The Cubs announced that Randy Wells didn't make their starting rotation, and they shipped him to the minors since he has one option left.
I hope this says good things about the rotation, because I liked Wells. I thought he was a pretty solid starter in his time here. Last year he was hurt, and when he came back he looked like he needed some time to get back into the swing of things, but once he did, again I thought he was maybe their best, most consistent starter toward the end of the year.
Could it mean that they're going to actively try to deal Garza this year? It would seen to me that Wells would have some value to other teams looking for starters, and could have been dealt, but the fact that they've kept him - well, could it mean something more? Could he be in reserve for a potential deal of Garza? (I doubt that they could move Dempster if they tried but who knows? Maybe he'll go...)
Anyway, the Cubs' starting rotation looks to be Garza, Dempster, Volstad, Samarzidja, and someone not named Randy Wells or Rodrigo Lopez. (I can't come up with that fifth guy's name at the moment...) Keeping my fingers crossed...
*****
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Monday, March 26, 2012
Bulls and Bears
Not Wall Street, we're talking State Street here.
The Bulls currently have the best record in the NBA and they're doing it without Derrick Rose at the moment. And without Rip Hamilton (but that's been the case all year). They haven't always won in dominant fashion, but they have been winning. It's again great to be a Bulls fan.
And the Bears - what is all this? They get the wideout they so desperately need, even if he does have some off-field issues. And they didn't overpay for him. They've filled holes, signed their own players when it made sense, let a few go when it made sense, and generally have looked like a team that's actually trying to win something next year! Gotta love it.
And we have a new start with Theo Epstein on the north side, and with Robin Ventura managing the south-siders. And the Hawks are in the playoffs, or so it looks, and they might be the team that NO ONE wants to play this year.
Right now, it's OK to be a Chicago sports fan!
*****
The Bulls currently have the best record in the NBA and they're doing it without Derrick Rose at the moment. And without Rip Hamilton (but that's been the case all year). They haven't always won in dominant fashion, but they have been winning. It's again great to be a Bulls fan.
And the Bears - what is all this? They get the wideout they so desperately need, even if he does have some off-field issues. And they didn't overpay for him. They've filled holes, signed their own players when it made sense, let a few go when it made sense, and generally have looked like a team that's actually trying to win something next year! Gotta love it.
And we have a new start with Theo Epstein on the north side, and with Robin Ventura managing the south-siders. And the Hawks are in the playoffs, or so it looks, and they might be the team that NO ONE wants to play this year.
Right now, it's OK to be a Chicago sports fan!
*****
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Loyola Ramblers' Basketball
It's been a long time since I updated this blog, but what the heck? Far as I can tell no one is reading it anyway.
There's plenty of Chicago sports news to write about, but the thing that I was thinking about today was how bad Loyola basketball has been for a number of years. Oh, there were a few years here and there where they were respectable in their division, but I don't think they've been to the NCAA tourney since the 1980's. They are in the Horizon League, which you would think would be a winnable league once in a while. Sure, there's Butler, which has been to the final four twice (I think) but the other teams range from up and down to usually consistent and respectable to more bad than good.
The last category (more bad than good) fits the Ramblers. I haven't really followed their recruiting or anything in a long time, but the last time I recall them being in the tourney they had guys like Alfredrick Hughes, Carl Golston, Andre Battle, Andre Moore, and Greg Williams among others. Tim Nolan and Gerry Mundt were on that team, as was Dan Burich (if I recall correctly).
Hughes was an anomoly - a star whose rise was unpredictable. Golston and Moore were transfers from bigger programs, and the others were solid role players. You can't go out recruiting looking for the next Hughes. You have to do it bit by bit.
If I were running Loyola's recruiting, I'd be looking for fundamentally sound players from smaller programs. I'd also be looking at the lesser lights on the big time high school programs. I'd build with strong shooters. Guys who seem to have a knack for rebounding and positioning. Guys who can shoot free throws. Ball handlers who aren't flashy but don't turn it over.
You get five or six guys like that and you're going to start winning games. Because now, from what I've seen when I have paid attention, they tend to beat themselves a lot with bad choices. Basketball skills aside, they need to find high basketball-IQ guys first.
The Alfredrick Hughes will come eventually, and will probably be as much of a surprise as Hughes himself was back in the 1980's.
*****
There's plenty of Chicago sports news to write about, but the thing that I was thinking about today was how bad Loyola basketball has been for a number of years. Oh, there were a few years here and there where they were respectable in their division, but I don't think they've been to the NCAA tourney since the 1980's. They are in the Horizon League, which you would think would be a winnable league once in a while. Sure, there's Butler, which has been to the final four twice (I think) but the other teams range from up and down to usually consistent and respectable to more bad than good.
The last category (more bad than good) fits the Ramblers. I haven't really followed their recruiting or anything in a long time, but the last time I recall them being in the tourney they had guys like Alfredrick Hughes, Carl Golston, Andre Battle, Andre Moore, and Greg Williams among others. Tim Nolan and Gerry Mundt were on that team, as was Dan Burich (if I recall correctly).
Hughes was an anomoly - a star whose rise was unpredictable. Golston and Moore were transfers from bigger programs, and the others were solid role players. You can't go out recruiting looking for the next Hughes. You have to do it bit by bit.
If I were running Loyola's recruiting, I'd be looking for fundamentally sound players from smaller programs. I'd also be looking at the lesser lights on the big time high school programs. I'd build with strong shooters. Guys who seem to have a knack for rebounding and positioning. Guys who can shoot free throws. Ball handlers who aren't flashy but don't turn it over.
You get five or six guys like that and you're going to start winning games. Because now, from what I've seen when I have paid attention, they tend to beat themselves a lot with bad choices. Basketball skills aside, they need to find high basketball-IQ guys first.
The Alfredrick Hughes will come eventually, and will probably be as much of a surprise as Hughes himself was back in the 1980's.
*****
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
