Chocolate Milk

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/6485778 So I guess Rivera wasn't that essential to the Bears success.. Odd. I have heard that Rivera isn't the biggest fan of the Cover-2 so maybe that had something to do with it.

Wisconsin is #1 in the AP poll.

This coaching staff here works and works and works. The implication here is that Dusty and Co. weren't exactly putting their noses to the grindstone, right? Not surprising. Great to hear about the hard work of the new coaching staff, however.

Hooray!

Anyone have a place where you can download some Bears highlight videos? All the ones on YouTube are all garbage since they took down all of Jon's (Jon is nucubs right?). Thanks in advance.

I have been pleasantly surprised.

PFT is a terrible source.

I really hope Prior can stay healthy because I heart him. He's seriously a joy to watch when he's healthy. Masterful. Go git em, Mark!

I don't know that I can argue and that doesn't make me happy. Just use the stat that batters swing at his first pitch 70% of the time. It's actually 115%.

I feel like the rotation will shake out: Lilly, Z, Hill, Marquis, Prior with Miller in a long relief mode. The whole Cotts thing is weird, though. I've read a lot of articles saying he has a shot at the starting rotation or he will be in a long relief role. Seems like we have an odd man out and it should be, yet is unlikely to be, Marquis.

I was shocked!

honestly, what inspires you to make these insightful, well-thought-out posts? you're gracing us with your presence on this board. please continue adding to the overall discussion. we need your baseball expertise and knowledge. Take it easy, guy. And if you could, leave me off your iStalking list in the future. Sorry if I think a thread sucks because it's all snarky and has people calling eachother "dicks" in it. My bad. I'll make sure to run all my posts by you in the future. If you have a problem with me, and judging from your responses to me in other threads you obviously do, then ignore me or stfu because I don't give a crap what you think.

You heard me.

It's Prior! And he's doing stuff!!!!

Thought on Michael Griffin? Or trading up for Reggie Nelson or LaRon Landry (unlikely)?

He looks really different.

I wouldn't mind Posluszny either. The Bears do need some TE depth but I doubt they will grab it in the first round.

This thread sucks.

I don't know if anyone heard the interview with Z from yesterday but he said he wants a 5 year deal. I'm parapharsing here but he basically said, "The Cubs offered me a 5 year deal and I am looking for a 5 year deal so we are on the same page." Take that for what it is worth. This was on Comcast this morning, if anyone in the Chicagoland area saw it and would like to verify.

I saw a few pictures of Kerry Wood this morning on "Comcast Sports Rise" and he looks really slimmed down. He looks like a little boy. He must have lost about 10 pounds from his head.

I always got the impression that Pete Rose is dumb as a box of rocks.

Well, most people are saying I'm wrong, so maybe I am. I just feel that Wrigley field is so tied to Cubs fandom that if they left, some of fanbase and what makes the Cubs unique, would be lost. Maybe I have a skewed perspective from living a block from the stadium and going to a bunch of games over the last 2 years.

No, I'm not saying that at all. I have been arguing that the Cubs aren't a mortal lock to draw more fans if they build a big stadium out in the suburbs. I'm not saying that Wrigley is helping the Cubs win or anything like that. I'm saying that a lot of fans go to Wrigley because of the park and not as much because of the baseball because the baseball has historically sucked. I think it's easy to say, "Hire a new GM and the team will be better and then you can move it because people like good baseball." than it is to actually do it.

Without Wrigley, the Cubs are just another team that perpetually sucks. The Cubs already outdraw a bunch of bigger stadiums of better ball clubs because of Wrigley. I'd just keep jacking up the ticket prices rather than rolling the dice that you can recreate the magic of Wrigley somewhere else. You'd have to hope that 3+ million people are driving out to bumble-f to see one of the worst teams in baseball. But who cares about those people who just go there to see Wrigley? I'd rather not have them around anyway. Easier for me to get a ticket. And, let's be serious, if the Cubs managed their resources better, they could field a winning team consistently enough in any stadium that they could consistently draw sellouts in this market. They're still spending with the big guys. It's not like they've got a low payroll here to take advantage of the fact that the Wrigley fans will flock to the park to see any product. They'd still sell out a new park, and sell it out consistently. Player personnel decision making would just have to improve. Instead of spending 100 million on a last place team, they'd actually have to spend that same amount of money and have people who know how to build a winning team running it. People want to talk like the Cubs are making out like bandits, having this fanbase that will flock to the park regardless of what's out on the field and somehow taking advantage of that fact. In reality, they're just running in place. The Cubs are spending enough that they should be winning and winning every year. The problem is incompetence in management. It's relevant to the discussion, so I care. I'm not saying I love those fans but they do make up a good portion of people attending Cubs games. If you don't think so, you're deluding yourself. It's all well and good to say that if the Cubs actually built a great team that people would come to the stadium wherever it was, but they don't build winning teams.

Without Wrigley, the Cubs are just another team that perpetually sucks. The Cubs already outdraw a bunch of bigger stadiums of better ball clubs because of Wrigley. I'd just keep jacking up the ticket prices rather than rolling the dice that you can recreate the magic of Wrigley somewhere else. You'd have to hope that 3+ million people are driving out to bumble-f to see one of the worst teams in baseball. No, the Cubs are different because they have one of the largest fanbases in the country, and that is due in a large part to WGN. Wrigley is a side benefit (and an awesome experience) but people still travel up there to watch their team play, not necessarily for the ballpark that it is in. If the new ballpark is one of the better new ballparks, plenty of people would show up unless the Cubs are way out of the race (which out of the last 7 years I'd only count 2 years as those years where attendance would suffer-2002 and 2006). Many other years though the Cubs could get 45-50K there per game, and even if they don't average that as vance said the extra luxuries that they would put in would make them more money then Wrigley ever could. I think that you're seriously underestimating the draw of Wrigley Field. I have no way to prove it. In any event, I doubt the Cubs move up much from being top 6 in attendance by moving out of Wrigley. You are absolutely kidding yourself if you think a suburban park would average 45-50k in a good season. The Yankees are the only team in baseball over 50k in the last 5 years, and the Cubs fan base doesn't come close to matching the Yankees, no matter what Cubs fans think. It's all a guess, but that's what my guess is.