soccer10k

As per your request nilodnayr: 2005: White Sox (9) vs Astros (11) 2004: Red Sox (1) vs Cardinals (1) 2003: Marlins (8) vs Yankees (3) 2002: Angels (4) vs Giants (3) 2001: DBacks (3) vs Yankees (5)

The FA class is very weak for 3b, and there are no obvious trade candidates. The yanks need pitching, but they should be able to get pitching AND a 3b for ARod. They don't need a good offensive 3B. Sheffield likely won't be back and, if you trade ARod, you still have these players under contract for 2007: CF Damon SS Jeter RF Abreu 1B Giambi LF Matsui C Posada 2B Cano So realistically, all they would need are #8 and #9 hitters one of which would be a DH meaning they can get anybody to hit there. The Yankees need pitching. That should be their primary and secondary focus this offseason. Sure, the yanks don't NEED any more players that can hit the ball, but thats besides the point. We are talking about one of the top 3 offensive players in the league here, they will be able to ask for and get a 3B and a pitcher for him unless the pitcher's name is C. Zambrano, Santana, Oswalt, Carpenter or the like. ARod is a reasonably priced perennial MVP candidate, if its just going to take pitching, its going to have to be a reasonably priced Cy Young candidate. Which isn't going to happen. Couldn't the Yankees get a couple solid pitchers in return instead of one Cy Young pitcher? Maybe in a three-way deal? What team can afford to trade their #2 and #3 starters? And remember, the Yankees pitching is subpar, but its not because of depth, its because of top end talent. Consider who will be getting bumped from the rotation and if the guy they would be acquiring would be significantly better than him. Three team deal.

Notre Dame 30, UCLA 17 What's your prediction? Notre Dame wins 27-6. 6? Is your offense that bad? Even Stanford got 10. I'm assuming Ben Olson has torn his knee up and Patrick Cowan will be playing at QB. Just key in on Markey/Bell, put some pressure on Cowan and there ya go. Maybe the offense can get a touchdown, but I'd be stunned if they got more than one. Our defense is really good though (it's so strange saying that). With Ben Olson I think UCLA loses by two touchdowns. Without him it could be a rout.

Seconded. Without a doubt.

If you think that Cal is #7, then I find it hard to believe that Notre Dame isn't 7b. Compare the two seasons. Both have a big loss against a potentially top-5 team. Both have a win over a 15ish team (Oregon and Georgia Tech---and I don't think there's much doubt that Georgia Tech on the road is much, much tougher than a 4-2 Oregon team [they didn't truly beat Oklahoma]). Both have picked up "decent" wins (Cal- Arizona State; Notre Dame- Penn State). Don't let one primetime win against an overrated team make you think that Cal is better than what the polls say they are. 10-12 is right where they should be. Notre Dame has a bad victory over Michigan State. Does Cal have a bad victory? Nope. Since the debacle at Tennessee to start the year, Cal has: -won 5 straight games -scored over 40 points in each game with an average of 43.8 ppg -had a average margin of victory of 25.6 points and won each game by over 20 points Cal looked absolutely dominant in every game since the Tennessee game. The only game that was ever remotely in question was the Minnesota game in which they were up 28-17 at halftime. They were up 42-16 over Portland St. at halftime, 42-14 over ASU at halftime, 31-3 over OSU at halftime, and 28-10 over Oregon at halftime (they also scored the first 10 points of the second half to push their lead to 38-10).

And as usual they're on crack. What do you see is wrong with it? Just curious. Cal #6 is a joke. Missouri in the top 10 is ridiculous. No way does Mizzou play a Louisville, Notre Dame, Auburn, etc and beat them. No disrespect to Mizzou, but they've played a soft schedule to get to 6-0. Play Oklahoma or Texas and beat them and then we can talk. (Michigan behind Tennesse is also a mistake, but not a huge one.) Cal #6 is a joke? No way. I have them at #7 right now. I would put them as a favorite over USC if they were to play next week. Didn't Tennessee beat Cal. Why would Cal be ranked ahead of Tennesee? Sorry, I meant #8 with Tennessee at #7. But I forgot about Louisville as an unbeaten. But I would never consider putting Cal ahead of Tennessee as long as they both have a loss. As far as I'm concenrned Tennessee is the top 1 loss team right now.

And as usual they're on crack. What do you see is wrong with it? Just curious. Cal #6 is a joke. Missouri in the top 10 is ridiculous. No way does Mizzou play a Louisville, Notre Dame, Auburn, etc and beat them. No disrespect to Mizzou, but they've played a soft schedule to get to 6-0. Play Oklahoma or Texas and beat them and then we can talk. (Michigan behind Tennesse is also a mistake, but not a huge one.) Cal #6 is a joke? No way. I have them at #7 right now. I would put them as a favorite over USC if they were to play next week.

