soccer10k

I wouldn't necessarily say that all the progress is cancelled out. When you factor in the fact that we were in the Group of Death and we did play well against Italy (and we'll never know how well because of that idiot Uruguayan referee) and decently against Ghana. We just got unlucky. We laid an egg against Poland in the third game of 2002 and IIRC needed South Korea to defeat Portugal to advance. We could have easily not advanced in 2002 as well. I agree that it is a setback, but considering that we shouldn't have been favored to advance based on the group we were in, I wouldn't say it cancels out the progress in 2002.

Dribbles in the box and then cuts it back out. My God... So much for our coming out party. If not for the fans or the team, at least do it for the sake of soccer in the country. Once again, the US is just a team the rest of the world has no problem playing. No credibility. ARGH! Even just advancing to the next round would have meant so much to soccer in the country. It certainly would've meant a lot to me. And now in South Africa, we get another crappy seeding (albeit less crappy with '98 out of the picture) because of our poor showing. Just very disappointing. And hopefully next time (and later on in this year's cup) the officials let the guys play soccer. The diving and crying has reached a new low. Our seeding isn't to improve at all for the 2010 World Cup. Sure 1998 is off the books, but 2006 is on the books. We got 1 point this year vs 0 points in 1998. With Mexico advancing this year we have virtually no chance of being seeded in 2006.

Atlanta is an obvious one. They've had a different guy lead them in saves just about every year of their 14-year run atop the division. Other teams have won the WS with rookie closers (Jenks, FRod). Boston as well? Foulke was dominant in the 2004 postseason. Without looking it up I'm not sure how good he was in the regular season, but in the playoffs he was lights out.

"Czech Republic, go cry on Slovakia's shoulder. Oh wait, they're not part of your country anymore." "Go get one of those body waxes that your country has down there because the only person you should be playing with is yourself." - to Ronaldo Hilarious. Also hilarious were the old pictures of Alexi Lalas. http://www.sporting-heroes.net/files_footballworldcup/LALAS_Alexi_19940220_GH_R.jpg

Please, don't get us mixed up with Red Sox fans.

Anyway, excellent debate Vance, but I must go to bed. Have to get up early to watch the USA-Ghana in the morning. EDIT: Have a great night, er, morning.

I concur. I wouldn't mind some spending on a FA pitcher if the plan is to trade surplus arms for the bat this team lacks. But if we're not trading for that bat, I too would prefer to try to find a rotation out of what we already have. On the other hand, assume we sign Schmidt or Zito, we could then package Prior (if he proves healthy...or maybe Marshall or Marmol) to the Phillies for Abreu or the Orioles for Tejada or some other possibly trade for a bat. I wouldn't include Miller on that list. He'll be a FA and unless he shows something the second half, there's no way we should be bidding to bring him back. Even if we do trade Prior, I don't know if Zito or Schmidt is the answer. After looking at the minor league stats, Les Walrond and Ryan O'Malley could also be factored there. I would much rather spend the money on a FA hitter or two or trade some prospects for one.

How can you compare Schmidt to Clemens, Schilling and Johnson. Nolan Ryan I will give you but not the other three. Career ERA+ Clemens 143 Johnson 142 Schilling 128 Ryan 112 Schmidt 108 Furthermore, years of ERA+ over 130 out of total season played (min 25 starts): Schmidt 2/8 Clemens 13/18 Johnson 9/14 Schilling 7/9 Ryan 3/21 Clemens and Johnson are clearly above the rest in terms of that. Ryan had the longevity was wasn't the best of pitchers. A star, yes, but Clemens and Johnson are two of the greatest of all time.

Minor detail but Schmidt is 33 and will be 34 in January of 2007. But at the end of a three year deal he would still be 36.

Allow me to put it out there that I don't want the Cubs to sign either Zito or Schmidt in the offseason. We have 8 pitchers for sure that could contend for starting spots this year. Z Marshall Marmol Guzman Hill Prior Miller Ryu I know that some of them haven't performed that well this year but Mike Maroth lost 21 games in 2002 and posted a 5.73 ERA then dropped that ERA to 4.31 in 2003 so a turnaround isn't out of the question. I think we can find a solid rotation out of those 8 players.

At age 27 in 2000 Schmidt only made 11 starts and had 63.3 IP and at age 28 in 2001 he made 25 starts and had 150.3 IP. Zito at age 27 in 2005 made 35 starts and had 228.3 IP and is 28 right now but has made 16 starts this year and has 104.3 IP. The fact that Zito was better at a younger age says nothing to how good they are now. Recent history indicates that Zito is a good pitcher, Schmidt is a staff ace. You asked me about injuries. I showed you that Schmidt made 36 starts combined in 2 years at ages 27 at 28 which is Zito's age last year and this year. Zito, on the other hand, made 35 starts one year alone and is on his way to that again. Not only that, Zito has shown the ability to make 35 starts a year, which he has done every year except 2004 in which he made 24 starts. I didn't say it made Zito a better pitcher than Schmidt. I just answered your question.

