rawaction

Treon Harris gives me hope that I too could be a starting QB for a major college team. Right now. At 39 years old.

I think "top young starting pitcher" would be the headline rather than "top closer" if that was the case.

Papelbon. Assholes are the new market efficiency.

Why? I don't think his development is going to be affected, good or bad, at all if he's given 350-400 PA's as a utility player between OF/3B/SS/2B/PH vs. 500+ PA's as a full time starter at some position. Yeah, if Baez is on this team, it's likely going to be in a utility type of role. It doesn't appear Castro will be traded, and they aren't going to hand Baez a starting job, because frankly he hasn't earned it. Baez will get on the field, whether it's full time will depend on if he hits consistently, Castro is terrible again, Schwarber catches more than expected, or someone gets injured again (Soler, Russell). Between those injuries, Baez potentially being a capable CF, and Schwarber sitting vs. the toughest of LHPs there's 400 ABs in there for Javy.

If I recall correctly, they were trying to get Taijuan Walker from SEA for Ozuna and didn't think Paxton was enough. That's a very high price tag. I feel like I've read the same thing about 5 different players.

If the Cubs managed to steal Heyward, their offense would be in an even bigger hole. They pretty much have to land one of Chris Davis or Jason Heyward if they realistically want a shot at the division. Yeah right. Tommy Pham will probably win the triple crown leading them to back-to-back 100 win seasons.

I still want Marcell Ozuna. Not sure what it'll take to get him, but the Marlins don't seem to like him very much. If the Cubs go after Heyward or Gordon (and trade Soler), then Ozuna could be a nice cheap option without much pressure to perform in a loaded lineup. The upside he provides is huge if he puts it together, but he also allows you a guy to mix and match with to get Baez in the lineup, if he's still around.

I think this moves takes the Diamondbacks from 3rd best team in the NL West all the way to the......3rd best team in the NL West.

I think Atlanta and Arizona say No. I don't think the Braves are getting enough value for Miller and Teheran, especially when they want most of that for just Miller.

I think it's more likely if the Bears lose a couple games. Lost season, throw him out there. But I don't know that they want to throw him in a prominent role in a potential playoff race. Not that his role has to be prominent, but I'd imagine he'd be used 15-25 plays a game. 7-6, maybe you send him on go routes and WR screens. 5-8, maybe you incorporate him into the actual gameplan more to see what he can do.

Eh, I really don't like him on 4/60+ (I think there's some major bust potential to him with his age/injury history). I'd rather go to 5/90 for Shark. The savings on him over Shark would have to make it possible to make a run at Heyward for me to really like it if money is tightish Also, have to consider that a Kazmir signing doesn't mean losing a draft pick. Cheaper + no draft pick lost + no disaster 2015 season, and I can see the justification for Kaz over Shark. But I tend to agree with you. The time to get Kazmir was a few years ago when he was a reclamation product (when I really wanted to get him, FWIW). I think now, you're likely paying Kazmir more for past performance than future. Shark comes with more durability and familiarity; and I have more faith in him going forward, even with the bad 2015.

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=64680

I started watching early in the 4th and think they generally got the calls right(although the unnecessary roughness in shoving Wilson doesn't always get called), but really it underscores that the NFL has just become impossibly silly with rules. Even stuff that's always existed, like in that game Seattle got called for a formation penalty because an offensive tackle wasn't covered at the line. Why is that a rule? Genuinely curious what advantage that gives the offense that we need to legislate and monitor it. And that's not even controversial stuff like the catch/not a catch madness. It serves a couple purposes. An OT actually CAN be at the end of the line ON the line, but he is then an eligible receiver. In that case, he then has to report to the official as an eligible receiver, as he doesn't have a receiver's number (any eligible WR, TE, RB, QB number). But the advantage it gives the offense is that it means they can have an extra player in the backfield. 7 guys are required to be on the offensive line of scrimmage on every play. If the OT as at the end of the line on one side, that means no WR or TE is. And only 1 WR/TE can be at the end of the line on the opposite side (actually, you can have as many people you want on the LOS but only the very end guys on each side are eligible to receive a pass), so the offense then can get away with an extra player in the backfield and the defense does not then have the ability to press that player off the line of scrimmage. Complicated, but it makes sense. That's a long way to to go for 'it's not fair if there aren't at least 2 jammable receivers out of 5 potential eligible receivers'. It might have made more sense in the environment where the rule was created, but today that's not a compelling enough reason to have the rule to me. You could really create confusion on the defense and matchup problems. But yeah, I think this rule was more useful in the wishbone offense days.

