Transmogrified Tiger

Why waste a year stunting his development in a platoon? Beat me to it. He'll only be 22 for all of 2007, easing him into his role like that is the way I would do it, as long as the platoon partner is competent. Remember as a lefty he'll get the majority of the AB's in a platoon.

Tennessee, BYU, or Pitt would be ND's second best win. You could debate on which one is exactly second, but they're similar.

Isn't it Cody Ransom?

Jenks is around 4 years younger and has much better stuff. Working in MacDougal's favor is the fact that he hasn't lit his arm on fire.

No fun. I heard Penn St. cheats and uses 13 players when they play but the refs let them off cause they're related to Paterno. I wish UCLA's defense would cheat. Then, maybe they could stop the run. Same with Mizzou or MSU. :(

Welcome.

Very disappointing? That seems a little harsh. I'm not a huge Pierre fan either and have my doubts if it would be the right move. But depending upon the players we would have to give up, it could be a good move. If nothing else it would stop the organization from rushing Pie too fast, and if Pie is successful we would probably have plenty of takers for a so-called "true leadoff man" in Pierre. Goony summed up the way I would feel about it. I have my doubts but if he produces the way he did in '03 (.361 OBP) or '04 (.374 OBP/.407 SLG) it would be a big boost. If he produces the way he did last year, it doesn't help so much. With the options on the CF market this year, I think Pierre is a good choice if we aren't giving up too much. We wouldn't have to be stuck with him long-term, but he could be a great stop-gap. It's awful early to be settling for someone like Pierre when there are some other quality CF's possibly on the trade market(Bradley, Wilkerson, Michaels, etc.)

Pierre is a free agent after the season.

For one of the most productive 2B in the game at only 2.5 million, I'd hope for more than a gamble on a late bloomer. At least try and get Gotay.

This is very disappointing.

Walker was the 6th best 2B in baseball last year OPS wise, and only makes 2.5 mil this year. I think he's worth more than a reliever with a career WHIP near 1.5

ND is guaranteed a spot if they are in the top 8, or if a non-BCS team is in the top 6, gets an at-large, and ND is in the top twelve with 9 or more wins. So right now they aren't in a BCS bowl?

That's the thing. As UK pointed out the Cubs are desperate for a leadoff guy and Furcal and/or Pierre seem to be the targets. Cedeno IMO isn't deemed as a leadoff guy by the Cubs and for some reason the non-scooting (UK again) abilities of Walker and Murton will not give them the chance toi hit at the top of the order. Giles would be wonderful but would he be worth getting if Baker has Perez leading off? The leadoff guy doesn't have to come from SS though. And this doesn't mean you can't pursue Furcal, just that given our resources, Giles should be our top priority.

I find it funny that you argue for Giles over Furcal because Furcal is past his prime. The difference is that Furcal was never great at his prime. His price is being driven up by the hype surrounding the theory that he is the best young position player in free agency. He's past his prime, but his prime wasn't all that special. Giles was an absolute stud in his prime, and still brings far more to the table now than Furcal. Furcal's unspectacular production (750 OPS) is being glossed over because of his defense and position. But I know one thing, adding a 750 OPS to this lineup isn't going to do much to solve the team's immense offensive woes, especially when the cost of adding that 750 OPS will likely force the Cubs to once again go mediocre, or worse, in the biggest need position on the team, RF. Giles, far and away, adds greater improvement to this team than Furcal does. The Cubs were 10th in the NL last year in SS production, and were just 011 points of OPS from being 6th in the NL. On the other hand, they ranked 15th in OPS from RF last year, and were 050 points from cracking the top 10, 077 from the top 6. Cedeno could easily provide them a chance to be at least average at SS next year. They have no similar fallback option for RF, and based on the many rumored names, they are likely to get no better than minimal improvement from the disaster that was Burnitz. The fact is they can afford to get both Furcal and Giles, and I'd be ecstatic if they did. But if there is only a chance for one, there is no debate that Giles would be the more helpful acquisition. But what was the cubs OPS from SS last year? Sure adding a 750 OPS doesn't sound like a big deal but I"m assuming Neifi's OPS wasn't even approaching 700. Well now you're talking about a major improvement. Giles would definitely be a huge upgrade but for some reason Hendry sounds like he's looking to improve RF through trade. And I don't know if I disagree with him. Like I said in an earlier post I'd rather wrap up Furcal now and then explore my options in right, rather than pass on Furcal and just hope Giles signs with us. I can just see that approach ending in disaster. Much like last year's offseason. Read his post again. Difference between Giles and other RF option > Difference between Furcal and Cedeno.

