mean anything because bowl invites aren't given by who should go. They're determined on who will draw the most money for the bowl. I said I don't necessarily think a 16-team format is better than a 4-team format. I'd have to look at the proposal and decide from there. Almost any playoff where teams aren't invited for reasons other than how well they do on the field of play would be better than the current system. As for the matchups, those would be the first round matchups and they are always some of the worst. The SI playoff system also has the potential of a Texas-Oregon matchup and a Texas-TCU matchup. As well as Alabama-Ohio State. Those would be great games and probably better than anything currently set up. Especially since they'd mean more – i.e. every game would be played with the idea that any team playing could win a title. If you get a bad matchup in a bowl, that's all you've got. There's no second round that might give an intriguing matchup. Again, I'd be fine with going to a 4-team or 8-team playoff. It's no guarantee that a 16-team playoff would be bad, though. You're right that the NCAA wouldn't shift back to a 4-team or 8-team after going to a 16-team, so it might be ideal to start at a plus-one and go from there. But the current system should be changed and a 16-team playoff is a legit possibility that would likely be better than one game with some meaning, a few with a little meaning and a whole bunch with none whatsoever.

I'm not all that much more in favor of a 16 team playoff over a 4 team playoff, but I've never understood this argument. To me, this argument is favoring the importance of the regular season over the importance of having a good postseason setup. The current postseason system sucks, yet you don't want to change the postseason system to something better because it might make the regular season less important? I just don't get that. I'd much rather have a great playoff system (be it 16 teams or 4 teams or anywhere in between) and have a slightly less exciting regular season. Keep in mind also that the regular season is only exciting this way to the teams that actually win out. Once a team loses twice, there's very little reason to follow as closely (other than simply being a fan). With a larger playoff, teams wouldn't lose excitement in their season after a loss or two.

A 170-200 yard game against St. Louis would be huge for him. Realistically, he's not going to get exactly 125 each game, is going to need one big game and there isn't a better remaining opponent than the Rams. Yeah, if he can break a couple of 70+ yard TD runs against St. Louis, I'll be feeling really good about his chances. And that's not asking that much for CJ.