KingCubsFan

Cutler isn't Rodgers. I'm not expecting him to be Rodgers and he doesn't have to be Rodgers to have success. And as great as Rodgers is, I'm not completely giving him the credit for success with someone like Cobb. It's a team game, and as ridiculously talented as he is he's got a lot more around him, player-wise and coaching-wise to help him succeed than Cutler does. Wanting things like "getting rid of the ball quicker" doesn't really work when the plays being drawn up and the players you can pass to aren't clicking. Are there key things Cutler could do better or ideally be more consistent with? Of course; but I don't understand the how the Bears' more glaring failings and inconsistencies somehow shift the blame more to him as time goes on. That just means they've dragged out rectifying major issues and doing all they can to maximize their QB's capabilities. Here's a pretty simplistic way of articulating what I'm trying to say. This is the article I was talking about before: http://mattwaldmanrsp.com/2012/09/26/what-is-wrong-with-jay-cutler/ Look at the first play this guy analyzes. Here's a few posts about that play from this board after it happens: If Cutler doesn't miss the wide-open guy, are we blaming the offense's ineptitude on playcalling and the offensive line? Now look at how he breaks down the third play he analyzes. Here's some of the board's reaction: This article makes a good argument that the sack was on Cutler's lack of awareness in the pocket. If he steps up, are we blaming the O-line?

I don't know why something as completely meaningless and arbitrary as "the excuses are starting to run out" is supposed to have any weight when some of those "excuses" are hugely important things that have not been addressed properly. Having Forte and Marshall doesn't somehow make the OL any less horrible or the playcalling any less bad or the deficiencies with the other receivers any less of a reality. The passage of time isn't some automatic cure-all where problems that aren't fixed just stop being problems. My point is that maybe some of these huge problems (O-line, playcalling, horrible receivers) are not entirely the Bears' fault, but also a function of Cutler not being as good as we thought he was. Would the O-line be as bad with someone like Drew Brees getting rid of the ball quicker? Who knows. Is the "bad playcalling" a function of Cutler's inability to make good reads and throw to the open receiver? Maybe. Is the inability of the Bears to find good receivers strictly a function of their inability gauge the talent level of WR's? I still think this one is mostly on the Bears, but guys like Rodgers continue to put up huge numbers with randoms like Randall Cobb. Through the three OC's and numerous offensive lineman and wide receivers, there's been one constant. Yet people are reluctant to really place any blame on that constant. I'm a big Cutler fan, but much of the discussion over the past few years has revolved around how the people surrounding Cutler have to improve. Maybe it's time some of that discussion turn a bit towards Cutler as well (and I'm talking about discussion from dedicated, educated Bears fan, not the ESPN crowd wailing about his body language or how he's not a "winner," whatever that means). With that said, Devin Hester remains a horrible receiver.

But who here has ever said he doesn't make bad choices and has his obvious flaws? My main issue is that until they got Marshall his team had seemingly done next to nothing to maximize his strengths and instead practically went out of their way to set things up to exacerbate his flaws. I agree the team has generally done a horrible job maximizing his talents. But my point is that, even with one of the best receivers in the league and a fully healthy Matt Forte, he's still not playing that great. People have always like to say "well, if he had a real NFL O-line, some WR's, and a good OC, he'd be putting up great numbers." I'm just not sure if that's true anymore. The excuses are starting to run out. Regardless, I still think he's an above-average QB, and I hope the Bears keep him until there's a clear opportunity to get someone better than him. I just have my doubts that he'll reach that elite or near-elite status we all hoped for when the Bears got him.

Not to pick on you, but these kind of statements always bother me. Having a great defense shouldn't excuse the Bears (or any other team) from maximizing the talent at what is far and away the most important position on the team. If the Bears could get Aaron Rodgers, for example, I would hope they'd try everything in their power to do it, regardless of how the team is constructed. I get the playcalling arguments, but Cutler now has two of the best playmakers in the league, so we can't really blame his performance on a lack of talent surrounding him. And even the playcalling argument has its holes. I remember someone posting an article after the Packers game breaking down some of Cutler's decisionmaking, and a lot of the botched plays were based on his own choices on where to throw the ball.