That would be quite an accomplishment, and bad news for the downtown area it demolished as it rolled toward the Mississippi.

Wow, those computer polls must love Michigan.

if we give up that much for pierre, i'm not going to be happy. Pierre doesn't come for nothing. Patterson has minimal trade value right now and Hill is a hit or miss prospect. I think you're overrating the Cubs players in this deal. Rich Hill led all of the minor leagues in strikeouts while he was there last year. Patterson and Pierre have been identical in production 2 of the last 3 years. Pierre is coming off a down year.

West coast bias

Terrible example. No matter how disappointing ND's schedule has been, it's still much better than C-USA. And if we can hypothetically replace teams here and there, then I want to replace Cuse with a half-decent team. Then ND's opponent record is better. If we start opening up cans of worms like hypothetical schedule replacements, then this could go on a very long time. But then Notre Dame opens up the possibility of a 3rd loss. No matter, I'm not trying to make the case that they're equals, but I think it's pretty interesting when you are trying to consider the difference between a two loss team that's played quality competition and a one loss team who hasn't.

heretic. KU vs. ISU. If KU wins, we're bowl eligible. Please lose. Of course, the other two dominoes will already have to be in place since that game is on the 26th, but please lose anyway.

O$U is a great team, and they would probably do the same. I have never taken anything away from O$U. They are a victim of the weakness of the polls. If they were ranked above ND I would not complain, and there is a chance they will meet in the Fiesta Bowl which would be a great game. Here are some interesting stats about the ND wins this year (and losses) taken from an ND message board. Doesn't prove much but it is interesting, well some of it, some of it is irrelevant IMO. I am not by any means saying ND deserves to be ahead of all these teams. I do think their is an argument for it though, which it seems a majority of coaches and sports writers do to. My whole point was to find out why some people always complain about ND and not other teams in the same (or very similiar) situation. I was not putting anyone down or trying to start this whole debate again. I was an honest question. We could go around all day on the rankings, which is part of what is great about college football, but also shows what sucks about the system. You provided me with your argument and I accept it. It is very plausible that O$U has a legit reason to be above ND. I just never hear anyone complain about why O$U is ranked ahead of Oregon or UCLA, or why is Auburn ahead of UCLA or West Virgina; but why is ND ahead of so-and-so. Apparently people feel that way due to the schedule. Fair enough. I really doubt the voters are looking at those obscure facts. They go both ways as well. Only Hawaii and Illinois gave up more points to MSU than ND did. Same situation against Washington, only Idaho and Arizona were worse. Eastern Michigan and Indiana are the only teams to score fewer points against Michigan than Notre Dame this year. Food for thought. The biggest wins to ND and TCU's credit this year are road wins at perennial powerhouses have down years that have 3 losses this year. If you replace Army with USC on their schedule(a certain loss for the Horned Frogs), their opponents have a 54-54 record, compared to ND's 55-55 outlined above. Notre Dame is ranked 6/7, TCU 15th.