I started watching early in the 4th and think they generally got the calls right(although the unnecessary roughness in shoving Wilson doesn't always get called), but really it underscores that the NFL has just become impossibly silly with rules. Even stuff that's always existed, like in that game Seattle got called for a formation penalty because an offensive tackle wasn't covered at the line. Why is that a rule? Genuinely curious what advantage that gives the offense that we need to legislate and monitor it. And that's not even controversial stuff like the catch/not a catch madness. It serves a couple purposes. An OT actually CAN be at the end of the line ON the line, but he is then an eligible receiver. In that case, he then has to report to the official as an eligible receiver, as he doesn't have a receiver's number (any eligible WR, TE, RB, QB number). But the advantage it gives the offense is that it means they can have an extra player in the backfield. 7 guys are required to be on the offensive line of scrimmage on every play. If the OT as at the end of the line on one side, that means no WR or TE is. And only 1 WR/TE can be at the end of the line on the opposite side (actually, you can have as many people you want on the LOS but only the very end guys on each side are eligible to receive a pass), so the offense then can get away with an extra player in the backfield and the defense does not then have the ability to press that player off the line of scrimmage. Complicated, but it makes sense.

The Seahawks win kinda sucks for the Bears playoff hopes. The H2H loss to them means they are 2 essentially 2 games ahead of the Bears, and the Bears aren't going to be catching them, even if they win out. So, they're basically fighting for 1 spot. So, the Bears are tied with NY Giants, Redskins, and the Bucs 1 game (record-wise) behind Seattle and Atlanta for the last playoff spot. The Bears currently sit 10th in the conference as they lose tie-breakers with all of these teams currently. However, it appears that the teams the Bears need to be most concerned with are their very own division foes, Green Bay and Minnesota.....2 and 3 games ahead of the Bears, respectively. First, one of the Giants or Redskins will win that division. The Bears face the Redskins and can do well to win that tiebreaker with a H2H win. But even if they don't win that, they just need the Giants to falter. The Giants have hung with the Patriots and beat the Bucs, but got blown out by a terrible Philly team. I don't think they are much of a threat as they haven't been consistent at all. Then, the Bears play the Bucs H2H so if the Bears are going to get in they have to beat them anyway, so that'll take care of them. Atlanta is there, but they still have 2 games vs. Carolina and have lost 5 of 6 and haven't been competitive in most. So, that leaves Min/GB. While it seems pretty daunting to make up 3 games in 5 weeks, the Bears only have to pass 1 of these teams. Looking at the schedules, this isn't as bad as it looks. Vikings have: Seattle, @ Arizona, BEARS, Giants, @ Packers. The big ones are the next 3. Obviously, Bears have to beat them to have any sort of chance. But the Vikings should be underdogs in both games. They could go from 8-3 to 8-5 in a hurry, and then face the Bears in a must win for them. Packers have: @ Lions (Thurs), Cowboys, @ Raiders, @ Arizona, v. Vikings. At Cards should be tough, but it could be after AZ has clinched (and Carolina has clinched HFA). If the red hot Lions show up again, they could take the game this week. But with that Week 17 game, one of the Pack/Vike is guaranteed to lose 1 more game. If the Vikings lose the next 2, and then lose to the Bears, and the Packers lose Thursday night....even if the Bears lose to the Skins in Week 14, it sets up a Week 17 Vikings/Packers game where the winner gets the division, while the loser goes home and the Bears take the 6 seed (and matchup against the winner in the wildcard round). If all else goes the same and the Packers win this week, the Bears will be rooting for GB to win and get them in Week 17.

It was. The defensive back talent was very pro-Seattle too, which is the real reason the Steelers lost though.

