davell

Chapman cost Torres. Even if teams were blowing up pen value, I'd be shocked if Darvish doesn't net a top 10ish type prospect, plus more. We just won it all, let some other team get desperate for rentals.

What are the worst things we're allowed to hope happen to GarPax, without being bad people?

why didn't I realize Pace had a 5 year deal? That even further solidifies the idea he will get a chance to hire 1 more head coach after Fox. Trubisky does not need to be a stud for Pace to stay on past 2018. He's going to get paid in 2019 anyway and will probably get an extension after this year that will line him up with whatever the next coach gets, unless Trubisky absolutely falls on his face before then. He just needs to look capable to play NFL football to keep Pace around. I still think it'll be tricky to fire Fox, while giving Pace an extension, on some level. Fox "retiring" seems like the best way out, in my mind. As far as Trubisky goes, over/under 100 passes thrown in 2017?

I LOVE hoarding draft picks. But the people still pissed about moving up from 3 to 2 need to get over it. Pace cut the chance out he'd miss his guy. He didn't give up an insane amount to move up either. I didn't like it, because I just wasn't a fan of the pick. But, its a QB. If he feels THAT strongly, then you should probably be pissed if he did NOT make the move. Now, I'm not happy with the REST of the draft. I definitely think they should have traded down again from 45. And with the group of TE's, I don't think that should have been were they went in the 2nd. At any rate, its inconsequential. If Trubisky is a stud, Pace is here for the long haul. If he's not, then he probably doesn't get an extension after 2018.

I think we'll bandaid our starting pitching thru trades, to be honest. We'll sign a high dollar guy and we'll get as creative as we can to try and nab Otani. But, I think the trades we'll see for SP's will be for the back end types that don't cost much of a return and more tries on guys like Butler.

Eloy hasn't played or been seen at EXST since April 21st.

[tweet] [/tweet]

If his pitching catches up to his Twittering, he'll be OK.

4/138.5 left for Greinke, AFTER this season. That for his 34-37 year old seasons. 2/56 left for Verlander at 35,36 year old seasons. Verlander fits much better on all levels.

I could live with that deal, not sure Candelario alone would be enough though. You're probably right about the other 3, it would cost at least Happ or Eloy in a package. I'd be shocked if it didn't cost both, for either of them. We have no shot at Quintana anyway.

I was talking about subbing in their first next year for the 12 this year, not using both of them. If they thought Trubisky was better than the gamble of hoping they hit the QB lottery next year then maybe they would have given up that opportunity. Similar math worked out for the Bears do it and take Trubisky, especially if you think they think they're a top 5 drafting team next year. That'd be interesting. I kind of doubt SF would have done THAT. It'd be a hard sell to any fanbase. I don't know if Cleveland would do it either. But, its a very interesting offer.

Their sabermetrically inclined FO using their own 1st in a QB loaded draft to grab one now is literally the opposite of what they likely tried. I'm sure they offered 33 and one or two of their 2nds next year. But, they're way too intelligent to throw away a top 5 pick, when they'll have the ability to grab their QB then too. And they may not have even attempted to move to 2. They may not have thought it was necessary to go that high. But if they DID and were offering their own 1st next year? SF would have taken that and ran. They could have still gotten Foster, even if they thought they may need to move back up a spot or three.

I asked Raw, just want to throw this hypothetical out there, to see what you'd think happens..... Bears finish with worst record in the league. Trubisky plays 4-5 games, looks pretty men. But its just a few games and he's got no weapons around him obviously. The QB class next year DOES wind up with Darnold, Rosen, and Allen all looking better than Trubisky currently. First, any chance Pace survives this situation? Second, do you trade down or do you trade Trubisky and take the top QB?

Because the general public and the mainstream sports media are filled with idiots. It's a lot like the narrative with Cutler's contract and the outrage over the dollar figure. Glennon is kind of inconsequential. But, if you were signing a guy JUST to placehold, why not just bring back Hoyer? You could have used the difference in money to have added Gilmore or one of the other guys you missed on. In the end, it won't matter. Pace gets judged on Trubisky. If he flops, Pace is gone after 2018. If he's good, the media will write the "Pace had serious stones" type of articles to admit they were wrong.

