XZero771679666304

Probably because up until this year most of us didn't even know Mizzou had a football team. You must not pay too close attention to college football, cause before Daniel (note the spelling, IMB), there was this guy named Brad Smith who was setting NCAA records left and right. Yes, and he set them in relative anonymity.

Because no one else saw this coming.

You are correct.

$45/3 for Mariano, or $44/4 or whatever for Cordero, that is "big money". $4.2, that's not big money. When you have a $115 roster, and around ten guys who will be <$1 each, that leaves you with around $105 for 15 salaried guys. So the average salary for the salaried guys is around $7. $4 for a free agent is well below average. It's not "big money". It's the cost of doing business. Sure, I wish we'd have gotten him at $1 base, with a club option on year two that would cost $2.5 or $0.2 to buyout. But that's not the market. 45/3 and and 44/4 aren't big money. That's insane money. Kerry will get $7.65M if he's able to close for the whole 2008 season. That's still a lot of money for about 70 innings of work, much of it in undemanding situations. I also don't think it's realistic to expect him not to get lit up every now and then. He's not Mariano Rivera. If Kerry maxes out his incentives that means the following: A) He's closing B) He's very effective 7.65 is not a lot of money for a good closer. I have no qualms with this deal.

Apparently, there are over 3M in "performance bonuses". Link Sounds like more than setup money to me.

Lame. Cordero is averaging, what, not enough $6 million less a year than Soriano on his contract? This is stupid. Closer is the easiest high cost role you can bumble into cheaply. The Blue Jays spent a fortune on B. J. Ryan and he got hurt, and they found a great replacement in a cast-off from San Francisco. The closer role is really such a transitory thing. Outside of a handful of elite closers, you really have no idea what you are getting from year to year. I think paying any reliever that much money is just ridiculous. I would much rather pay Soriano 18 million than Cordero 12. And that's saying something.

no one cares about florida, they lost to two mediocre teams, they are not even close to top six or seven. besides, this is a thread about mizzou and kansas. anyway, if kansas hadnt choked in the red zone so bad early this would be a very good game right now Yeah, if we hit those FGs would be an 8 point game, but Mizzou clearly appears to be the better team regardless. They appear to be a top 10-15 team at best. You have to understand at least some of the skepticism here. KU is a team with a long and illustrious history of being really bad. They are a team who has played, let's face it, next to nobody this year. And suddenly they're the second best team in the nation? And Mizzou hasn't played anyone either. Heck, their "marquee" win this year (prior to tonight) was probably the Illinois game, which was a fight. That's not saying much. We'll know more about how good these teams are after the Big 12 championship, or maybe after the bowl games.

We get it, you love Florida. We know. You don't have to remind us. Over And Over And Over. Maybe if you do, you will accept the truth about how good they are despite their three losses. But can you accept that they might not be quite as good as you think they are? The Gators are good, but they're not nearly the team they were last year.

I was with you until the USC part. That team has no business being number 1. And while Kansas has played nobody up until this point. I would still have them inside of #15. Clearly they are not a top 10 team, though.

People have known that Mizzou is a solid team before tonight. Solid, for sure. But top 5? Not so much. But I think the winner of this game will lose to OU, and set up the WVU-OSU matchup. Unlike Meph, I think that at least WVU deserves it.

Ridiculous is being kind. That makes the Soriano deal look good by comparison. Wow. However, it is easy to see why this came out of nowhere. Torii and his agent probably literally jumped on that contract offer.

I'm really hoping he gets tendered and has a shot in 2008. While I'm not counting on anything, I think he might surprise us.

Why? Henry can throw out more guys and maybe not hit for contact as much but certainly hit for more power. I don't think Kendall would have accepted a backup role, either. Having Henry (who is a prototypical backup catcher) is a great thing for Geovany Soto. Lou won't be as tempted to used Blanco if Geo goes into a slump, Henry won't be bitter about riding the bench, and will be a good mentor.

I've heard speculation the Vlad's days in the OF are numbered because of recent injury problems. I wouldn't be surprised if it's Guerrero who ends up at DH.

I doubt it. Oh, he might. But he's still terrible.

I read that he received an offer of 18 million from Hanshin, and 20 million from Yomiuri, both 4 year offers. So 10 million would be roughly twice that annually.

Why? Because Weis acted like a classless child preseason with his recruiting sour grapes and allegations and now Illinois fan is reveling in ND's utter crapness? That's just karma, son. I'm pretty sure you're kidding, but stealing Arrelious Benn from us has very little to do with it, they just talk waaaay too much. For instance, this ludicrous Illinois/Florida debate. I understand their point that Florida strictly on paper isn't that much better than Illinois but they would destroy the Illini in a game, and everyone seems to think Juice, who has now had one good passing game this season, would shred the UF defense. No offense, but Notre Dame fans have always been the most intolerable (usually without any cause to be) in the entire realm of college sports. None should be allowed to critique the fans of other teams. Ever. I'd like to think of myself as a reasonable fan (there are plenty on here that would likely disagree), and I think any reasonable fan can critique other fans regardless of affiliation. I don't think anyone can dispute the point that ND fans are the worst (just because there are more of them than any other, thereby increasing the amount of idiots) but I'm pretty sure the question meant on NSBB. I was being facetious (partially).

