ZoomSlowik

QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Feb 20, 2006 -> 03:18 PM) Nice! SIU still in at a 10 seed! And I hate saying this but Joe Lunardi usually can pick these very well. He gets the teams that make the tourney right, but his seeding is usually pretty iffy.

OSU as a 2? I like their team but not that much. Tennessee looks a little weak as a 2 also. I'd bump up Pitt, and much as I hate to say it, the Illini.

Personally, I'd go Buehrle-Garcia-Contreras-Garland-Vazquez, which isn't a choice on your poll. I think the first two are your veterans and have been more consistent in the past, Contreras goes before Garland because he is more dominating when he's going well, and Vazquez last in large part because he's the new guy. You could easily move things around though. You gotta love this rotation, considering that even your number 5 can be an ace type pitcher for long stretches.

QUOTE(ChWRoCk2 @ Feb 20, 2006 -> 02:19 PM) 8 teams minimum innings pitched is 14, and he has added stats like walks for both hitters and pitchers, singles doubles triples, obp and slg, also shutout and cg i might drop shields though sounds like good suggestion That makes a little more sense then. It's a little hard to judge then since I don't typically play with less than 10 players. You still appear to have gotten steals on Santana, Abreu, Helton, and Zambrano.

Thought I'd add mine and let people lay into my team for a change. I think this is a pretty good team (especially the lineup), although I don't play roto enough to know exactly how this one will hold up (standard 5x5). C- Jojima 1B- Konerko, Mi. Sweeney, Tracy, Utley 2B- Utley SS- Furcal, Barmes 3B- Wright, eventually Tracy OF- Abreu, Tracy, Winn, Alou, Hermida SP- Zambrano, Contreras, Hudson, Vazquez, Cain, Blanton RP- Ryan, Isringhausen

QUOTE(ChWRoCk2 @ Feb 20, 2006 -> 02:07 PM) Team #1 C Ivan Rodriguez 1B Todd Helton 2B Robinson Cano SS Clint Barmes 3B Arod OF Bobby Abreu OF Carlos Lee OF Garret Anderson Util Torii Hunter BN Prince Fielder BN Joe Crede SP Johan Santana SP Carlos Zambrano RP Trevor Hoffman RP Bobby Jenks P Tom Gordon P Mike Gonzalez P Scott Shields BN Scott Kazmir BN Josh Beckett Bn Bartolo Colon What ya think? My team lacks some steals. I went risky on some picks. How many teams is that league? That's pretty ridiculous to get that kind of talent, even if it's 10 teams. The lineup is fairly solid. You've got some really productive guys with A-Rod, Helton, Abreu, and Lee. Hunter and Anderson are pretty good for 3rd and 4th OF's too. I'd look for a sleeper or two in the middle infield, that looks like a sore spot. The pitching is pretty good too. Having Santana, Zambrano, and Colon gives you a lot of leeway, so Beckett and Kazmir are great compliments. You've also got enough to get by with the closers, although I'd let Shields go unless holds is a stat. Overall, that's a pretty loaded team, I'd hate to be in your league. If you could find a SS or 2B that gives you another speedster, you'll be tough to stop.

I'm beginning to think the national champ is going to be UConn or Villanova. I used to have Texas right up there and Georgetown as a dark horse, but I'm beginnning to sour on those two because of suspect backcourts. I don't think Duke can win 6 in a row on a neutral court with at least semi-neutral refs, and Memphis is probably too young. None of the other teams really jump out at me.

The following is the roster for the new keeper league thus far (still some possible issues with the last two spots): ZoomSlowik- commish Chisoxfn Steff Danman31 Heads22 AssHatSoxFan Bullard kapkomet DBAHO Chimpy2121 The league ID # is 131310, the password is soxtalk. Right now it is setup as a standard Head 2 Head league with 5 keepers per team, and the draft is on Wed March 15th at 8 PM. The setup and the draft time is up for negotiation, although I'd really like to avoid doing it on an NCAA tournament day. Edit- the last two spots seem to be accounted for, I'm just waiting to hear from people. Jason informed me that the old league used weekly transactions instead of daily. Just let me know, I can set it either way.

QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Feb 20, 2006 -> 11:50 AM) For the first team, Pierre's about to be dropped and I'm working on a deal for Podsednik. I'm definately going to pick up Pierre off of the waiver wire. Second team, I'm thinking about sending Bonds and Chris Young for Scott Podsednik and Jose Contreras. You think I should do it? Someone's dropping Pierre? That's pretty dumb. Anyways, if you get Pierre, I wouldn't give up anything valuable to get Pods. You already have some good OF's, so you don't really need to add any more. If you were still going to trade for some speed, I'd try to get a SS that can run. However, with Utley, Hunter and Pierre you don't really need to add another speedster that badly. As for the second team, you could go that route, but I'd try to target a middle infielder personally. Even someone like Lugo would be a bit of an upgrade, so you don't really have to give up Bonds or Manny then.

Wait a minute, nitetrain, why am I giving you advice? I don't want you beating me in my own damn league!

As much as it pains me to say this, I could see Kansas beating Texas. Tucker and either Buckman or Aldridge are going to have to guard Rush and Wright. That seems like a recipe for disaster. If Kansas hits their outside shots, it could be interesting. Texas definitely struggles when other teams hit outside shots because they can't match it. That said, Texas should kill that same lineup inside and on the glass. It'll probably come down to who hits outside shots. Gibson and Paulino are pretty streaky, so who knows. JD would be impossible to live with if it actually happens.

QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Feb 19, 2006 -> 01:51 AM) Here's my teams. Gimme Input. I would've created a new thread, but I think we should just make this a big "judge my fantasy team" superthread. Thoughts?? The first team is pretty solid. I'm not a huge fan of the left side of your infield, but that could definitely work out for you. I like your outfield picks, and you're got a solid starting staff. Your only weaknesses seem to be speed and saves, and I don't know how easy those will be to remedy. The second team has another really solid starting staff, only you got some closers to back it up. The outfield on that team is an absolute monster. I'd consider trading one of them for some infield help, because it looks pretty weak unless Nomar hits like he used to. I'd go for a speed guy, since that again appears to be a weak spot. The third team seems to be your weakest at the moment. Your starting staff is easily the weakest of the teams. I think you're good enough at second and obviously third, but I'd try to add another 1B/OF by trading either Wright or Ramirez. That would give you some more flexibility while bolstering your lineup. It seems that you like taking SP and OF early in the draft while largely avoiding speed. That can work well since most infielders and speed guys are overrated, but you still need to take a few of them to give your team more balance. On top of that, you generally want to take a top hitter over a top pitcher since the hitters are more durable and consistent, but if you can get monster starters below value, go for it. Also, on two of your teams you decided to take a catcher early. I wouldn't do that in the future. It allows you to solidify other areas, because frankly I don't think Varitek and I-Rod outproduce A.J. enough to warrant even a 3 round difference, and they usually go a lot more than 3 rounds earlier.

QUOTE(danman31 @ Feb 19, 2006 -> 11:19 PM) I'm still in for the league. Sorry I haven't gotten back to people with more details yet, but I'm still trying to finalize the roster. I'll probably have everything setup by the end of the day tomorrow.

I just can't imagine them being stupid enough to sell it for that much. They have to know that they'd get absolutely smoked if it costs $700 more than the Revolution and about $400 more than an Xbox 360. It would have to be considerably more powerful and have considerably better games. I don't think that's likely.

What the hell? Let me double check. I'll get back to you. Edit- I messed up the league ID number. The correct number is 110358.

I'm not overly thrilled with the team. I personally don't surport drafting a catcher early, especially Martinez. He just doesn't give you the same production as other high picks. It was one thing when Piazza was a monster, but Martinez is probably going to produce something like 80-20-90-.300. That's just not worth a pick in the first 4 rounds. He's almost certainly going to finish out of the top 100 rated players, and probably won't be much better than most other catchers. Ortiz and Weeks were solid picks. Pods and Reyes give you good speed, although I probably wouldn't have drafted both of them. They don't give you enough stats in other areas. Your bench and other starters are pretty good. Your starting pitchers are pretty high risk. Harden is a stud, Garcia is fairly safe. Outside of that it's a lot of high risk, high reward guys. The closers are fairly solid. You definitely need to add some more power. In the future, I'd avoid taking a catcher so early, try to avoid the steals only type guys (or draft only one of them at most), and mix in another safe pitcher or two with the higher ceiling guys.