I think you're looking at 10 mil more either contract. 4/75 or 5/95. I wouldn't have a problem with either. Obviously would prefer the 4 years over 5.

the price is not that expensive if you aren't high on contreras. iirc, you aren't quite sold. from what i've read, i am. (and yes, i realize i had no idea who the hell he was 3 months ago) a, by some accounts, good defense (by others not so much - but that's still a lot better than universally bad) C with that plate approach, contact ability, and power? yes, please. that's a high price to pay IMO for a guy i just don't think is that good. edit - and just to be clear, i'd definitely give him up in a package for some of the other pitchers we've talked about. just not shelby miller. I don't think Contreras and McKinney even gets it done. Supposedly 20 teams interested in Miller, I'm sure it would take 1 more piece from the Cubs to get it done and I think it'd be significant.

0-18 with 16 turnovers. As a team 0-29, with 30 turnovers.

Yeah that's where I am too. Trading Soler to get a SP doesn't do much because it opens one hole to fill another, instead of 2 SP and an OF you need 1 SP and 2 OF. Soler should be valued much higher than his performance to date so I could see him getting traded, but I don't think they're actively trying to move him just to get better defensively. Otherwise there'd be a lot more smoke around trading Schwarber too, and you can still get better defensively with age/experience appropriate improvement from those two plus a better defensive CF. Well, there was smoke about trading Montero. If that happens, then they move Schwarber to catcher that could make sense to go after a corner OF. But it seems odd to obsess over OF defense and then make a more important defensive position weaker, especially for a team that either strikes out or induces ground balls almost 2/3 of the time it records outs.

Why is it assumed that Soler will be traded? I think if the Cubs were so willing to trade Soler, he'd probably be gone already. I think he's a better trade chip than Javy currently and figure that if the Cubs are focused on improving OF defense(as Theo has mentioned) then he's the logical guy to go. I can't see us saying that, leaving Schwarber/Soler on the corners and finding anyone who's likely good enough in CF to compensate for that myself.(maybe JBJ). Plus,the Alex Gordon rumors make it appear as if we're not set on the corners too. And I don't see Schwarber going anywhere, so that leaves Soler. With Gordon/Heyward or whoever likely being an answer. Gotcha. Better get a helluva lot for Soler though. I'm thinking Harvey level rather than Miller level. But my concern is that even with a Heyward/Gordon to play RF, and a really good starter....there is still the need for a 2nd SP and a CF. Is there enough money for that?

You were probably going to a bowl regardless, depending on how the NCAA decided to prioritize 5-7 teams. If academically, I'm assuming IU would be towards the top. congrats though. That offense is too damn good to not play in a bowl. Going to a bowl with a losing record would have felt so dirty though. Especially since it would have meant losing to a god awful Purdue team. Yuck. It's not exactly squeaky clean to get a bowl with a 2-6 conference record, with your best win being Western Kentucky (though they did dominate CUSA). I'd feel pretty good with a bowl win. I'd feel really good if they could have gotten that Rutgers win. I'd be on cloud 9 if they were able to eek out one of Ohio St, Michigan, or Iowa.

Why is it assumed that Soler will be traded? I think if the Cubs were so willing to trade Soler, he'd probably be gone already.

We're going bowling! HOO HOO HOO!

The WR screen game is what he did in Denver. Peyton Manning has consistently led the league in WR screen yards as a Bronco. The Bears haven't done it as much as I expected, but it's well designed and run a lot of different ways. Run from the bunch formation, two wide formation with the TE screaming out to get a block, WR catching it coming back to the QB with the OL getting out in front. Really protects your QB and gives you some easy yards when the run game isn't going, and like you said, slows down the pass rush. Defensively, they are covering their asses off. Porter has been great. But teams aren't even going at Kyle Fuller anymore. I think GB threw his way maybe 2 times, and I don't think remember any completions on him. Callahan was the key though last night. I know Porter had the INT (should have been 2) and the PBUs, but the Packers clearly went in there trying to expose Callahan at the nickel, and they couldn't. Got the big play on him on the final drive, but other than that he was very strong following Cobb all over the field. Amos did a good job on the TEs in man coverage, which we have not seen much from him. Fangio also gave no coverage responsibility to McClellin (mostly spied and dropped following the QBs eyes), and I don't remember very many blitzes or zone coverage calls against Rodgers.