Soul

Yep, this is the time of year. Everybody is going everywhere.

Except for in the second half of 2006, when he posted a 3.12 ERA and struck out 35 in 34.2 innings, while holding opponents to a .198/.277/.347 line. I'm not saying that I oppose the trade, but Aardsma certainly showed that he can be a successful reliever. I'm not saying Aardsma will never succeed, just that he hasn't proven it for anything that would be considered a decent period of time. One half of a season, on a team that was out of contention, doesn't qualify as proof IMO, that's all. Cotts did it for a whole year on a WS Champion. A bit different, wouldn't you agree? I wish Aardvark all the best. I hope he does well, and he certainly might. I'm not comparing Aardsma to Cotts. You said Aardsma hasn't shown that he'll be able to succeed at all. His performance this year shows that he certainly can succeed. Regardless of whether or not the Cubs were in contention, Aardsma still had pressure to prove he could get the job done and pitch at the major league level, and he did just that. I'm not saying it's a bad trade. Cotts gives the Cubs four potential left-handers out of the pen (Eyre, Ohman, and Rapada being the other three). That gives them some flexibility to trade one of them for something of value, and if they're able to use that to their advantage, I'm certainly not going to badmouth this deal. ...success to me means something more long-term, but whatever. Sorry I should have been more clear.

I'm very optimistic regarding my other sports teams(check the Bears/Bulls threads.) I've simply had it with this organiztion, espcecially our garbage/inept GM. I understand. Anyone who has groaned at my posts over the years knows I speak the truth :) But hey---if the Cubs really have the cash to overpay for DeRosa, and he puts up mediocre numbers and sort of subs in/out with Theriot? Eh......depending on the rest of the lineup & pitching, maybe I'll be alright with it.

Except for in the second half of 2006, when he posted a 3.12 ERA and struck out 35 in 34.2 innings, while holding opponents to a .198/.277/.347 line. I'm not saying that I oppose the trade, but Aardsma certainly showed that he can be a successful reliever. I'm not saying Aardsma will never succeed, just that he hasn't proven it for anything that would be considered a decent period of time. One half of a season, on a team that was out of contention, doesn't qualify as proof IMO, that's all. Cotts did it for a whole year on a WS Champion. A bit different, wouldn't you agree? I wish Aardvark all the best. I hope he does well, and he certainly might.

That was you?!? http://forumimages.footballguys.com/style_emoticons/default/bowtie.gif LOL.....sorry Chocolate :) No Rex-bashing allowed, darn it!!! ...but colorful nicknames are. Will it be Turnoversaurus Rex next weekend? 8) are you one of the guys who wants to play kyle orton because he "didn't lose games" last season? apparently, people forget about the 5 INT cincinnati game. i'll never understand it. not many quarterbacks can play well when their line is being demolished. rex has made some bad throws this year, no doubt, but he's 12-4 over the course of his career-he doesn't lose many ballgames either....and he's never had a 5 INT performance while throwing a minimum of passes. I don't think Soul was trying to bash Grossman at all, despite the reference to the "Turnoversaurus Rex," nickname. In fact, he made the exact same point you just made (about QB's not playing well under pressure) on the page before this. LOL, now I see how easy it is to be suddenly labeled a "Rex basher." Sulley, I'm a huge Rex fan. Just trying to make jokes and have a little fun, that's all.

It's their close games-8 of their 9 games have been 8 point or less games, and they have won 5 of those games. The other game? They got drilled 41-0 by Jacksonville, which is a big reason their stats are farther down then they probably should be. They have simply managed to play at exactly the level of their opponents every game. They did it against the Colts (with the help of an onside kick recovered, multiple 4th down conversions, and a kickoff return for a TD) and the Colts just barely survived. I don't think the Bears will have much problem with the Jets-the Jets rely on their short to intermediate passing game to survive, and I can see the Bears just completely shutting that down. I think it will be a Bears blowout unless the Jets find the way they have all season to make some sort of crazy play to stay in it. It's got to be just crazy plays and luck, because teams that rank that low sometimes don't have more than 2 wins at the end of the entire season. Ranking-wise, this is far and away the worst team we've faced this year. Yet they just beat the Pats, and are over .500. Trap game? I sure hope not. And I hope the Bears aren't looking ahead to the Pats, either. Because a win against the Jets will almost make that Pats game meaningless, since we would still come out of our toughest stretch 9-2, heading into what can only be considered an easy final 5 games of the year.

