dew1679666265

It was 38-14 and then PSU kicked a field goal. That made it 38-17. There would be no reason to go for two at that point - not worth the risk. The only problem I had was the non-onside kick after the TD to make it 38-24.

Well, that was quick.

No idea why Stefan Johnson went out of bounds there. PSU has an outside chance here.

I didn't have a problem with the field goal - you'd need it at some point anyway if you were going to think about coming back. I'd have kicked in onside there, though. It's not inexcusable though - if you stop them here you have a chance to score quickly and then kick it onside. This is too risky by PSU though.

the beauty of DirecTV is that for the 4+ years I've had it, I've never had to deal with the channel controversies. Big Ten Network, NFL Network, MLB.....all part of the standard lineup. Absolutely. It's awesome.

That was a huge hit, but definitely very dirty.

I recall some people saying that about Theriot a year ago, and they didn't believe he could improve and Hendry did. Lets not forget the team that starts the season on opening day isn't the final team. I recall a year ago some people being concerned about Pie in CF Theirot at SS, and if Soto would be as good. Many were concerned about potentially having 3 easy outs in the line-up. Well Theriot/Soto were better then anyone expected, and after Pie struggled, they picked up Edmonds to replace him and it ended up being a great move. If Fontenot does struggle, or Fukudome still isn't hitting or something else happens. We can always find replacements for players at those postions in trades, minors or off waivers, just like we did a year ago. At some point you gotta go with your young players, especially when their hitting at the big league level. But you shouldn't go with younger players just for the crap of it, which is what Hendry did. There was not a need to trade Mark DeRosa. Trading him raises significant questions, which is not what a GM or manager should want. If Peavy is brought in, that's a clear improvement. Otherwise, all Hendry did was raise questions that didn't need to be raised.

no doubt. They've been the best part of this game sadly.

What team has good depth when three starters go out? Gaudin was never gonna start for us last year anyways because he wasn't stretched out enough to start. So last year in say August or September Samardzija or Hart would have started in that situation as well. If the Cubs lose 2-3 starters for a long period of time it won't matter if Marquis was on the roster or not. Good depth saves you from injuries, but only to a point. This team still has very good depth, just not as much as they did to end the season, and maybe some of the guys they will lose don't have the track records as others. But that doesn't mean these guys can't do the job, or better. We didn't have three starters out, we had two. Three starters out is an extreme situation, two is not. Last year with two starters out we had Marshall and Gallagher for a while and then Gaudin after him. This year, if two starters go out, we have Gaudin/Marshall and Shark. I like Samardzija and hope he does well, but I'm not confident he'll be very good this year. How do we know Gaudin and Samardzija would be worse then Marquis and Gallagher? We don't know how Samardzija might improve or how he would do starting a few games. Gaudin as I pointed out pitched just like Marquis in 2007. Personally I think your freaking out about losing depth a bit. If you don't have a 200m payroll you need to cut back in spots to get better. When you have guys like Marshall and Gaudin you don't need to have a pitcher like Marquis making the money he does on the roster, when those guys can probably do what he does. When you have a young like Fontenot hitting like he has you consider getting rid of a guy like DeRosa if helps you get Bradley. The thing is, trading Marquis and DeRosa didn't make us better. It made us worse. I've already said, if we get Peavy I'm ok with all of this. Otherwise, I'm not. We didn't have to trade Marquis, Hendry chose to. And he made a bad choice.

Just thought I'd contribute that USC cheerleaders are extremely awesome.

Why are you so sure Marshall will be in the rotation? Who says Chad Gaudin might not win the spot? Why is Gaudin a worse option then Marshall? Gaudin actually has more success starting them Marshall has had the last two years. I don't get why people don't consider Gaudin a starter, when just in 07 he started 34 games had a 4.43 era in the AL and pitched 199 innings. Then last year he only started one less game then Marshall, and had a better era as a starter. I think Gaudin or Marshall could do the same thing Marquis did, and who ever isn't starter is just fine as the swing guy. Ok, fine. Gaudin becomes the fifth starter and we have less depth than last year. If Harden goes down, we have Marshall to fill in. If another starter goes down, we have Shark or Atkins/Hart. That's still worse depth than last year. Didn't that happen last year? Zambrano went on the DL and we didn't have Harden yet? We had Gallagher, Marshall and Marquis in the same rotation, and we still didn't lose every game. And without Gallagher and Marquis on the roster, that becomes Gaudin and Shark in the rotation. That's worse than Gallagher and Marquis. Our starting rotation will be similar, but the quality pitchers we have ready to fill in when an injury happens is now less than it was last year when we had Marquis.