Not the same. One is about team peformance, the other is about an individual position. If you have to use a Cubs analogy, it's more like saying Aramis was the best 3rd baseman we'd had since Santo. But even that doesn't compare, because QB is the most important position on a football team, and the hardest to get elite level talent to fill. Teams (like the Bears) go generations without an elite quarterback. It's completely fair to refer to him as the best QB the Bears have had. The term is obviously subjective, but the Bears have never really had an "elite" quarterback.

The Marlins should say no to Profar alone. Yep. If you're the Marlins, the only guys you consider trading Stanton for straight up are probably limited to Harper or Trout.

That BB:K rate is pretty impressive for an 18 year-old. And with his glove, he really doesn't need to be that much more productive to be a valuable player. I'd still take Baez easily though. There aren't a lot of prospects with his power.

I highly doubt that. You think we'll give a 32 year-old with his injury history an extension?

Thank goodness the Cubs franchise has never had that perception! It's not a matter of perception, but reality. The Cubs actively tried to lose last year. They not only accepted it but sought it out. There may have been a perception of the Cubs as lovable losers, but from at least the mid-80's through a couple years ago they were trying really hard to win. The payroll went from middle of the pack to top of the NL and among the highest in baseball. They just really sucked at what they were trying to do. When you actively take a dive as management and you stay on the ground for a prolonged period of time you risk institutionalizing an acceptance of failure. And it's not about the fans, but the organization itself. Kudos to them for "trying really hard." They were terrible at it. I'd argue that this front office is "trying harder" than any front office we've ever had before, as they're the only ones who seem committed to sustained success. Who exactly are you referring to when you talk about "institutionalizing an acceptance of failure?" It's clearly not the front office. The minor leaguers? I'd imagine they're working harder on improving than ever before, given the renewed focus by management on all of them. The major leaguers that will only be here one or two more years? They're fighting for jobs. Castro and Rizzo? I doubt Castro would sign an extension if he thought this organization was headed nowhere. "Institutionalizing" and "accepting" failure are things Jay Mariotti or Phil Rogers would throw around when complaining about the Cubs not signing more free agents. There's nothing like that going on. This organization was decades behind the pack when Theo took over, so there's work that's had to be done up and down the entire organization. Losing 90 or 100 games for two seasons isn't going to set back anything. We lost a ton of games for two years before Theo took over with a huge payroll.

You can't look at the upsides while ignoring the downsides. You waste the highly valuable pre-FA seasons of the young players you already have. You lose several of the very finite number of years you have to try to win the World Series. You take a revenue hit as fans begin to stop coming and watching. Your failure to fill in holes on the MLB roster can create problems for several years down the road. Not to mention you institutionalize a culture of accepting losing and not even trying to win. Thank goodness the Cubs franchise has never had that perception! And losing fans for a few years and sliding down a bit in attendance doesn't really matter. There's no question they'll all come back as soon as the Cubs show a glimpse of being good. To me that actually goes beyond some kind of question as to fans "accepting losing" or not; I really don't care about that. My concern is when it comes to trying to sign FA. Yes, money does most of the talking, but you can't totally dismiss how a bad, bad team is going to impact a player's choice when he's getting other competitive offers. I still believe that, for most players, it's all about money so that doesn't really bother me either. If a player cares about more than money, the Cubs must have some strengths given how many players have either refused to waive their no-trade clause or have needed some persuading (Ramirez, Soriano, Marmol, Dempster) despite the fact that we've sucked. Plus we signed multiple free agents last year despite the fact that everyone knew we were rebuilding. If a player truly cares about more than money, I'm confident our front office can sell them on the long-term vision for the team.

You can't look at the upsides while ignoring the downsides. You waste the highly valuable pre-FA seasons of the young players you already have. You lose several of the very finite number of years you have to try to win the World Series. You take a revenue hit as fans begin to stop coming and watching. Your failure to fill in holes on the MLB roster can create problems for several years down the road. Not to mention you institutionalize a culture of accepting losing and not even trying to win. Thank goodness the Cubs franchise has never had that perception! And losing fans for a few years and sliding down a bit in attendance doesn't really matter. There's no question they'll all come back as soon as the Cubs show a glimpse of being good.

