Banedon
-
Posts
65,184 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
24
Content Type
Profiles
Joomla Posts 1
Chicago Cubs Videos
Chicago Cubs Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
2026 Chicago Cubs Top Prospects Ranking
News
2023 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
Guides & Resources
2024 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
The Chicago Cubs Players Project
2025 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker
2026 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker
Blogs
Events
Forums
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by Banedon
-
Now we get to it.
-
I've never used the term "bad" in reference to Flacco. He's average when it comes to legitimate QBs in the league. Except that he's not average. http://wp.advancednflstats.com/playerstats.php?year=2012&pos=QB&season=reg Ranked as the #12 QB during the regular season. Including playoffs, he's ranked #6. In 2011, he was ranked #9 in the regular season, and in 2010 he was ranked #5 in the regular season.
-
I have no idea what you're talking about in your last few posts then. It's ridiculous to compare Flacco and Sanchez. Then you make a post attempting to say that it's not ridiculous, and saying we all have short memories. Only it's still a ridiculous comparison, so I haven't the foggiest idea what you're trying to say.
-
Apparently they called him into the office to say he will not be traded. So pulling him of the ice was a nice little fan torment kinda thing.
-
Who is that skinny coach? http://i.imgur.com/8r9JdwR.jpg
-
People said the exact same thing about Mark Sanchez when he came into the league. They gave him extra credit for production in the playoffs in spite of pedestrian regular season production. That's the primary reason he has that albatross contract now. You guys have hilariously short memories. Well don't saddle me with any Mark Sanchez defense that "people" made. I didn't make that argument, so I'm sure as hell not gonna defend it. Nobody asked you to. Then what was the point of your post? To point out that someone, somewhere, at some time, thought Mark Sanchez was good and worth money? Well bully for them. That doesn't have anything to do with Joe Flacco being a whole lot better than Mark Sanchez, and deserving to get paid more than him. There's no hilariously short memory involved.
-
http://i.imgur.com/0eDO28p.jpg
-
People said the exact same thing about Mark Sanchez when he came into the league. They gave him extra credit for production in the playoffs in spite of pedestrian regular season production. That's the primary reason he has that albatross contract now. You guys have hilariously short memories. Well don't saddle me with any Mark Sanchez defense that "people" made. I didn't make that argument, so I'm sure as hell not gonna defend it.
-
Is that a dig at Rose? Thibs? The FO? Fans? I'm taking it as backing up Rose against everyone else, but maybe we're reading into it too much.
-
Maybe, maybe not. I mean, if he's as bad as dew says, cutting him won't be all that painful. If he's still good though, they can extend him and manipulate the cap hit. If they cut him in 2016, they would have a dead cap hit of around 24 million. That's pretty prohibitive. So they either cut him after year 3 and still have 24 million on their cap, or they have Flacco on their cap for 29 million. Neither option is all that appealing, so they'll have to work out an extension. Flacco will have them over a barrel. It may be 7-9 years before they truly feel the pain from this contract, but it has set a chain of events into motion that most of the time will end up with a bad result. This is of course all irrelevant if Flacco has turned the corner as a QB. We'll have to see on that one. It's a lot, but over the next 3 years of that contract, he's scheduled to make around $83million. You gladly take that dead money hit if Flacco isn't the best QB the world has ever seen. It'll hurt, but hopefully you've got some young, rookie scale QB you're using while you take that hit.
-
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/odds/ playoff odds are almost up to 20% :clapping: Somebody math me here....why do the Cubs have a lower expected win total and higher expected loss total than Milwaukee, and yet have better playoff odds? Specifically, why better WC odds?
-
Maybe, maybe not. I mean, if he's as bad as dew says, cutting him won't be all that painful. If he's still good though, they can extend him and manipulate the cap hit.
-
Next year, the combined cap hit for Suh and Stafford is about $41mil. Only team with two guys in the top 10 salary cap hits. This year's cap is $123m. Oh, and going back to Flacco for a second. He's not in the top 10 QB salary hits for 2013, he's #9 for 2014 (behind Sam Bradford, FYI), and in 2015, he's back out of the top 10. Mark Sanchez will have a bigger cap hit than Flacco in 2015 (presuming he's not released by then). It's not till 2016 that things get silly.
-
@2ndCityHockey Wasn't Maxime Sauve the name of Razor Ramon's tag team partner in the late 90's?
-
lol, yep. We can talk about Flacco's contract in overall dollars, but truth is that those last couple of years are unlikely to be paid out as-is.
-
Sorry Tim, but they're not good enough reasons.
-
I'm not intentionally trying to be ridiculous, I'm simply pointing out the flaws that come with trying to evaluate QBs based on how much their team wins. They play a significant role, but just because a team won a lot of games, went deep in the playoffs and maybe even won a Super Bowl, it doesn't automatically make their QB a great (or even good) player. Nobody is trying to evaluate a QB based on how much their team wins, except for you. I'm not the one who keeps bringing up that Flacco won a Super Bowl. Ok, but nobody is saying that's the sole factor for determining whether or not he's worth his contract. Which is the basis of your Smith/Sanchez arguments.
-
Someone explain this to me like I'm a 5 year old. Why would it be a problem that Ricketts is paying for it without city funding? It's not a problem as much as it is a restart in the negotiations. The Cubs wanted to do X and have the government contribute Y to the process. Now they want to do X + Z and have the government contribute 0 to the process. The Cubs want more now in exchange for no financial assistance. But hasn't that been going on for quite a while now? I thought when the Cubs presented all those mockup drawings and such, that they were already planning on doing it all themselves? Just doesn't seem like it's really "starting over" at this point. Maybe I'm being too literal.
-
I'm not intentionally trying to be ridiculous, I'm simply pointing out the flaws that come with trying to evaluate QBs based on how much their team wins. They play a significant role, but just because a team won a lot of games, went deep in the playoffs and maybe even won a Super Bowl, it doesn't automatically make their QB a great (or even good) player. It makes them worth a lot of money, especially if they are a free agent immediately following a Super Bowl win. I'm sorry if you don't understand that.
-
What on earth.
-
Someone explain this to me like I'm a 5 year old. Why would it be a problem that Ricketts is paying for it without city funding?
-
Part of this is the CBA. Part of what they were trying to accomplish with the rookie payscale is to reward players that have had success vs rewarding rookies. This hurts the RG3's, Wilson's and Kaepernicks of the world, but average to above average QB's that hit free agency at the right time are going to reap the rewards of the team having more money to spend on vets instead of spending $39mil in guaranteed money over 3 years to the Jamarcuss Russell's of the world. Flacco might be at or near the highest paid QB's at the moment, but wait a year or two....guys like Aaron Rodgers are gonna start getting paid, and the "average" QB price is going to move....and suddenly Flacco won't look like he's as overpaid anymore
-
I'm done with this argument. It's veered into the ridiculous.
-
Are you serious comparing Mark Sanchez to Joe Flacco?
-
Declining? Well that's just silly. From 2011 to 2012 he had more attempts, completions, completion percentage, passing yards, avg yards per attempt, TD's, fewer interceptions, and a better QB Rating. And he won a Super Bowl.