Hendy probably feels Fontenot can take the next step and put up production similar to what he would get from DeRosa this year, so he doesn't see it as a significant downgrade. He better be right then, because if he's wrong we're a worse team. We can agree on this one. :D

How is the pitching depth gonna be worse then last year? We had Rich Harden for 12 starts last year, and I'm confident he will start at least 12 games if not more. When Harden wasn't starting we had a bad Rich Hill, below average Gallagher and Sean Marshall, in the rotation with Jason Marquis. Gaudin had a 4.43 era in 34 starts in 07, and 3.75 era in 6 starts last year. I'm pretty confident he can do what pretty much Marquis did the last two years, if he has to start. But Sean Marshall has also been very solid when given the chance to start the last two seasons. I'm not really expecting much from Samardzija but I think it's possible he could step in and pitch like Gallagher did last season at some point. The only issue with this rotation will be if Dempster is ALOT worse then last season. But all signs right now point to Dempster at least being a solid 2-3 next year. But even if Dempster isn't that good, 25-27 starts from Harden, and maybe a little better year from Zambrano would put our rotation right back were it was last year. The pitching depth will be worse because last year we had Marshall in the bullpen, ready to fill in when a starter went down. Now, with Marquis gone, Marshall will be the 5th starter. So, when Harden gets hurt we can't go with Marshall - we'll have to go with a Gaudin, Shark, etc. Either of them will be a worse option than plugging Marshall into the rotation. And, Lord forbid, if we should lose Harden and Z for a start or two at the same time, we'll have Gaudin AND Shark in the rotation at the same time. That's less depth than we had last year.

I don't have a problem with targeting a left handed bat. That's perfectly fine. The problem is when you make yourself worse in order to do that. In this case, unless we get Peavy, Hendry made the team worse.

The bolded makes it sound like the Rays would have to go three years guaranteed to match the Cubs offer. I could be reading it wrong and he may be implying incorrectly, but that's what I'm seeing. I didn't catch that before. Hmm. Well hopefully if he's getting 3 guaranteed years then it will be less than 10 a year. Mayube 3/25 of somethingl ike that... hwich wouldn't be that awufl Been celebrating the new year again? :wink: I do hope we give him less than 10 a year, but somehow I doubt it. wow that was like the worst typo ever Sorry, I just couldn't let it pass. :D

It's still a bad deal because it's faulty logic. We won't improve the team by getting a worse player who hits with his left hand. Is it the best Hendry could have done since his mind was made up? I guess, but who really cares? If the trade didn't improve the team (which without Peavy it didn't) then it's a bad deal. If Hendry was forced into it due to money, that's a different issue. But a bad move is not made good because you have the crazy idea that you're going to make a move no matter what.

The bolded makes it sound like the Rays would have to go three years guaranteed to match the Cubs offer. I could be reading it wrong and he may be implying incorrectly, but that's what I'm seeing. I didn't catch that before. Hmm. Well hopefully if he's getting 3 guaranteed years then it will be less than 10 a year. Mayube 3/25 of somethingl ike that... hwich wouldn't be that awufl Been celebrating the new year again? :wink: I do hope we give him less than 10 a year, but somehow I doubt it.

Well, then. USC is drubbing Penn State and I was wrong here. I still don't think it's because they're a Big 10 team. It has more to do with USC is awesome when they decide to play.