And as usual they're on crack. What do you see is wrong with it? Just curious. Michigan is a better team than UT right now and I would maybe put Texas ahead of them too. For 3 quarters last night they didn't look that great against a Georgia team that isn't all that good and then had the game handed to them. West Virginia is more deserving than Missouri and Notre Dame. Missouri should probably be higher than 21st based on Saturday's win, but definitely ahead of Louisville and West Virginia. Clemson also deserves to be ahead of Mizzou and ND in my opinion. Texas ahead of UT? Not a chance. Texas got handled by the #1 team whereas Tennessee lost by a point to the #2 team. Tennessee also dominated Cal, a team that is looking VERY good right now and beat Georgia (yes, they probably aren't that good) on the road. Texas beat an what I consider to be an average Oklahoma team. What exactly has Clemson done? Beat an overrated Florida State team? Not exactly an accomplishment. Missouri probably is a little high but they should be ahead of Clemson right now.

Definitely not on ESPN. NIU at Miami (OH) is on at 5 PT on ESPN.

Untarp the upper deck, please. Free Mt. Davis! They should definitely open it up. I doubt they would fill it. Doesn't matter. Not seating people in the third deck and Mount Davis cuts over 20000 seats from the capacity. Even if they only sell 40000 tickets (which would be 10000 under capacity) that's still 5000 more people coming into the stadium. Do you realize how much revenue they would be losing from tickets, parking, merchandise, and food by limiting the number of people that can attend the baseball game? They are stupid to not open up those sections. And 5000 people would probably be a low estimate.

And as usual they're on crack. What do you see is wrong with it? Just curious.

As per mlb.com, Game 7 of the WS is scheduled for Sunday October 29. And I don't think it's unfair to not have your coaches interview when the season is still going on. I hate it when college coaches leave their current team to join a new team after the regular season is over but before the bowl game like Dan Hawkins did with Boise St./Colorado this year. Wait til the season is over.

I don't see how you can put Tennessee over Michigan. I understand dropping USC, Louisville, and WVU. I understand that Tennesse lost by one to Florida but the game was at home but they've played Cal and Georgia as well. Michigan hasn't really been tested yet but they did stomp Notre Dame. Interesting poll though.

The results are now more...normal. 1. OSU 2. Michigan 3. Florida 4. Texas 5. USC 6. WVU 7. Louisville 8. Tenn 9. ND 10. Cal Missouri is 12th

These are the current results for ESPN.com's "Rank your top 25" poll for college football. You Missouri fans should like it. http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h184/soccer10k/ESPNpoll.jpg

What are the odds Herbstreit picks Missouri to lose again?

That game is at Auburn.

Untarp the upper deck, please. Free Mt. Davis! They should definitely open it up.

Yes, Carl Crawford could get better and it's not hard to think that. I never said he has reached his ceiling yet. But as long as we're using age as a factor here, Cabrera is just 23 so he could, and probably will, get even better than he is right now. The discussion wasn't about which player was more available and which could be obtained for less. It was about which player is better right now and who will be better in the future. Cabrera is far better than Crawford is now and it's likely to stay that way. I believe the discussion is actually about Mark Prior - see post. Start a new thread. Did you read the thread? I realize that the thread title is "Mark Prior" but a majority of the discussion has been regarding Crawford/Cabrera and not Mark Prior.

First home game of the year for Davis. Woot!! Go Aggies!!

The FA class is very weak for 3b, and there are no obvious trade candidates. The yanks need pitching, but they should be able to get pitching AND a 3b for ARod. They don't need a good offensive 3B. Sheffield likely won't be back and, if you trade ARod, you still have these players under contract for 2007: CF Damon SS Jeter RF Abreu 1B Giambi LF Matsui C Posada 2B Cano So realistically, all they would need are #8 and #9 hitters one of which would be a DH meaning they can get anybody to hit there. The Yankees need pitching. That should be their primary and secondary focus this offseason. Sure, the yanks don't NEED any more players that can hit the ball, but thats besides the point. We are talking about one of the top 3 offensive players in the league here, they will be able to ask for and get a 3B and a pitcher for him unless the pitcher's name is C. Zambrano, Santana, Oswalt, Carpenter or the like. ARod is a reasonably priced perennial MVP candidate, if its just going to take pitching, its going to have to be a reasonably priced Cy Young candidate. Which isn't going to happen. Couldn't the Yankees get a couple solid pitchers in return instead of one Cy Young pitcher? Maybe in a three-way deal?

The starters for Game 2 are listed as TBA on the A's mlb.com site. I would think that Harden would start though.

[nitpicking] Dunn set the strikeout record in 2004 with 195. He had 168 K's in 2005. This year he finished with 2006. As per baseball-reference [/nitpicking]

The Cubs should not go after Bonds and neither should any other NL team. I bet he goes to New York.

The FA class is very weak for 3b, and there are no obvious trade candidates. The yanks need pitching, but they should be able to get pitching AND a 3b for ARod. They don't need a good offensive 3B. Sheffield likely won't be back and, if you trade ARod, you still have these players under contract for 2007: CF Damon SS Jeter RF Abreu 1B Giambi LF Matsui C Posada 2B Cano So realistically, all they would need are #8 and #9 hitters one of which would be a DH meaning they can get anybody to hit there. The Yankees need pitching. That should be their primary and secondary focus this offseason.