rawaction

Yeah Heyward would be great. Can play a passable CF or move Soler to LF where I think the gloves would both be good-to-great. Lefty bat. Castro Heyward Soler Rizzo Bryant Martin Baez/Alcantara whoever isn't traded for him. Another OF

The Matthews that spells his name right, Jordan. I don't like Ryan coming off an injury. And VJ plays for Tampa so....

Twins, I'm assuming.

That's my first reaction to it too. Now I'm wondering who even told him what a graduation was.

Bears fans are dumb. http://www.sideleagueblog.com/sideleague-2/2014/11/12/jay-cutler-tells-the-onion-that-the-chicago-bears-need-a-new-punter-some-bears-fans-have-never-heard-of-the-onion-apparently 100% knew that was going to happen. I'm going out on a limb to say you could find such a reaction on twitter to every article ever written on the onion. Nope. If that was about Peyton Manning, everyone would have known it was a joke. *I would have used another Bear, but people would believe it if Marshall (crazy), Briggs (fatty), or Allen (crazy) were said to have said it too. Nobody else on the team talks.

Bears fans are dumb. http://www.sideleagueblog.com/sideleague-2/2014/11/12/jay-cutler-tells-the-onion-that-the-chicago-bears-need-a-new-punter-some-bears-fans-have-never-heard-of-the-onion-apparently 100% knew that was going to happen.

Speculation is it will take 12M, similar to the Kemba Walker deal in Charlotte.

Probably because he tore his ACL in consecutive years. Not that Cutler and his contract have a ton of value but I'd at least want someone that can be counted on to play. his contract is up after 2015 Isn't his contract up after this year? Don't the Rams have an option they aren't likely to use? Edit: not an option, but no guaranteed money left. He'll be cut.

It's not really the losing that's the problem. I mean, it is, but the coaching staff wouldn't be catching nearly the amount of heat that they are if they haven't looked so horrible while losing. It would still be pretty bad, I think. If the Bears were competitive in these games, then you probably couldn't blame Cutler, Tucker, or the defense as much as you can now. It would still be on Trestman for not being able to win the close ones. And his in-game decisions would be critized more as they would be more pivotal

Bears win out. Finish 10-6. But miss playoffs due to losing the tiebreaker to the Packers. FWIW (not much), Mike Ditka and Lovie Smith both started their Bears head coaching careers at 11-14 before leading the Bears to the Superbowl.

Don't do that. Hilton is the best player in that deal by far. Gates could realize he's old as dirt any day now. Though that's unlikely, Hilton is the leading WR (top 3 in the league in yards) for a team that will break passing records for yards and attempts this year. Keep Hilton.

This is interesting. He's better than Lester and Hamels, but may cost less than Hamels in a trade because he only has 1 year left, but I don't want to trade great prospects for a year of anyone. And he would get a bigger extension than Lester.

Yeah, I finally feel that there's something to this. After Urlacher left, the Bears veterans were Briggs who doesn't give a [expletive], Peppers, Tillman who leads by example, and Jennings. Plus, I think a lot of that came from Lovie, who the players respected. I don't think Trestman commands a lockeroom like a HC has to if he doesn't have the players to do so. That being said, I don't think leadership is necessary to win. But I do think you need it when things don't go well.

I offered Watkins for Vereen, and was turned down with no feedback. May try a package deal for Watkins/Tate. As for the other trade, I actually think if any of Cleveland's guys get a leg up on the competition, it's West. They invested a draft pick on him (Crowell UDFA). And he's simply better than Tate. Got 26 carries on Thursday night, and is a goaline type of back despite having the fewest TDs of the trio. I'd probably do the deal, but definitely see what else is out there.

I hope Carolina doesn't give him the option. He can't throw worth a [expletive], so if he can't run, he's useless. I was on record saying I wanted to pick AJ Green in 2011, suck another year with Clausen, then get Andrew Luck. That team would look pretty damn good right now. Problem is the Colts were pathetic that year (without Peyton) and you would have really had to try hard to be worse than the 2-14 they were in 2011. You'd have RG3 now, MAYBE. Carolina actually played Indy that year in a game they definitely would've lost if Cam hadn't been playing QB - they almost did anyway. That would've taken care of that. I'm all over this alternate-universe scenario. I see. Remember that game actually, and you're right.

