dew1679666265

Here's a link.

2008 Gregg: 3.41 ERA; 1.282 WHIP; 58:37 K:BB 2008 Wuertz: 3.63 ERA; 1.433 WHIP; 30:20 K:BB Gregg wasn't great last year, but he was better than Wuertz. Also, Gregg got hurt around this time last year (the same knee injury he struggled with early this year) and that's why he was taken out of the closer's role. I'd say that those two stat lines are pretty much the same ERA and K:BB are similar, but Gregg had a much better WHIP. The stat lines are similar, though.

This isn't baseball, contracts aren't guaranteed. He doesn't see a dime of the 2nd year money unless he's on the roster on opening day September 2010. They don't owe him anything if they release him. Don't they take a cap hit if they release him, though? I'm pretty sure they don't if he retires. I thought the cap hit was mostly for spread-out guaranteed money -- but I'm not all that cap savvy. I'm pretty sure there is a cap hit on the signing bonus he received, but only if the Vikings cut him. If he retires, they don't owe him a thing.

I don't think not acquiring Huff is a bad move. .253/.321/.405/.725

Cot's agrees with Wikipedia on Wagner's contract. I'd have some interest in Wagner, but I wouldn't give up much of a prospect. Al Alburquerque level or a little better is about as high as I'd go. Wagner was excellent last year, so extreme regression would seem unlikely - depending on how he recovers from TJS. I don't know if he'd offer much this season, but if we're not giving up much I wouldn't oppose it.

2008 Gregg: 3.41 ERA; 1.282 WHIP; 58:37 K:BB 2008 Wuertz: 3.63 ERA; 1.433 WHIP; 30:20 K:BB Gregg wasn't great last year, but he was better than Wuertz. Also, Gregg got hurt around this time last year (the same knee injury he struggled with early this year) and that's why he was taken out of the closer's role.

If he ends up being available, I'd want Rafael Soriano. He'd likely be cheaper than the Valverdes/KRods of the world and he's much better. The problem with waiving Gregg and losing him now is that we can offer him arbitration after the year and, perhaps, get a pick or two for him. Even if he ends up as a Type B, we'd get a sandwich pick for him. That's better than putting him on waivers.

They certainly improved their lineup by acquiring Holliday, but both he and Lugo have played well over their heads since going to St. Louis. Holliday OPS in Oakland this year: .831 Holliday OPS in St. Louis this year: 1.266 Lugo OPS in Boston this year: .719 Lugo OPS in St. Louis this year: .987 If those two come back to earth, that's a decent lineup but not a gauntlet. Other than Pujols you have Rasmus with a .742 OPS, DeRosa with a .792 OPS, Ludwick with an .800 OPS and Molina with a .747 OPS. The Cardinals are likely to have a lineup with four players over an .800 OPS the rest of the way (Pujols, DeRosa, Ludwick, Holliday). Ill give you Lugo, but I think Holidays legit. It could be said that Hollidays decline this year was due to leaving Coors, but kepp in ind, that A's lineup is pretty much garbage, and he had no protection, and now that hes sandwiched between Pujols and Ludwick, hes being pitched to differently. I doubt he keeps up the 1.300 OPS, but somewhere in the mid-hi 9s wouldnt surprise me. Hopefully he flyd the coop next year and the Cards go back to their mediocrity. Can they even afford both him and Pujols, who will be a FA in 2011? Even if Holliday could keep up a .900+ OPS pace (possible), that's still just two really good hitters, a couple average to below average hitters and not much else. I think they can probably afford both Pujols and Holliday, but they're going to have to let a number of FAs go after the year to do it. And on a random side note, I noticed something looking at Oakland's lineup this year - Rajai Davis is having a really good year. His OPS is just .801, but that's mainly because he's slugging just .430. But, his average is at .300 and his OBP is at .371 - good for a .71 isoD. As a cheap option, he's a nice top of the order hitter doing that.

Here's a few numbers that may help clear this up a bit. We've scored 1-3 runs in a game 41 times and 4-6 runs in a game 40 times. We've scored 7+ 25 times and scored none 9 times. By contrast, the best offense in baseball this year (the Phillies) have scored 1-3 runs 38 times, 4-6 runs 37 times, 7+ runs 35 times and have been shutout 4 times. So, the Cubs and Phillies' differential between 1-3 run games and 4-6 run games is the same. The only difference between the offenses is that the Phillies score 7+ more often and get shutout less. In our shutouts, we've lost by 2 runs twice, 3 runs three times, 4 runs twice, 6 runs once and 10 runs once. It appears that the offense has been worse this year because they've scored a bunch of runs in a game less instead of going from 4-6 runs in a game to 1-3 runs. For instance, last year's Cubs team scored 7+ runs 57 times, 1-3 runs 58 times, 4-6 runs 38 times and were shutout 8 times. So, for the most part, a number of last year's 7+ run games have turned into 4-6 run games. Thanks for taking the time to put that together. Puts some perspective on where this team is different and it's not where I thought. Not a problem. My guess would be that most of the best offenses mirror more similarly the 2008 Cubs (lots of large output games) and not the perfect balance the Phillies have put together this year. My thinking is that every offense goes through hot and cold stretches, but the really good offenses score in bunches more often.