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Feb 17, 2006 -> 06:34 PM) There is really no way to compare teams, every game one player may have the game of his life, or may have the worst game. Looking at Wisconsin, against ND State they shot 22% which is basically the lowest percentage Ive ever seen a team shoot. It also was coming off 2 of their players being suspended. It just is very hard for me to believe that Wisconsin who beat: OSU, MSU, Indiana, and Iowa Are not in the same category as: MSU, Iowa, Illinois, and OSU Especially if you consider the past few years. (edit) Also most teams rely on 1 or 2 great players and if those players dont do well they dont succeed. Not sure how many teams have 3 All conference players on their teams, but Kam Taylor and Tucker are pretty good compliments, especially with Bush and Nixon. I'll agree, it is very difficult to compare different teams. You really have to watch a lot of basketball to get a good idea of what is going on with all of these different teams. Personally, I don't like to consider what teams did in previous years when looking at this year's team, at least not this far into the season. Very few players drastically improve or drastically regress this late in the year. My definition of "relying" on one or two great players is a little different. Obviously every team is going to have one or two players that they go to in crunch time, but some teams have fewer solid contributors outside of those players than others, making the contributions of those key players much more important. Teams like that generally have less balance and have a harder time excelling (unless those two players are really good). Of the non-dog Big Ten teams, Wisconsin probably relies on their top two players more than anyone. Tucker and Taylor really carry the load, and Butch is the only thing even close to a consistent, solid contributor. Because of that, they are a little more susceptible to bad losses and need a better game to beat good teams. Of the good teams in the Big Ten, only OSU and a healthy Michigan team have a diverse group of players (more than 4) that have the ability to seriously alter a game. Now, back to the Big East teams. Pitt is similar to Wisconsin, but In my opinion their top two players are better. Gray and Krauser are both playing pretty well. On top of that, they have several other players that can really make a difference in the game, while Wisconsin really doesn't have that many options outside of their big two. West Virginia is another team like that. Pittsnoggle and Gansey do a ton for them, and they have a few other guards that can hit enough shots to do some damage. I'm not a huge fan of their team, but they seem to play good enough defense to make up for it. Georgetown doesn't those two elite players, but they're very balanced. Bowman, Green, Hibbert, and Cook all have the ability to beat you almost single-handedly on a given night, and they have a few other solid contributors. Those teams are a bit more balanced than most of the Big Ten teams. That's why I personally think that they would be serious contenders if they could switch leagues.