It's also harder to find pitchers who are as good as Schmidt. He's better than Zito. Zito makes a bunch of starts, that's great. It still doesn't mean that he's immune to injury. Schmidt has had very little in the way of injury problems. Yes, he's been ridden hard, but considering how long he's been worked in this fashion, it's not illogical to think he can handle it. Schmidt will likely have less of a market than Zito, is a better pitcher, and isn't a significant injury risk. Zito is a big name pitcher based on what he did before the Cubs even hired Baker. He's been good but not great since, and he won't be worth the contract he signs. As I asked before, how is Schmidt a better pitcher? You have stated this a couple times and haven't backed it up yet. Last three seasons ERA. Schmidt 2005: 4.40 2004: 3.20 2003: 2.34 Zito 2005: 3.86 2004: 4.48 2003: 3.30 Schmidt's numbers look better. Schmidt's ERA has also been consistently rising. I know his ERA this year is 2.84 and Zito's is 3.36 but who's more likely to get tired as the season progresses and watch his ERA grow? Most likely Schmidt. And, as I said before, don't forget about the Zito being in the AL and Schmidt in the NL. ERA+ the last 3 years (03, 04, 05) Schmidt: 183, 139, 94 Zito: 129, 105, 116 Why is Schmidt more likely to tire? It seems you're projecting there based on your own feelings with little facts. And looking at ERA+ for the last season, I notice this. Zito has been above average those seasons, but not necessarily an ace. Schmidt has been better in 2 of the three seasons, and his best blows away Zito. Also, Schmidt's weakest season, while his most recent, was the one he struggled with health issues. Now healthy, his numbers look more in line with his best season... Schmidt has been the better pitcher. Schmidt has been the pitcher that is more likely to dominate a game. For less money and fewer years, Schmidt is still the better choice. As I've stated before, Schmidt is older and a power pitcher. Who is more likely to tire, a guy that throws in the mid to upper 90's on his fastball - and throws a ton of fastballs - or a guy that rarely hits 90? Factor in that the older pitcher also throws harder and you have a guy that is more likely to tire. Also notice that I didn't say he would tire, just that he was more likely too.

At age 27 in 2000 Schmidt only made 11 starts and had 63.3 IP and at age 28 in 2001 he made 25 starts and had 150.3 IP. Zito at age 27 in 2005 made 35 starts and had 228.3 IP and is 28 right now but has made 16 starts this year and has 104.3 IP.

It's also harder to find pitchers who are as good as Schmidt. He's better than Zito. Zito makes a bunch of starts, that's great. It still doesn't mean that he's immune to injury. Schmidt has had very little in the way of injury problems. Yes, he's been ridden hard, but considering how long he's been worked in this fashion, it's not illogical to think he can handle it. Schmidt will likely have less of a market than Zito, is a better pitcher, and isn't a significant injury risk. Zito is a big name pitcher based on what he did before the Cubs even hired Baker. He's been good but not great since, and he won't be worth the contract he signs. As I asked before, how is Schmidt a better pitcher? You have stated this a couple times and haven't backed it up yet. Last three seasons ERA. Schmidt 2005: 4.40 2004: 3.20 2003: 2.34 Zito 2005: 3.86 2004: 4.48 2003: 3.30 Schmidt's numbers look better. Schmidt's ERA has also been consistently rising. I know his ERA this year is 2.84 and Zito's is 3.36 but who's more likely to get tired as the season progresses and watch his ERA grow? Most likely Schmidt. And, as I said before, don't forget about the Zito being in the AL and Schmidt in the NL. ERA+ the last 3 years (03, 04, 05) Schmidt: 183, 139, 94 Zito: 129, 105, 116

Ha. I made a 'Who is Mike Jones' joke on the board a couple months ago and nobody got it.

It's also harder to find pitchers who are as good as Schmidt. He's better than Zito. Zito makes a bunch of starts, that's great. It still doesn't mean that he's immune to injury. Schmidt has had very little in the way of injury problems. Yes, he's been ridden hard, but considering how long he's been worked in this fashion, it's not illogical to think he can handle it. Schmidt will likely have less of a market than Zito, is a better pitcher, and isn't a significant injury risk. Zito is a big name pitcher based on what he did before the Cubs even hired Baker. He's been good but not great since, and he won't be worth the contract he signs. As I asked before, how is Schmidt a better pitcher? You have stated this a couple times and haven't backed it up yet.

I'm going to be hitting up a local bar with a few of my friends as well. All I can hope for is a win because that's all the US can control. Anything else is a bonus.

Whose brain? His. I didn't say it was functioning though. It could just be there. Sort of like a deaf man's ears or blind man's eyes.

I don't care if he does absolutely nothing as a Cub if we get him. Just seeing you change your name to PinkFairyWussyBoy would be worth it.

and yet people say Schmidt has been overworked.... Schmidt is a power pitcher though. He most likely puts more strain on his arm. You don't see Greg Maddux with any arm issues for a reason.

Just over 9 hours to go. I already have my jersey on and have caught myself numerous times starting the following chant: USA!! USA!! Well, the chant isn't actually in color. But if I could chant in color it would look like it does above.

The team's strength is sapped by ivy.

is Mark Buehrle? Sorry, I had to say it because that was the first thing I thought when I saw the word 'who'.

The Cubs are winning? That's amazing. As for Marquis, wow. I've never seen a pitcher give up that many runs in a game before.

Why? So you can replace one injury-prone pitcher with another? Schmidt may not have the injury history of Kerry Wood, but he's pitched a lot the last few years and is on the downside of his career. And if Dusty is still the manager, he'll never make it past the all-star break of the first year. I'm not really in favor of giving five year deals to pitchers, but Zito is one I would consider. Schmidt has had 1 year in his career as a full time starter(11 years) where he started less than 25 games. Only 2 where he started less than 29, and the most recent of those was 2001. Schmidt has been used quite a bit, but I'd rather take the risk of injury(even though he hasn't had any so he may be able to handle it) for production that is really good for someone who may or may not be good but will probably be healthy(which is no guarantee with pitching). But how much better is Schmidt than Zito? I don't think there is a significant difference between the two. Remember that Zito has been pitching the AL while Schmidt has been in the NL. And I don't think there has been much of a difference between the AL and NL West over the past couple years either.