I can see the Cubs giving a ridicilous contract to Soriano, but I cannot see them landing Drew. If they lose out on Soriano after Drew signs that will be bad. I'd rather them sign Drew (if that is truely their intention) and see what happens with Soriano. Pill Roger's comments not withstanding, I don't think the Cubs are interested in Drew. It makes too much sense. Much more so than signing Soriano to a ridiculous contract and asking him to play a position he's never played and at the age of 31 no less. CF is much tougher to play than either RF or LF. I hear you. Soriano in CF for mega-bucks seems like the more Cub-ish move. I'm with some other people though: I look at our team and see a void of talent, especially in the outfield, so I would still welcome Soriano despite the shortcomings. That might explain why I can't see it happening with either guy. No history of success to fuel any hope.

I'm OK with it. Cotts is young, has succeeded in the majors before, and done it on a World Series champ. He likely just needs a little rest after a long year in '05 and first half of '06. Aardsma hasn't shown he'll be able to succeed at all, ever.

I'm having a hard time picturing either in a Cub uni. I know----that's a real scientific analysis 8)

Hahaha, Mike North. Yeah. It's not like he makes it difficult to dismiss his idiotic rantings.

All those numbers does us no good if he can't stay healthy. We don't need him to stay healthy, we need him to be healthy most of the time. I think in a 5 year deal, you'd get at least 3 semi-full to full seasons out of him. And then 2 of the seasons he's going to miss some games. But that's probably why you can get him for around $14m, when Soriano might get $17-18m. Look at how the Mets handled the Pedro situation. They signed him for 4 years, and pretty much acknowledged they weren't going to get 4 strong years out of him. If the Cubs were a $65 million team, Drew isn't worth the risk. If they were a very good offensive ballclub, there probably isn't much reason to sign such a player. But the Cubs are desperate for a hitter that does exactly the things JD does. They need an impact bat. Their offense could be awesome with him, and all they'd need to do was try and tread water when he misses games. For all the issues he's had, JD has never crippled a team with his problems. Give JD the same profile, but make him 34 or 35 right now, and my story would probably change. But the Cubs need this type of player, and from age 31 through age 34 or 35, they should be able to get a ton of production out of him. Hmmm...Good way to look at it, and if you think about it you are taking the same gamble with Aramis. Yeah, but the more injury-ridden guys you have, the more chance you'll never be able to get your footing. I'm not saying I wouldn't want Drew to come here. But the fact that Soriano stays healthy is definitely a positive.

So much for the "Hendry is doing well" theory. That took a cozy 3 days. Back to the old Jim. Marquis will get 5/50.

The Jets are 25th in overall offense at 2626 yards. They are 31st in overall defense at 361.1 yards per game. They're +1 in the turnover ratio, which puts them somewhere middle of the pack (there's a few with the same ratio, like the Giants, Cinci, and Jacksonville). By comparison, the Bears are +7, even with the two really bad games of Arizona and Miami. I absolutely do not understand why this team is 5-4. But I hope the Bears figure it out, and quick. The numbers don't make much sense, and I'm sure many other teams like the Patriots took them lightly because of their rankings. I just wonder if people are overlooking them and then playing down to their level because their stats really stink. That would suck for the Bears to lose to a club like this by underestimating them.

That was you?!? http://forumimages.footballguys.com/style_emoticons/default/bowtie.gif LOL.....sorry Chocolate :) No Rex-bashing allowed, darn it!!! ...but colorful nicknames are. Will it be Turnoversaurus Rex next weekend? 8)

Who's your closer? Woody?