It depends on how loosely you define impact. I'm not talking about a Reyes or Rollins or Utley or similar to that. The Braves wouldn't do this because they need offense, but more in the idea of Lilly (+ prospect?) for Yunel Escobar. Or to the Marlins for Dan Uggla. Not an elite bat, but a highly productive player on a strong offensive team that needs pitching and might be willing to overpay a bit for a guy who's been really good since becoming a Cub. Like I said, there may not be a fit, but it'd be an avenue to look at.

Grossman's got the ability, but he's very inconsistent with it. I think the Texans are on the verge of a playoff spot anyway (though the Colts and Titans are significant roadblocks in their way) and Grossman can be good enough to help them achieve one. Only if he can start playing consistently, though, I'll admit.

We are still trying to win next year aren't we? Why in the world would you trade one of your top two starters? As some others have pointed out, I don't think trading Lilly means they aren't trying to win next year. They may have the SP depth to do both. If the offense is going to be upgraded, they likely need to free up some money. I think Lilly, and possibly Dempster, are among the few tradeable assets the Cubs have they may bring is some reasonable value and free up cash. I'm not sure who fits the bill, but they could deal Lilly to a pitching starved team and that team send back an impact bat at either second base or shortstop. Instead of a Lilly for prospects deal, do a Lilly for impact bat deal.

Brady was out all year last year and Matt Cassell led the Pats to 11 wins. Yeah, but that was a 16 win team that got to play the two crappy western divisions. He led them to 5 fewer wins. A typical 10 win team that suffers such a decline would be considered to have had a disastrous season. What was the likelihood that the Patriots, with Brady, would have repeated a 16-win season? Maybe they would have, but age and regression likely played a part in the lesser number of wins. A QB with a 63.4 completion percentage, 21 TDs to 11 INTs and a QB rating of 89.4 isn't costing the team very many wins. The defense in 2008 dropped from 4th in yards allowed and 4th in points allowed to 8th and 10th respectively. The defense also had 8 key players (not all starters) over 30 years old - with 3 of them 35 or older. The 2007 defense was bound to regress and that likely cost them more wins than the move from Brady to Cassel - unless you think Brady was likely to repeat one of the greatest statistical years in the history of the NFL. They weren't going to win 16 again, but everything was in place for them to be absolutely fantastic last year. Cassell could not have stepped into a better situation to enjoy success. It's a very QB friendly offense with loads of talent around him. Exactly, that's part of my point. Some teams (like the Pats, Colts, Titans, Steelers, etc) have the system to succeed almost no matter the QB. Certainly, having a great QB helps a lot, but the two best teams in the AFC last year (Ten and Pit) didn't have remarkable QBs leading them. Neither would have turned into mediocre teams if their backups had played the entire year. Keep in mind I'm responding to the bolded. Any of those teams would have a dropoff (some larger than others), but I think all would have remained playoff contenders with their backup playing most of the year (which the Pats actually did).

I think he might have tweaked it a bit, but nothing dramatic. The thing I like about Heimerdinger is that he was able to turn Steve McNair from a game manager QB to one of the better QBs in the league. Vince is similar in many ways to McNair (strong arms, iffy accuracy, worse decision making than McNair, mobile but the desire to be a pocket passer). With Chow, he seemed to try to turn Vince (with VY's approval) into too much of a pocket passer. One of the first things Heimerdinger began to teach Vince was to use his athleticism to his advantage.

Brady was out all year last year and Matt Cassell led the Pats to 11 wins. Yeah, but that was a 16 win team that got to play the two crappy western divisions. He led them to 5 fewer wins. A typical 10 win team that suffers such a decline would be considered to have had a disastrous season. What was the likelihood that the Patriots, with Brady, would have repeated a 16-win season? Maybe they would have, but age and regression likely played a part in the lesser number of wins. A QB with a 63.4 completion percentage, 21 TDs to 11 INTs and a QB rating of 89.4 isn't costing the team very many wins. The defense in 2008 dropped from 4th in yards allowed and 4th in points allowed to 8th and 10th respectively. The defense also had 8 key players (not all starters) over 30 years old - with 3 of them 35 or older. The 2007 defense was bound to regress and that likely cost them more wins than the move from Brady to Cassel - unless you think Brady was likely to repeat one of the greatest statistical years in the history of the NFL.

I think that's a false hope. We'll see. I think a lot of the stuff around Vince has been overblown. The talent is there, it's just a matter of consistency and confidence. Having 3 different OC's in 3 years hasn't helped him at all either. But he is not a guy that could go to any team in the NFL and make them better at QB. He needs the right coach and system. He's actually had two OCs in three years - Norm Chow for two years and Mike Heimerdinger last year. Vince is definitely a guy who needs the right coaching and system, but I still don't think him developing into a Steve McNair type QB is out of the question.