Which I think the Cubs are actually ok with. I think they believe Hoffpauir can be productive in a limited role, facing mostly RH pitching. Then you have Reed Johnson who is very good against LH pitching. But that puts alot of faith in Fukudome being the first half Fukudome and not the second half guy. In all honestly there's not a huge difference from 06-07 DeRosa to Reed Johnson starting in the outfield if we have a injury. But you need to be able to get some offense from Fukudome then. I think the problem with this DeRosa stuff people are thinking he will be the 850s OPS 20 HR guy next year. But his power numbers were most likely a fluke thing and he will be a 790-800 OPS guy and 10-12 HR hitter. Having guys like Fontenot/Miles at 2b and Johnson/Hoffpauir filling in the outfield instead of 06-07 DeRosa isn't a major difference. Of course even 06-07 DeRosa is better, but not alot better then the depth we have. The depth on this team made DeRosa expandable in their eyes. I still don't think we can only count Milton Bradley for 80-90 games either, yes a full season is very unlikely. But 100-120 games isn't out of the question at all if the Cubs baby him right. There's extremely little evidence to support this. It's possible, but unlikely. And maybe, just maybe, those guys will give us the same numbers but it's a big gamble. We seem to be gambling a whole lot after winning 97 games last year. In the last five years he play over 120 games twice, and three years he didn't. Before 2005 he didn't have major injury issues, and was mostly not playing due to not being that good yet or off the field issues. So when the guys done it in his past, and is currently healthy I dunno how we can say book it he's playing 80-90 games next year. Nobody can predict injuries, they can just be cautious about a guys past, but if you're doctors clear him in big tests. Like Bradley reportly went though up in Arizona a few months back. You gotta think the guy is healthy now, but you gotta be cautious with him because of his past, and I think the Cubs will. Bradley probably won't be playing games when its bad weather, and Lou will give him a decent amount of days off I'm sure. I'm not saying book anything, I'm saying the most likely outcome is that Bradley will give us slightly more than half a season. One of the two years he's played more than 120 games he was DHing the vast majority of the time.

Ok sorry, good depth. Gaudin and Shark will be pretty good depth maybe, but with Marquis gone Marshall will be the 5th starter. Hart and Atkins are mediocre at very best. And it's not Marquis' production - Marshall can do that as the fifth starter. It's producing well in place of Harden when he's hurt. I don't have much faith in in anybody outside of, maybe, Gaudin and Shark. And they're a little iffy. 120 games would be more than he's played in any season but two. One of those he played the vast majority of his games at DH. And if that's the absolute best we can hope for, I'm worried.

It's an upgrade, but if we're that cash strapped is it worth it? If we're now going to be playing a whole lot of Aaron Miles, Micah Hoffpauir and Joey Gathright have we really improved that much? Bradley's injured far too often for this to be a big improvement. Yeah, if the option was Bradley or Peavy, go with Peavy. Peavy is a bigger upgrade over what the Cubs put out at SP than Bradley is over Derosa (this is under the assumption that Derosa was the RF with the Cubs teams as it was yesterday w/ Fontenot at 2B). Agreed.

Then don't get Bradley. If you have to downgrade in one spot to moderately upgrade in another, it's not worth it. Pursue a Hermida or Scott or Sammy Sosa, but don't trade a valuable chip in order to moderately upgrade. Obviously he likes Fontenot and feels better trading DeRosa and taking a chance on Fontenot being able to make the leap from backup to starter than he feels about the chances of Fukudome or Hoff being able to put up respectable numbers in RF. I hope this all leads to Peavy, but even if it really is just a money thing I agree with the move. I would rather have Fontenot / Bradley / Fukudome at 2B/RF/CF than the alternative of DeRosa / Fukudome / Pie. It is just a bit of a shock to the system if that is the way it turns out because the Cubs have not done anything other than add payroll for the last couple years so a move like the DeRosa trade primarily to dump salary takes some getting used to. That's not the choice the Cubs would have likely gone with. The two options would have either been: Fontenot at 2nd, DeRosa at RF, Fukudome in CF or Fontenot at 2nd, Bradley+Johnson in RF (Johnson for the 40-80 games that Bradley doesn't play, Fukudome in CF Would you rather have DeRosa for 140 games in RF and Marquis in the 5th spot or Bradley for 100, Vizcaino in the bullpen, and 3 decent pitching prospects? Personally I think the Cubs are better off with the former. If the Cubs get another upgrade other than Bradley it makes more sense. But is Bradley really a more valuable RF than DeRosa this year? Plus if you kept DeRosa you could have kept an extra OF bat for the bench that could hit instead of having to pay Miles to be a backup IF (because DeRosa would essentially be your 2nd backup IF even while starting in the OF). So with DeRosa you have about the same offense over the course of the year, a better starting rotation, a better bench, and possibly a better bullpen (because it could be argued that Vizcaino hurts the pen more than helps it). Trading him should only have been done to get talent that could be used to upgrade somewhere else. Removing DeRosa's salary isn't much of a help because DeRosa was being underpaid so much. Cmon now, we are now counting the loss of Marquis from the rotation as a downgrade? And we are assuming DeRosa repeats his '08 career year but Bradley will be hurt for a significant portion? It is just as easy to say Marquis would wind up in long relief and DeRosa would wind up regressing and hurt overall RF production. Marquis was decent last year and with his loss and no other additions we have very little depth to absorb a Harden injury. And I think DeRosa will be somewhere between his 08 and 07 numbers.