Why? Because Weis acted like a classless child preseason with his recruiting sour grapes and allegations and now Illinois fan is reveling in ND's utter crapness? That's just karma, son. I'm pretty sure you're kidding, but stealing Arrelious Benn from us has very little to do with it, they just talk waaaay too much. For instance, this ludicrous Illinois/Florida debate. I understand their point that Florida strictly on paper isn't that much better than Illinois but they would destroy the Illini in a game, and everyone seems to think Juice, who has now had one good passing game this season, would shred the UF defense. No offense, but Notre Dame fans have always been the most intolerable (usually without any cause to be) in the entire realm of college sports. None should be allowed to critique the fans of other teams. Ever.

That is very true, and significant. However, by far the biggest factor in the whole discussion is the talent pool. Can you even imagine today's game with only white players? Not only has baseball evolved to include all races, but the overall population has increased. Logic dictates that the level of talent has increased with the inclusion of all these new sources of great talent. You had guys like Ruth and Cobb who were head and shoulders above the vast majority of their peers. It seems to me that the gap between the superstar and the average joe has closed significantly. It's the talent. Cobb didn't have to compete against the same level as guys like Bonds or even Aaron. You can say that newer medical practices, training techniques and nutrition would make a difference, and they would. But think of it this way: If you are a player at a Single A high school and are very successful, would you expect to have the same level of success against AAAA competition? Even though you have access to all the same amenities? Of course not. You might still be successful, but logic dictates that your performance would suffer to some degree. You can also look at it reversed: Go back to 1920 and infuse the league with latin and black talent, and watch the outliers come back toward the pack as the fillers are replaced by talent. This is the factor that overshadows all others when comparing eras, though like the others it is difficult to quantify. I am not suggesting that guys like Cobb and Ruth would be terrible. What I am suggesting is that they wouldn't be as good. Perhaps not even nearly so. I think it is difficult to argue against this when you compare the different eras, since not all hardships are equal. And there are even personal factors, like with Ruth. The guy was obviously a hedonist, and even if he had access to modern conditioning, would he have even utilized it? Lots of things to consider, but none bigger than the issue of overall talent level.

Yes, yes he is. Seriously, I don't even know why this argument even took place. Cobb, Ruth and others like them were indeed schmucks who should be left moldering in historical antiquity. To use a Georgia analogy, Cobb was the William Tecumseh Sherman of ballplayers. They are also guys who collected their numbers in days when the game was in it's relative infancy, the talent pool was tiny (no blacks, latinos, hispanics or asians) and the level of play was without a doubt much lower. OMC may argue with that, but it seems pretty clear to me. Barry Bonds' numbers are no less valid than Cobb's or Ruth's. Less valid than Aaron and Mays, but that's not who we're talking about. Personally, I am sick of the reverence altogether. Ruth was a fat hedonistic slob and Cobb was a vile, racist hick. They, like many of their contemporaries, would have nowhere near the success in today's game they had in their day. Guys like Ty Cobb are the '72 Dolphins of MLB, revered, but totally obsolete. Oh, except morally reprehensible.

This is true, but who has the speed to match up with them? The Big XII's overrated trio = not so much. Ohio State? Not after last season's NC. WVU? They could put points on the board against LSU, not so sure they can stop them. Honestly, there are pretty much 2 universities that have enough speed to match up against LSU: USC and Florida. Those schools have the best chance to knock off LSU. Unfortunately, neither of the teams have a realistic scenario of facing them. Of the teams with a legitimate chance of facing LSU, WVU probably matches up the best, though I think LSU would score pretty easily on them. LSU isn't invincible, but I don't think the 1 loss teams match up that well against them. Their only loss in the best conference was a flukish triple overtime loss on the road to Kentucky. You're right, but I'd sure like to see the WVU-LSU matchup. That would be an entertaining game, and all the Mountaineers would have to do is keep the game close enough for Les Miles to do something stupid. At the very least it would be fun to watch, with both teams at or above 35 points.

Good call, Mephistopheles. 3 for 3. To be fair, none of those predictions were that difficult. I didn't think Oklahoma would rout TT in Lubbock, but no one predicted what is happening now. K-State was going to get up for the Mizzou game, and the Tigers have played a relatively easy schedule. Tennessee has been iffy all season (IMO), and Vandy isn't a total cupcake. Saying all three would be close to relatively close was kind of a lay up.

This season is totally out of hand. Just when you think things are clearing up even a little, everything gets whacked again.

Why? I think it looks great. Me too. I can't wait to see what it looks like after it's readied for play.

I've been telling people that for years.