Not to speak for Raisin, but what gets me is that ND is the highest ranked team with 2 losses, and they have possibly the worst profile to show for it. At least O$U, Auburn, and Georgia have wins over good teams, and the worst of the losses that OSU, Georgia, or Auburn(who really has no business being above UCLA) have suffered is Georgia Tech. I agree that ND wins are that good (on paper), and the MSU loss is a negative against them. I will not get into the USC loss. However I think that it is important to look at not just the record, but how they play. ND has dominated every team they beat this year (an argument could be made against UM). They are not just beating the teams they should beat, they are killing them, and in the process beating them worse than any other team that beat them this year. I really don't know if the same could be said about the other teams you listed. Who was Georgia's good win, Tennessee, Boise State, South Carolina? Besides Georgia, Auburn has beat nobody great, and it could be argued the rest of their schedule is worse than ND's. And aside of MSU, O$U has not beat anybody real good. Even MSU is not that good, but I mention them due to the fact they did beat ND, which does make the O$U argument more legit. ND is ranked higher in the human polls because of how they play. They are ranked lower in the CPU polls for all the reasons you listed. It all evens out in the BCS polls (which is sad to say). They look good because they blew out Pitt, Washington, Purdue, BYU, Navy, and Tennessee, with Syracuse and Stanford to go. At best 8 of Notre Dame's opponents will be bowl eligible(only 3 are at the moment), and 4 of those need to win out to do so. Meanwhile 8 of OSU's opponents are already bowl eligible, with a possibility of a 9th. You don't think OSU dominates ND's opponents if they played them, instead of playing those top 10 teams in addition to Iowa, Northwestern, and Minnesota? Edited to reflect that I can't read team's records. Sorry to whoever responds calling out these mistakes before I corrected them. EDIT2: Furthermore, Ohio State is blowing out teams too. Miami(OH), SDSU, Iowa, Indiana, Illinois, Northwestern, even Minnesota and MSU were multiple score wins. Their closest margin of victory was 11 points at home against MSU, the team Notre Dame couldn't beat at home.

Not to speak for Raisin, but what gets me is that ND is the highest ranked team with 2 losses, and they have possibly the worst profile to show for it. At least O$U, Auburn, and Georgia have wins over good teams, and the worst of the losses that OSU, Georgia, or Auburn(who really has no business being above UCLA) have suffered is Georgia Tech. Michigan is 7-3...that's not too terribly bad. And is Georgia Tech really that much better than MSU? The Spartans were undefeated after they beat ND, after all. ND hasn't played a great schedule, but I'm pretty sure Kentucky, Indiana, Vanderbilt, Mississippi State, Arkansas and Illinois are all still in the SEC or Big Ten. For every cupcake ND has played (Purdue, Navy, BYU, Washington), most of the big conference teams have played one as well. OSU has played SDSU, Miami (OH), Indiana and Illinois. Auburn has played Miss St, Ball St, W. Kentucky, and Kentucky. Georgia has played UL Monroe, Miss St, Vanderbilt, Arkansas and still has Kentucky left. So the schedule argument really doesn't hold up in my estimation. I don't have the time to do it now, but look at the records of the schedule. My guess is Notre Dame is worse then OSU and Georgia, if not significantly so. Notre Dame has played one team that is currently in the top 25. They lost at home to a team that is favored to miss a bowl(think about that, I think almost 60 teams make bowls). Where's the logic to put them in front of Georgia, Auburn, and OSU, leaving out the 5 one-loss teams they are in front of?

Not to speak for Raisin, but what gets me is that ND is the highest ranked team with 2 losses, and they have possibly the worst profile to show for it. At least O$U, Auburn, and Georgia have wins over good teams, and the worst of the losses that OSU, Georgia, or Auburn(who really has no business being above UCLA) have suffered is Georgia Tech.

Julio Lugo and Jose Guillen are two players off the top of my head that were perceived crazy clubhouse cancers(Lugo had a similar incident as Bradley, Guillen got the same treatment from the Angels that T.O is getting). Now you don't hear anything about them being a disruption. In fact, there was nothing but rave reports about Guillen being a good guy from his Nationals teammates. read the link he posted. choking your pregnant wife doesn't fall into the "clubhouse cancer" category. :shock: I read the link, Lugo reportedly beat his wife as well. Yet there's no stigma with him anymore now that there's some time away from the incident. What does that have to do with anything? You are basically defending the guy by saying "player A did it and they dont' say anything about him anymore". Very poor argument. What's even worse is that Bradley is not that great of a player to be all love-striken over. It has plenty to do with anything. People don't want to acquire Bradley because he's supposedly some maniac that is a bad person and/or will be a bad influence on the clubhouse. Lugo and Guillen are evidence to the contrary. And Bradley is quite good especially considering how much he'll make, his age, and the fact that the Dodgers reportedly want nothing for him.