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Feb 17, 2006 -> 05:04 PM) I dont know. Personally I think the Big East and other East coast conferences get really over rated. Marquette beat Uconn, Wisconsin thrashed Marquette. WVU lost to Marshall at home Georgetown lost to Illinois, Marquette, and Vanderbilt (at home) Pitt beat Wisconsin at home, and all of its losses have been away at conference opponents (kind of like Big 10 great at home). I just dont see how these teams are definitely better than Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin (I dont get how Wisconsin is not in the top group as outside of the Purdue loss they have won every game that they should have). Wisconsin only lost to Pitt, the best of the 3, at their home court by less than 10. Wisconsin's away losses to the Big 10, Michigan, Purdue, and OSU were all by almost the exact same figure. I know Im only using Wisconsin, but that is the team Im most familiar with. I guess people fail to mention MSU beat BC, Illinois beat Georgetown. Game results comparing two teams using a common opponent is a really bad way to look at things, especially when comparing home and road games against the same opponent. Marquette may have beat UConn, but Novak had the game of his life, while he shot poorly against Wisconsin. It was also Marcus Williams' first night back from suspension. UConn still should have beaten them, but that doesn't in any way imply that Wisconsin could hang with UConn. Picking out any one game to use as a measure is even more brutal. Using the same logic, I could say that Wisconsin sucks because they lost to North Dakota State, or that Michigan State isn't any good because they lost to Hawaii, or that Illinois is an easy out in the tourney because they lost to Penn State. You're always going to be able to find a couple of games where good teams struggled or lost, that doesn't really mean anything. OSU is the only Big Ten team that hasn't lost to a conference dog, and only Illinois and OSU didn't have another out of conference. The list of teams that they've beat is also more impressive, with the posible exception of Illinois. Georgetown has beat Duke and Pitt, which counteracts any damage that might have been done by an early season loss to Vanderbilt and a loss to Marquette. Pitt beat Wisconsin and West Virginia. The Mountaineers have beat Villanova, Georgetown twice, Oklahoma, and UCLA. In general, the Big East teams have more impressive results. I'll tell you why these guys are definitely better than the middle of the pack Big Ten teams. Wisconsin is relying very heavily on two players to carry them and benefit from a huge homecourt advantage that is a large reason why they win a few against better teams at home, Michigan doesn't play any defense and has some injury problems, and Indiana can't get consistent production out of anyone but Killingsworth. Those teams are deeper, play better defense, and Pitt and West Virginia have better top scorers than the others.

Also, our league has a full roster now and is about ready to go! I added the following players: kman sox4life14 joeynach vandy125 ScottPodRulez SoxPhan7 Everybody go to Yahoo and join now so I don't have to come after you.

Most of the non-assigned people now have a league. The following have been added to the league #5 roster: kman sox4life14 joeynach vandy125 ScottPodRulez22 SoxPhan7 That means you're with me. Please go to the League #5 thread for league information.

I finally got off my ass and created the league. The league ID# is 110358, the password is soxtalk. Please let me know when you join and what your team name is. I have set the draft for Sunday March 5th at 8:30 PM. This is up for negotiation, but it will take at least a few people wanting it changed for me to do it. Good luck to all. Note: I changed the draft time. I didn't read my own league thread before setting it.

QUOTE(SoxFan101 @ Feb 17, 2006 -> 02:49 PM) Zoom you really need to shorten your posts lol..... I can read a couple but every single one is sooo long Sorry, that's just my writing style. I like to try to make sure I hit all my points, and it ends up being a lot longer than the average post. Frankly, I think I should be getting at least 2:1 credit on my posts. Hammer seems to like me though, that might be the first compliment I've ever seen him give anyone in an NBA thread.

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Feb 17, 2006 -> 03:57 PM) The top 2 Big Eat teams, Nova and Uconn are more talented than the top Big 10 teams. After that I have a hard time believing, WV, Pitt, or Georgetown would have a significantly better record in the Big 10 than MSU, Illinois, Wisconsin, OSU, or Iowa. In the tournament though I think that the Big 10 can do just as well as the Big East really. I definitely think a couple of those teams would be right in the thick of the Big Ten race. WV, Pitt, and Georgetown are definitely better than Michigan, Indiana and Wisconsin and can probably hang with MSU, Illinois, OSU, and Iowa, especially at home. In fact they could probably be on top of the conference, although I think they'd all end up with at least 2-4 losses by the end of the season depending on how many times they have to go on the road against those 4 teams. I don't think that they'd end up with more than 5 though.

QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ Feb 17, 2006 -> 03:37 PM) I do. DePaul, St. Johns, Providence, and Rutgers could easily beat those teams. And I watched DePaul beat nw in person by 10, and it was never really that close. But again, like I said, I understand that there's a b10 bias on here. One head to head game doesn't mean all that much, especially when it's in early November. Marcus Heard and Marlon Brumfield both had double figures against them, that just shows you how fluky it was. Also, Hachad got hurt and only played 11 minutes. He's usually a major factor any time NU makes a run. Plus that scrub Scott doesn't play as much any more, and Moore and Cote have more experience now. I've watched both teams several times, and although DePaul is more talented they don't have anyone that can shoot and have a low basketball IQ. I'd say they're about the same. Rutgers is virtually the same team as NU: one star and a bunch of mediocrity. Unless Douby goes nuts, they're not beating anyone good. I'd say Penn State is a little better than any of these 3. St. John's has a couple of good wins, but as a whole aren't very impressive. I guess they might be a little better, but they're really only 5 deep. I guess the same could go for Providence, although I'm not overly impressed with their roster. They haven't beaten a single team with any talent this year. These guys would all be in the same spot as NU, Penn State, Minnesota and Purdue. None of them are good enough to consistently beat anyone that's good, much like those 3. They might be able to beat a few of those teams head 2 head, but that's like arguing which one is the tallest midget. None of them are so much better that they are could finish higher than 8th in the Big Ten. I wouldn't say I have a Big Ten bias. I know that they don't have any really solid teams and that any of the top 5 in the Big East could be neck and neck with Iowa at the top. I just don't think the bottom of their conference is that solid, outside of Louisville and Notre Dame. I also think the middle group is fairly good, but I'm not sure any of them would be able to win the Big 10.

QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Feb 17, 2006 -> 11:43 AM) Actually it is. I rather give up Hinrich and 1 pick than completely overhaul the core minus the "great" Kirk Hinrich. And what we need is a big man anyway. The trade for JO would lead us to no need for Aldridge. We already have Deng and Nocioni, so there isn't a need for Gay either if the trade is Hinrich and the 1st. Um yes it can. Since the Bulls will be 15 million under the cap this offseason(probably more, especially if the cap is set at 50 million which is projected), they can pull off that trade. As long as the trade does not put you over the cap, then matching salaries do not have to be included. How can you not "need" a guy that has a distinct possibility of being the next Chris Bosh or Amare Stoudemire? How is three new starters all that different from two new starters? How is keeping Gordon that much better than keeping Hinrich? You're choosing a guy who does nothing but score over a guy that is a pretty good all-around player, and you're still going to have Deng and O'Neal in either scenario. The difference is Hinrich and Aldridge for about $5 mil (at least for next year, Hinrich will need an extension) versus Gordon and Chandler for about $13 mil (for at least the next two years, then Gordon needs an extension) plus two draft picks that probably won't contribute for a while. We actually save money doing it the other way, and it's a lot easier to find a decent starting SG than it is to find a decent starting PG on the market (no, Duhon doesn't cut it). I'll admit I'm not entirely sure of what they changed, but the NBA once had a rule that salaries for players involved in trades had to be within like 20% of each other. I don't think they absolutely dropped the rule, although I'm pretty sure the restrictions have changed. Even if it is gone, there's not guarantee that the Pacers would even take Hinrich and the Knick's pick for O'Neal. Hinrich doesn't fill a pressing need since they already have Tinsley, and Aldridge would basically just replace O'Neal (Gay would fit slightly better, but that would leave quite a hole up front for them, and Jackson is a credible option). With the other deal, Gordon slides into the two guard spot, Chandler fills in where O'Neal was, and they get two other picks. That seems like it would fit their team better. We on the other hand would be getting two very solid big men, which fills a major hole, while still having two pretty strong perimeter players in Hinrich and Deng. The latter deal probably works better for both teams, meaning it has a better chance of happening. Also, I've said in the past that Gay isn't a good fit for the Bulls. However, that pick has a ton of value to other teams if he is there. Rudy Gay is worth considerably more than the guards you could get at #10 like Maurice Ager or Brandon Rush, and a pick in the same range (or lower) the following year probably isn't going to produce anything better. If we can't get Aldridge with that pick, then I'd be willing to deal it to Indiana. If Gordon's really as good as you think he is, then we'd be able to do basically the same deal. The whole argument comes down to Hinrich versus Gordon, and we're obviously not going to change each other's minds on the topic. I tend to think that having a solid PG that plays good defense, runs the offense, and is a decent option offensively is more valuable and harder to replace than a streaky, undersized 2 guard that is more suspect as a ballhandler. Feel free to keep defending you opinion, but I disagree.