This is pretty much how I feel about the last few days.

Am I wrong or didn't Trubisky even act like he had no idea the Bears were that interested right AFTER he got picked? Which seems odd, if he knew how much they liked him and had been told to keep it under wraps.

He had 18 starts in 2013-2014 though. He's fine as a placeholder. But, if you're going to give a guy that kind of money(even if its just guaranteed for a year), aren't you at least THINKING he can be more than that? If not, why didn't you just bring Hoyer back cheaper? And if you DID think he has a chance, why didn't you surround him with a few more weapons?

We had this debate a while ago, but it kind of seemed pointless honestly. I don't like his footwork or his arm slot. None of us are scouts, so its kind of a meaningless discussion. I freely admit that with being a UNC alum, I'm probably harder on him, than most. Still, I didn't want any of these guys at 3. Went back and forth many times on this, but I think I go Mahomes, Watson, Trubisky, Peterman, Kizer, Dobbs, and Webb, as far as how I think they end up.

Teams are reaching more and more for QB's earlier. WF- I do like next years class. But, I also did NOT like this one. 1st round QB's from 1980-1989-18 taken 1990-1999- 20 taken 2000-2009- 26 taken 2010-2017- 22 taken Teams are reaching more and more. For those that wanted Trubisky.....If he doesn't pan out, when do you know? And when are you willing to go down the QB well again?

I think based on FA, it would have been better for this team to have given Glennon a true chance himself. Give him a better group of receivers. Grab an actual immediate impact guy at 3. See if Glennon can become your longterm guy himself. Spend a 2nd on Kizer, give yourself a guy to develop too. You win 8-9 games next year with Glennon, a lot of the QB talk gets put away. And no, I'm not saying it'd definitely happen. But, I'd have preferred trying that approach for sure.

I think its more than fair to question if Pace reached for one or not. Just because you think you're not going to be in this spot again, doesn't mean you HAVE to take one. And I've posted 1st rounders in the past, its closer to a crapshoot than anything else.

Oh, I'm going to be annoyed if they get another incredibly high draft pick in a draft where there are possibly 3 franchise QBs. If they are THAT bad, which is obviously in the range of possibilities, it seems like a great opportunity to get a crazypants RG3 type haul for the pick. 5 win over/under, with only SF and Cleveland behind....

I didn't WANT a QB (as I was pretty vocal about), so I guess this isn't directed at me, but if they were going to take one in the first, Trubisky was the one I liked best. I do respect the conviction and the balls it took for Pace to do this, and if he's as good as they obviously think, none of it matters. QB is a weird position and I don't love the whole "well if your guy gets taken you can get this other guy who is publicly viewed similarly" with it. Not in the first or second round, at least. Gotta say, everything I've read about and seen with Trubisky in the last few days has me very impressed. As for the rest of the draft, who the horsefeathers knows either. I know by now not to give a horsefeathers about how pundits rate drafts in the immediate aftermath. The whole thing with the media blasting the Bears draft a day after like they have any idea if it's actually good or not is hilarious to me. It's the job of scouts and the FO to find and pick who they think are good players. At the very least, they've earned some benefit of the doubt from me with how solid last year's draft (and I'll give a little credit for Goldman in 2015). There's some intrigue with the players they took. I can't wait to see Shaheen in preseason. Jackson was a good value. Let's actually see them play first. I really don't get the "respect the balls" idea. It wasn't a ballsy move at all in my mind. It could also be construed as "I've definitely bought myself another year".

What is the percentage of HOF quarterbacks taken outside of the first round? Of course there will be a lot of failed ones, but QB has always been a Rd 1 prize, since Joe Namath. Saying "next year will be better" is totally guessing. Look at Kizer, he was supposed to light the world on fire this year and couldn't. They went with the top QB in the draft and took no chances of losing him. It looks crazy, but only crazy in theory w/o the results. Time will judge Trubisky as it will judge all the qbs, but to whine about making a calculated move is pointless Percentage of HOF QB's is beyond meaningless. Saying next year will be better is NOT totally guessing either. You can look at the options heading into a year and make educated guesses. Its not fool proof, but its far from a total crapshoot.