Again, it's a pattern: $4.15 to Izturis $4.5 to DeRosa $3.25 to Rusch $2.5 to Blanco It's $14.4 million. It's not the "littlest thing" You're assuming that those four positions on the team would be adequately filled by people making $0. You have to assume that the people there are at least making something. 4 players at an average of $400,000 each, combines to $1.6m. Make one of those guys a millionaire veteran and the total cost is $2.2 million, leaving $12.2 million on the table for somebody, or somebodies, who can actually help the team get better. Yeah, I was going to say 14.4 million is the better part of the Marlins entire payroll---spent on 4 players who can't help the team and have no future potential. It's a big deal wrapped up in small pieces. It's Hendry, in a nutshell.

Again, it's a pattern: $4.15 to Izturis $4.5 to DeRosa $3.25 to Rusch $2.5 to Blanco It's $14.4 million. It's not the "littlest thing" Lots of money, yet won't shell out an additional mil for a larger acquisition like Furcal. It makes no sense, and is one big reason why the Cubs have fallen so far, so fast.

you assume he considers those past contracts "mistakes" Exactly. It's not that he is forgetful; he just isn't all that good a GM.

I just went and looked at his stats, and you're right. Somehow I thought he was much better. He had a nice start to his major league career, and was credited with a good amount of the glory for the White Sox world series. He was a good, but not special minor leaguer. Now that he's in the last years of arbitration, and coming off two bad seasons, I don't see much value in him. If Philly non-tendered him, or took back a less valuable trading chip (Dempster?), then I could see trying to use him as the 4th OF, subbing for Jones and Drew. A few Sox fans seem to think Rowand is the spark they're missing and want him back. I do like the kid's guts, but I wouldn't be pining to bring him here unless it was a real reasonable deal.

That's so funny I was just thinking this sounds like the Chris Carpenter philosophy. Meche didn't have the surgeries though I don't think. I don't know if his stuff is as good. He did eat up some innings last year, and his numbers looked a bit better than the year before. I dunno........if this were to happen, would Meche be the much-talked-about Prior hedge, or would he be expected to be, you know, an actual productive guy from the start?

Problem is, Lou Pineilla and Jim Hendry might think otherwise. It probably doesn't matter what they think. Izturis's body won't allow it, and DeRosa's probably won't know how to do it. Izzy's body will probably hold out long enough for us to sink 10 games under .500 and out of the race. DeRosa might not be all that bad, but the real question has always been "where's the pitching, Jim?" I find it highly likely that the answer to that question is simply, there's not going to be any significant pitching acquisitions.

What do you think the effect was? Were the rain droplets knocking his throws off course? Was the water getting in his eyes? The ball would have been wet even when it stopped raining and it was pouring during the last drive in the first half. Rex's effectiveness is related to one thing: Pressure. In other news, Tom Brady got pressured last weekend too and he also sucked hard. Not saying Rex doesn't react worse than many others to pressure. But important to note that all QBs numbers start to look worse when the opposing D is able to get in their face-----even the mult-superbowl-winning variety.

You don't remember last year's team being extremely inconsistent in November? The 2004-2005 team was consistently bad at least. There are eight new players on this team, including two rookies whom I expect to be solid contributors by season's end, and the team's November schedule is brutal. Maybe I'm the only one who wasn't expecting the Bulls to win on the road in Dallas when the schedule was released. Finishing the month at 7-7, 6-8, and making up some ground in December is my hope. This team needs some time to gel. I agree. It's just frustrating to watch them play so great at times and so horrible at other times. I think the lack of consistency stems from not having an inside prescence offensively nor a player who can drive to the hoop and draw fouls consistently. Because they lack both of these things, it gets tough to score at times. If the jumpers aren't falling, they're dead. I'm not going to say we need to make a trade already, but it may be necessary if we want to go deep into the playoffs. Obviously the lack of an inside scorer is a concern, but there are at least 10 points per game they are losing by pulling up for stupid jump shots in transition instead of just passing it down low. Part of the problem is their execution as well. I hope this will improve.

Guess it's time to change avatars, eh? :wink:

Yeap. That's me in a nutshell too.