goonys evil twin

Briggs is already an impact player though. Why not just sign him to a longterm contract and then draft 2 good players at 31 and 37? They have the cap space, as they have been completely inactive in free agency and already had the space. Angelo refusing to talk longterm with Briggs is a big mistake. If you trade him, you not only have to take back quality, but you better get quantity, otherwise your no better off than you were going in.

I've been trying to point out the overall value of going from #31 to #6, but yes I like the way you put it. This is like gaining the #16 overall. It is like gaining the #16 overall. But, it's only "like gaining the 16" and isn't exactly gaining the 16. The Jones deal was easier to swallow because there was an obvious replacement for him already on the team, one who I think is already better. If you can trade a guy who is no better than a platoon player then moving up in the draft without actually gaining additional picks is still attractive. When trading Briggs, you are opening up a huge hole with no real internal solution. Without adding quantity to your draft picks, you are therefore adding more needs while keeping your supply the same. The Bears have needs. Trading Briggs without adding addition picks is just going to make it harder to fill all those needs.

Like I said, you're wrong. And we can only hope Angelo doesn't think like you. I'm not making assumptions I can't make. What I'm doing is not allowing frivolous meanginless information to cloud the issue.

Or the 35th/45th, or 50/60/78/100, or ....., well, I'll stop there.

Gm# Date Opponent Score Starter 1 Mon 04/02 @ Cincinnati - Zambrano 2 Wed 04/04 @ Cincinnati N - Lilly 3 Thu 04/05 @ Cincinnati - Marquis 4 Fri 04/06 @ Milwaukee N - Hill 5 Sat 04/07 @ Milwaukee - Zambrano 6 Sun 04/08 @ Milwaukee - Miller/5th 7 Mon 04/09 Houston - Lilly 8 Tue 04/10 Houston - Marquis 9 Wed 04/11 Houston - Hill 10 Fri 04/13 Cincinnati - Zambrano 11 Sat 04/14 Cincinnati - Miller/5th 12 Sun 04/15 Cincinnati - Lilly 13 Mon 04/16 San Diego N - Marquis 14 Tue 04/17 San Diego - Hill 15 Wed 04/18 @ Atlanta N - Zambrano 16 Thu 04/19 @ Atlanta N - Miller/5th 17 Fri 04/20 St. Louis - Lilly 18 Sat 04/21 St. Louis - Marquis 19 Sun 04/22 St. Louis - Hill 20 Mon 04/23 Milwaukee N - Zambrano 21 Tue 04/24 Milwaukee N - Miller/5th 22 Wed 04/25 Milwaukee - Lilly 23 Fri 04/27 @ St. Louis N - Marquis 24 Sat 04/28 @ St. Louis N - Zambrano 25 Sun 04/29 @ St. Louis - Miller/5th 26 Mon 04/30 @ Pittsburgh N - Hill That's my guess. Keeping Zambrano every 5th day when possible, and not skipping the 5th starter early. This also keeps Hill from facing STL twice.

It's meaningless. It's absolutely absurd to even bring it up. He's not a 3rd rounder. There's nothing 3rd rounder about him. We already got the value of him outperforming his pick, thinking of him as a 3rd rounder right now only gives away that value. Your perspective is just plain wrong. He is a 3rd round pick, we still have the same GM who engineered the pick in the first place, and ignoring those facts is, quite simply, putting your head in the sand. Think of this: You bought a stock 3 years ago for $25. It's trading at $70 right now. Are you willing to sell at $60 because you've still made a huge profit from the initial investment and have a lot of faith in your ability to turn that $60 into $180?

Yeah, I was thinking there should be some sort of later pick thrown in. I don't think I'd be pissed if it was just 6 for 31 and Briggs, but to really be happy with it I'd like to see them get a sweetener. What if the Bears could get the Pats' two picks with that 6 pick? On the points board, that's taking less value. Essentially, you are trading Briggs for one late 1st round pick and a bump up 3 spots on your 2nd. However, having 2 first rounders could be really attractive, given the needs the Bears have and who is available. The 24, 28 and 37 picks in the draft should be able to net you quite a haul. Can we at least agree if something like this was the endgame it would be a decent resolution to the Briggs situation? Decent, if Angelo makes the right picks. But hardly the no-brainer some are trying to paint it as. It's not like Angelo is immune to making bad picks. He did pick a crap safety last year in Manning, a worthless olineman in Columbo and other relatively high complete busts. If anything, that 6th pick has less value with Angelo choosing it, since he's been much better in the 3rd and 4th rounds than in the 1st.

It's meaningless. It's absolutely absurd to even bring it up. He's not a 3rd rounder. There's nothing 3rd rounder about him. We already got the value of him outperforming his pick, thinking of him as a 3rd rounder right now only gives away that value. Your perspective is just plain wrong.

Yeah, I was thinking there should be some sort of later pick thrown in. I don't think I'd be pissed if it was just 6 for 31 and Briggs, but to really be happy with it I'd like to see them get a sweetener. What if the Bears could get the Pats' two picks with that 6 pick? On the points board, that's taking less value. Essentially, you are trading Briggs for one late 1st round pick and a bump up 3 spots on your 2nd. However, having 2 first rounders could be really attractive, given the needs the Bears have and who is available. The 24, 28 and 37 picks in the draft should be able to net you quite a haul.