i'd kind of wondered if it was because the surrounding talent level was such that they're in a best-case scenario for showcasing playmaking ability in a way that won't really transfer over assumptions: - it didn't matter that Trent Richardson can't make the right cuts because he was always given gaping holes to run though - it didn't matter that some of these CBs like Arenas, Kirkpatrick, Milliner can't actually cover real great because the D-Line was suffocating the QB it seemed to me too, that USC used to have this problem...but some of these guys are so physically freakish that they'll excel regardless That was another theory suggested in the article I read which definitely makes sense. I can't seem to find it now but I did find this which quotes Mel Kiper and Adam Schefter, blaming Alabama player's lack of success in the NFL on Alabama's system, their players reaching their ceiling in college and their players being too beat up and needing too many surgeries: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2048155-alabama-football-could-former-tide-stars-bama-pedigree-hurt-them-in-nfl-draft Collins was really intriguing when thinking the Bears could end up picking 12-16. Now, if they are going to have a top 10 pick, I don't know that he's quite a top 10 talent. And I can't imagine he's the best player on the board at 8 or whatever, even though he's probably in my top 10 players still. Safety is a valuable position, but I don't know if you pass up a potentially great pass rusher or freak LB (like Thompson), or the best OT in the draft for a safety who isn't a cover guy capable of creating several turnovers.

Is this man calling in a hit? Of course there wouldn't be a shortage of applicants for the job of head coach of the Chicago Bears. I thought Jay Cutler was a coach killer that nobody wanted to have to coach?

to actually say this, you have to be: a) a complete skeptic of the effect pitch framing can have b) totally unaware at the discrepancy which exists between the two players statcorner: 2014 2013 2012 total Martin +11 +17 +24 52 Castillo -24 -17 -5 -46 Baseball Prospectus: 2014 2013 2012 total Martin +19 +15 +23 57 Castillo -10 -16 -3 -29source: http://www.statcorner.com/CatcherReport.php http://www.baseballprospectus.com/sortable/index.php?cid=1667331 so, i'm really curious to hear which it is...because it's not unfathomable (to me) to believe that an event on which they have influence about 7,000-10,000 times could really add up to a significant effect, especially when scouting sources universally agree they're at opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of ability it's simply impossible for me to hand-wave a factor that could alone likely amount to a 2-3 win difference I'm skeptical of the magnitude of the effect that framing has. I'm skeptical of how much control catchers have over that effect, and by extension, how much benefit getting a player from another team with quality framing numbers would offer. I'm skeptical that it's not a skill like bat speed, where small losses due to age have large negative effects. And I'm skeptical that given their ages, that Castillo and Martin's offensive production won't converge. That said, I'd still bet that Martin is better than Castillo for the next year or two, but I'm not sure how much. I'm not SURE how much either, but I think it will be quite a bit. Welington's not very good.

I can get on board with this. I'd rather trade CJ than Hendricks. Hell, I'd rather trade any pitcher in the minor leagues before Hendricks. CJ has yet to throw more than 117 innings in a season. Hell, he's yet to throw 100 as a Cub in a year and a half, which includes playoffs and the AFL. And every other pitcher in the system is either not as good as he is or further away, while Hendricks is a key part to the rotation next year. Moving from Hendricks to Hamels is probably a pretty marginal move that doesn't help the Cubs as much as you would think.

Not really the point. I'm sure the Mariners would consider trading us Felix if we sent Rizzo, Arrieta, and Russell and then we'd have a bird in the hand just like with trading for Hamels. Doesn't mean it's a good idea. As far as we can tell, Hamels' monetary plus player cost far outstrips what Lester is projected to receive, and there are other pitchers in MLB besides Hamels and Lester too. Don't want to risk losing Lester? Cool, make a trade for a pitcher, there's at least a couple good ones out there every year that get moved. Still not an excuse to pay through the nose for Hamels just because Amaro is especially bad at his job and make the Cubs a poor fit. I didn't say it was a good idea. I'm just saying that dismissing Hamels because "oh we can get Lester" doesn't make sense to argue. And I know there are more pitchers than those 2, but they've been the 2 compared because both are LH, similar aged pitchers, who would conceivably be signed for similar contracts. It seems like more people hate the Hamels idea because the Cubs could still get Lester, than hate the Hamels idea because the Phils will want more than the Cubs should be willing to give up.

Everyone keeps saying, "we can just get Lester for money, without giving up prospects". But nobody is taking into account the fact that the Cubs aren't in any way guaranteed to get Lester. Sure, if you don't get Lester you can move on to a trade for Hamels. But there goes your leverage too.

Probably not many. But him making that 4 years from now is probably going to be a big overpay, considering his age and position. Adding another year on that scares me, especially if he goes back to 2011-2013 production levels.

Your definition of kinda sucks, kinda sucks. Over half the MLB kinda sucks if you put Martin in that group. but half of mlb doesn't make $15 mil/yr. fine. but I'm not sure that's worth $75 mil. Ok. I get what you're saying. Can't disagree. I'd only go 4/50-60 at most for him. That 5th year is a big issue to me.

Your definition of kinda sucks, kinda sucks. Over half the MLB kinda sucks if you put Martin in that group. But yeah, Martin is likely going to be better than any catcher the Cubs are likely to get over the course of most of his contract.

I didn't say he wouldn't make sense regardless. He would. But whatever marginal difference it is, I think it would make MORE sense if the Cubs are not signing a big name.