I agree with your overall asessment of Cutler, but the INT% stat is a bit misleading. Out of that list of QBs, only three threw more TDs than INTS - Cutler (25:18), Romo (26:14) and Roethlisberger (17:15). Cutler's main benefit to a team is that even though he'll throw a lot of interceptions, he'll throw more TDs. Keep in mind he's still very young as well, so while he'll likely always throw a decent number of picks, he could still improve his ratio considerably as he develops. Plus those guys were playing (especially ROFLsberger) with much better defenses. Right. I'm interested to see what Cutler can do with some more experience and even an average defense. I think the INTs could be cut down to 12-15 easily, perhaps a little lower.

Brady was out all year last year and Matt Cassell led the Pats to 11 wins. In 1999, Trent Green went out for the year in the preseason and backup Kurt Warner led the Rams to a Super Bowl victory. That's just a couple historical examples of good backup QBs. It's not a frequent occurence, but there are times when a starter can go down and the backup can lead the team to a successful year. This year, teams that, if they lose a starter, could have a backup lead them to the playoffs (in my opinion): Cardinals (Leinart), Titans (Young), Texans (Grossman), Colts (Sorgi), Vikings (Jackson/Rosenfels), Patriots (O'Connell) and Steelers (Batch). Some of those guys are just on good teams that could carry the QB (Titans, Colts, Pats, Vikings, Steelers), but a couple of them are at least decent in their own right (Grossman, Leinart).

I agree with your overall asessment of Cutler, but the INT% stat is a bit misleading. Out of that list of QBs, only three threw more TDs than INTS - Cutler (25:18), Romo (26:14) and Roethlisberger (17:15). Cutler's main benefit to a team is that even though he'll throw a lot of interceptions, he'll throw more TDs. Keep in mind he's still very young as well, so while he'll likely always throw a decent number of picks, he could still improve his ratio considerably as he develops.

They certainly improved their lineup by acquiring Holliday, but both he and Lugo have played well over their heads since going to St. Louis. Holliday OPS in Oakland this year: .831 Holliday OPS in St. Louis this year: 1.266 Lugo OPS in Boston this year: .719 Lugo OPS in St. Louis this year: .987 If those two come back to earth, that's a decent lineup but not a gauntlet. Other than Pujols you have Rasmus with a .742 OPS, DeRosa with a .792 OPS, Ludwick with an .800 OPS and Molina with a .747 OPS. The Cardinals are likely to have a lineup with four players over an .800 OPS the rest of the way (Pujols, DeRosa, Ludwick, Holliday).

I think that's a false hope. We'll see. I think a lot of the stuff around Vince has been overblown. The talent is there, it's just a matter of consistency and confidence.

That was his thing in college too, his learning curve is very quick but you have to stick with him. I mean half way through his soph. season there was still talk about moving him out to WR. Yeah, I wasn't sure he'd make a good QB until late in his junior year. The best thing possible for him would have been the Titans keeping Steve McNair for a couple years after drafting Vince and let VY sit on the bench for a couple years before starting (like they did with McNair in the 90s). I'm an admitted Vince Young fan, but I still think he can develop into a good to very good NFL QB given a little more time.

Because the Padres and Dodgers are guaranteed to play all-world baseball against the Cubs after quietly laying down and letting the Cardinals have their way with them. Remember, they got swept by the crap on a stick that is the Padres in July, wouldn't shock me a bit if the Padres managed to all of sudden quit struggling vs the Cubs. If you remember though, the Padres were playing some really good baseball at that time. If I'm not mistaken they won 9 games in a row, or something like that, in the stretch that they swept us. The Padres aren't as good now. The Padres' sweep of the Cubs came in the midst of a 12-3 run for them to close out May. After that stretch, they were at .500. Now, they're 20 games under .500. They're 5-5 in their last 10 and have lost their last 4.

I mentioned this in another thread, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if this scenario occurs: Lou retires after the year, Trammell is promoted to manager and Ryno takes over Trammell's current role.

Here's a few numbers that may help clear this up a bit. We've scored 1-3 runs in a game 41 times and 4-6 runs in a game 40 times. We've scored 7+ 25 times and scored none 9 times. By contrast, the best offense in baseball this year (the Phillies) have scored 1-3 runs 38 times, 4-6 runs 37 times, 7+ runs 35 times and have been shutout 4 times. So, the Cubs and Phillies' differential between 1-3 run games and 4-6 run games is the same. The only difference between the offenses is that the Phillies score 7+ more often and get shutout less. In our shutouts, we've lost by 2 runs twice, 3 runs three times, 4 runs twice, 6 runs once and 10 runs once. It appears that the offense has been worse this year because they've scored a bunch of runs in a game less instead of going from 4-6 runs in a game to 1-3 runs. For instance, last year's Cubs team scored 7+ runs 57 times, 1-3 runs 58 times, 4-6 runs 38 times and were shutout 8 times. So, for the most part, a number of last year's 7+ run games have turned into 4-6 run games.