What he was is meaningless. He is a pro bowler. He is one of the best in the game. And he is very young. Pointing out that he was a 3rd rounder is as meaningful as pointing out that Michael Haynes was a 1st rounder. That has no reflection on present value. Briggs for the equivalent of 2 mid-2nd round picks is not something Angelo should go gaga for. It's something you should consider, but opening up an absolute must fill hole at linebacker is hardly a favorable situation. It has meaning in terms of the additional value we're getting from him over & above what we drafted him at and what we wound up paying him. No, it has no meaning. It's absurd to include it in any sort of negotiations involving a potential trade. It's something to talk about from a PR standpoint, but it's meaningless.

Yeah, I was thinking there should be some sort of later pick thrown in. I don't think I'd be pissed if it was just 6 for 31 and Briggs, but to really be happy with it I'd like to see them get a sweetener.

What he was is meaningless. He is a pro bowler. He is one of the best in the game. And he is very young. Pointing out that he was a 3rd rounder is as meaningful as pointing out that Michael Haynes was a 1st rounder. That has no reflection on present value. Briggs for the equivalent of 2 mid-2nd round picks is not something Angelo should go gaga for. It's something you should consider, but opening up an absolute must fill hole at linebacker is hardly a favorable situation.

The draft point upgrade from 31 to 6 is 1,000. It's massive. You may not be adding another pick, but that's not how it should be viewed because a pick can be turned into more picks. It's about the value gained. This is the exact same reason why most people didn't understand what we gained in the TJ trade. Yeah, the move is 1000, but you said Briggs isn't worth the 6th. They aren't getting Briggs for the 6th, they are getting Briggs and the 31st. A value of 1000, or, 2 early 2nd rounc picks. That would be the value Briggs would carry in this deal, and it's hardly anything close to overpaying on their part. Briggs for the #35 and #45 pick in the draft. A pro bowl linebacker who is young and always healthy for two picks that might produce one starter and one quality backup if all goes well. That is the value we're talking here. Briggs for the #6 straight up is a no-brainer for the Bears and absurd for the Redskins. Briggs and the 31st for the #6 is hardly the travesty that some are making it out to be.

I have to question this also - he's one of the most patient hitters in the game and could be a valuable asset for any team. I'd take him again - I'd take him to even start over DeRosa. He's not "one of the most patient hitters in the game". His OBP is 60 points above his AVG. That's a nice number, but hardly top of the line. It's slightly below the IsoD of a couple other journeyman middle infielders, Valentin and Loretta.

They wouldn't get anybody that could come close to Briggs' production, and they'd still be desperate for O lineman, not to mention RB depth and secondary help. If you go DT with the 6 and OLB with the 37, then I think you have to go O line with your 3rd, and your already at the 94th pick by then. Your 4th round pick is 130, and by then your pickings will be slim for Benson's running mate or WR help, and you haven't even addressed the secondary.

He wouldn't be trading the 6th pick overall for Briggs. He'd be trading that for Briggs and the 31st. He'd be trading one potential all pro player for an all pro player and a guy who is a little less likely to be all pro. My only problem with such a trade from a Bears perspective is, with 31 and 37, we know they already need O line help, secondary help, and offensive playmaker help. Now, trade Briggs with the 31 for that 6th, and all of a sudden you add one more need, without adding anymore draft picks. The guys who are obvious replacements for Briggs aren't worth anywhere near being a 6 pick, so if you take them, then you are essentially removing much of the value of that 6th pick in the first place. Angelo would almost have to trade down, to try and get 2 later 1st round picks. If you are giving up Briggs and your 1st, I think you have to end up with at least 2 picks when all is said and done. Because all of a sudden you have multiple needs and serious depth issues.

I don't think he'd complain that much.

You sure that's on Fox? Aren't home-AFC games on CBS typically? The away team determines the network. Bears @ AFC equals Fox, AFC @ Bears = CBS.

Absofreakinglutely. I'm so sick about hearing what a distraction it is. To suggest there is value in just "getting rid" of Kerry Wood insinuates that the rest of the team will suddenly play better because they got rid of him. That he's some sort of cancer that holds other players back. The 40 man roster spot is worthless, as it would just be used on some hack. The Cubs, right now, have a very talented, but oft-injured asset, and he doesn't cost much. Just because frustrated fans think they can get over these guys with a release or injury settlement doesn't mean there would be any added value to the team itself.

I'll pick for the Jets

wow, you predicted that wood would be hurt? you're obviously very smart. No, I predicted a whole mess of you would get excited about his first start, declare him a god (again) and then see his human frality and come up with another thread about it. When was his first start?

I don't believe you Lou. http://cubs.mlb.com/news/article_perspectives.jsp?ymd=20070325&content_id=1859441&vkey=perspectives&fext=.jsp I don't doubt that kids have worked hard, but I think these final cuts have been set in stone for some time now and will be quite easy to make. But it's nice of Lou to pretend he's agonizing over some of these moves.

Do you expect him to stink all year and be removed, or not stink and remain on the team?

I'm not so much interested in the team showing a veteran respect as I am in them fielding the best possible team. Hopefully Brown holds up for the year and Angelo focuses heavily on the offensive line in April.

Or to facilitate a trade? The Houstan Texans have traded their 1st round pick to the Chicago Bears for Dante Wesley. 8-) That's a good trade.