Because the team is very bad and this is a prime avenue to improve the team both now and down the line. It appeared to be a prime avenue, before the Dodgers started printing money and giving everyone in sight outlandish contracts.

if that were true they wouldn't have kept the guy who was in charge of stocking it. He was removed from his position and given some new title that makes it appear as if he has no real authority. He's basically a glorified consultant. Everyone else was removed. Theo and Jed have made it pretty clear through their words and actions that this entire organization was a complete mess and behind the time in all aspects when they stepped in.

Despite the fact that we all now know Concepcion probably has a better chance at making the big leagues as Soler's driver as opposed to as a pitcher, he was a definite prospect when he was signed. I think he should count, regardless of how he turned out. I agree re: Chen. He often gets left out of the conversation, but he would have been a definite asset regardless of how old he is.

I think the criticism comes from the fact that the Cubs are spending no money on the major league product, so they should be expected to be spending an assload on the minors. In their defense, they spent $36 million on two players, and apparently also offered a ton to Puig. And they're building a state of the art facility in the Dominican. They're spending a ton on the minors.

My favorite part is people saying he isn't a "Theo type player." Good players are Theo type players. Not everyone in Boston was a count working walk wizard. Not even to mention the fact that Castro still has a lot of developing to do and just so happens to be doing it at the big league level. And the fact that the two things this front office likely wanted him to focus on improving (patience and defense) are also the things he improved the most this season. BB% by year: 2010: 5.7% 2011: 4.9% 2012: 5.2% I get it that his second half was much more patient than his first half. That doesn't change the fact that 2012 didn't really represent an increase in patience from Starlin. It's certainly not an area where you can say he "improved the most this season". Given how historically impatient he was to start the year, the year-end stats aren't going to reflect much of an improvement. I should have clarified he improved on that from the beginning of the year to the end of the year. And just because the year end BB% doesn't reflect drastic improvement doesn't mean it's "impossible" to say it was an area of improvement for him.

My favorite part is people saying he isn't a "Theo type player." Good players are Theo type players. Not everyone in Boston was a count working walk wizard. Not even to mention the fact that Castro still has a lot of developing to do and just so happens to be doing it at the big league level. And the fact that the two things this front office likely wanted him to focus on improving (patience and defense) are also the things he improved the most this season.

Agreed. I think it has more to do with ND's weaknesses (barely beating Pitt and Purdue) than it has to do with anything Kansas State has done.

Notre Dame is a draw on its own. If they're one of two undefeated teams, there's no chance they get left out of the NC.

I excuse the BYU game since Rees was playing. But, yeah, the Pitt and Purdue games don't help their case.

Huge miss.

Never been a big fan of Chisenhall, although the bar is pretty low for a passable third baseman these days.

This guy's scouting reports read a lot like Concepcion. It's one thing to get upset over losing out on guys like Cespedes or Darvish, who scouts almost universally regarded as premium talents. It's quite another to be disappointed that the Cubs won't be spending $50+ million on a 24 year old projected to be a #3 or 4 starter. If the Cubs can't find 1-2 prospects in each draft that compare favorably to Jin, we're in a lot of trouble.

I don't think they offer this anymore unless it's grandfathered in. Actually, they do and have expanded it to more seating locations this season. Got the email to go on Saturday, December 8th. Probably going to pass as I am already a 1/4 holder in season tickets with friends. Was hoping I'd get the call in about 5 years to get my own seats for my family. Oh well. Also, for clarification on the above discussion, the Combo plan is only available for the Budweiser Bleachers. The combo plan is being extended to other areas besides the bleachers this season.

I agree, it would nice to add a long-term solution to the rotation. I think Hellickson is overrated though (then again, it may just be Tampa's philosophy to pitch to contact and not care about K's, given Garza's massive spike when he got here).