Entertaining the thought that a full season of DeRosa is more valuable than a half season (of less) of Bradley means we're overvaluing him? So everyone is basing it off of injury risk? I understand that you have to be concerned, especially with his history, but come on, Bradley is a hell of a player when healthy. Quit being typical glass half empty Cubs fans. Now we are only assuming a half season OR LESS from Bradley? That seems a bit pessimistic. I have also seen people saying that we will be lucky if we get as many innings out of Harden in '08 as we did in '09. Worst case scenarios are pretty popular around here these days. Bradley has played 100+ games in the field exactly once in his entire career. I would say expecting him to only play 70-80 is being rather pessimistic, but it's hard to argue that he's going to suddenly be able to be out in the field for more than 100 games this year either. There's a lot of history that suggests he's not going to be able to. I'm thinking half the season is about the lowest he'll go. I'm worried that 100 is on the very high end, however. 85-90 is what I'm expecting. EDIT: I was thinking in too many round numbers. Changed 80 games in the expectation to 85.

Then don't get Bradley. If you have to downgrade in one spot to moderately upgrade in another, it's not worth it. Pursue a Hermida or Scott or Sammy Sosa, but don't trade a valuable chip in order to moderately upgrade. Obviously he likes Fontenot and feels better trading DeRosa and taking a chance on Fontenot being able to make the leap from backup to starter than he feels about the chances of Fukudome or Hoff being able to put up respectable numbers in RF. I hope this all leads to Peavy, but even if it really is just a money thing I agree with the move. I would rather have Fontenot / Bradley / Fukudome at 2B/RF/CF than the alternative of DeRosa / Fukudome / Pie. It is just a bit of a shock to the system if that is the way it turns out because the Cubs have not done anything other than add payroll for the last couple years so a move like the DeRosa trade primarily to dump salary takes some getting used to. That's not the choice the Cubs would have likely gone with. The two options would have either been: Fontenot at 2nd, DeRosa at RF, Fukudome in CF or Fontenot at 2nd, Bradley+Johnson in RF (Johnson for the 40-80 games that Bradley doesn't play, Fukudome in CF Would you rather have DeRosa for 140 games in RF and Marquis in the 5th spot or Bradley for 100, Vizcaino in the bullpen, and 3 decent pitching prospects? Personally I think the Cubs are better off with the former. If the Cubs get another upgrade other than Bradley it makes more sense. But is Bradley really a more valuable RF than DeRosa this year? Plus if you kept DeRosa you could have kept an extra OF bat for the bench that could hit instead of having to pay Miles to be a backup IF (because DeRosa would essentially be your 2nd backup IF even while starting in the OF). So with DeRosa you have about the same offense over the course of the year, a better starting rotation, a better bench, and possibly a better bullpen (because it could be argued that Vizcaino hurts the pen more than helps it). Trading him should only have been done to get talent that could be used to upgrade somewhere else. Removing DeRosa's salary isn't much of a help because DeRosa was being underpaid so much. This whole time I was hoping you'd disagree with me. Now I feel worse. :-))

Entertaining the thought that a full season of DeRosa is more valuable than a half season (of less) of Bradley means we're overvaluing him? So everyone is basing it off of injury risk? I understand that you have to be concerned, especially with his history, but come on, Bradley is a hell of a player when healthy. Quit being typical glass half empty Cubs fans. It's not glass half empty. It's the fact that he hasn't played 100 games in the field since 2004. I'd say the same thing if the Cards, Yankees or Braves were signing him.