CubColtPacer

So he's automatically a liar? I don't see anything in his character that would make you think he was automatically a liar-I don't like the way he looks at baseball either, but that doesn't make him a liar.

I think Norm Charlton, Randy Myers, and Rob Dibble might disagree with you. Those 3 did have somewhat of a closer by committee, but except for 1 year, there was a clear preference on closer-it just changed from year to year. 1990 Myers-31 saves Dibble-11 Charlton-2 Layana-2 1991 Dibble-31 Myers-6 Power-3 2 others with 1 1992 Charlton-26 Dibble-25 Bankhead-1 By 1993, Charlton and Myers were gone. The Reds never really had a 3 way closer by committee-1 year they went with a true 2-headed closer by committee, but the other years they had a clear closer and went to another option not nearly as often. Which really is beside the point. Did it, or did it not work? For one year-yes, it did.

If the next two picks are Ramirez and Carlos Lee, I'd maybe say pick Albert Pujols. I dunno, call me crazy, but I think he might end up being a good one. It's only free agents-he can't pick Albert Pujols since somebody already owns him in his keeper league. If you want to make a big gamble, I'd pick Daisuke-none of the pitchers are sure things (Zito or Schmidt are the other two choices) and Daisuke is the youngest with the most potential.

You can try wgnradio's web site during the game... I know that the games are blacked out during the regular season, I'm not sure if the same principle applies for ST. That won't work today-the Cubs aren't broadcasting it at all. There might be a feed that will open up for the opposing team, but that won't be known till a little before gametime.

Lee was 1 for 2, and Izturis is 1 for 1 so far-can't think of anybody else who did anything.

Here is the link for you to listen online: http://www.1350krnt.com/ Click on the listen live link on the left.

Cesar's going to either have a short at-bat that leads to a hit or a long one that's an out.

Defense is overrated. so are pitching and offense Woah. What's left? Truffle's favorite thing-heart :D

No-Jones would only be in the 2 spot against right-handers. They are only going to start Jones in the 2 spot when Floyd starts with him, and the days where Floyd and Jones both play against left-handers would be very, very rare.

It sounds like I'm going to be able to hear the game! Yeah!

Here it is-click on listen live on the left: http://www.1350krnt.com/

Does anybody need a way to get to the pre-game show on the Internet? I have a feed for that.

Bly's the extreme risk-taker-he'll create plenty of turnovers for you, but he can be burnt from time to time as well. I see this as a pretty even deal actually-Detroit gets possible pieces they can try out for the future, while Denver gets a piece they needed now-I doubt Detroit was going to re-sign Bly after the season anyway, so to get two possibly good pieces for him is a pretty good move, and Denver gets a piece they need now without giving up any of their core.

Maybe he's not talking about taking Russell over Quinn, but rather, teams like Detroit who have Jon Kitna at QB and are years away from contending, but going for something other than QB. There are teams between Oakland and Miami that need QB's, but from all accounts aren't looking to draft one. A lot of people believe a franchise QB is absolutely vital, and should be selected above anything else. If I were Detroit, I'd take the fatty from Wisconsin. The Lions' offensive line has been brutal for years. Kitna isn't great but he'd be serviceable if anybody could protect him. If they draft Quinn or whoever, he'll just be a bust because he'll be constantly under pressure, and no quarterback can succeed like that. I definitely agree with this.

I like Quinn and think he's the most sure thing of the QBs, but that blanket statement is a little too much in my opinion. I fully expect Quinn to have the better career. But he can't touch Russell talent wise. I see this as a situation similar to last year's with Leinart and Vince. Leinart was more of a sure thing, Vince had far more upside (but was less likely to be good). Except Young's upside came from unbelievable athleticism that Russel doesn't have at all. Size, strength, arm strength. And I do think Russell is a better athlete. I think Quinn is as polished as it gets as a college QB. How much better can he get in the NFL? Russell put up great numbers against better competition than Quinn and still has some development left. Quinn against defenses ranked top-35 in 2005-06: 2,301 yards, 18 TDs, 6 INTs in 9 games Russell against ranked teams for his career: 15 TDs, 17 INTs Russell against ranked teams last year: 8 TDs, 7 INTs That's what I don't understand, not to mention that ND's schedule strength was a little better than LSU's was last year.

Is Rocky a given name on his birth certificate or is a nickname from another name? I always wonder how people get named Rocky. I'm not sure about Mr. Cherry, but I know that parents can be very cruel in naming children. I heard of a family where I lived with the last name of Road who named their two sons Rocky and Dusty. I also went to school with Sunshine Monday and Mary Christmas.

If the Bears stay close to the cap limit and pay their coaches well, what more can they do? Major market doesn't mean nearly as much in football because every team spends about the same-about the only difference is that owners with more money can sometimes come up with multiple big signing bonuses in one year, but that money still has to be managed under the cap-it's more of an actual payroll thing of when the cash is paid than anything. I don't wish to belabor this any longer, but 20 mill under is the near the cap, in your opinion? Again, let's wait and see what happens. I'll be happy to be proven wrong in this case. They were 20 million under during last season?

If the Bears stay close to the cap limit and pay their coaches well, what more can they do? Major market doesn't mean nearly as much in football because every team spends about the same-about the only difference is that owners with more money can sometimes come up with multiple big signing bonuses in one year, but that money still has to be managed under the cap-it's more of an actual payroll thing of when the cash is paid than anything.

They aren't 20 under the cap every year, and the McGinnis thing was the straw that broke the camels back. I'm talking about the Phillips/Angelo Bears. There is no reason why this had to get done earlier. There were people who got freaked out by it and those who didn't. Instead of blaming the Bears for freaking people out, I put the onus on the freakers. All of the evidence point to this team being run much differently than it was when free agency first started. People who work in pro sports do honor contracts. If you fire a guy, you still have to pay him everything that is guaranteed. It does not make an organization cheap when they sign a guy to a contract and pay him what that contract stipulates. Some organizations like to throw money at all of their problems. I don't think it's done a whole lot for Snyder, nor has it helped Jerry Jones. Other organizations are more pragmatic when it comes to expenditures, like Philly, New England and the Bears. People will scoff at comparing the Bears with those organizations, but the fact is the current regime has ammassed the most talented team in their conference and have set-up the team for lasting success. They have a president who hired his current GM who hired his current head coach, and a head coach who is being allowed to have the coaching staff he wants to keep. I'm not sure I would want to be compared to the Patriots anymore-the Patriots being so cheap and being 20 million under the cap probably cost them the Super Bowl last year. Now, I do understand what you're saying, and the Bears the last few years have done a really good job of prioritizing who to throw money at and who not to. It should set them up well for the future.

No it isn't. Fair market value is based on what the market is willing to give you. If you don't hit the market, there's no judging of what that market is. Coaches hit free agency all the time. College coaches are virtual free agents at all times, as are most coordinators. Then you have your steady supply of former head coaches not under contract. Yes, it is-and Lovie would have been paid by a team. Just as we know what Z's approximate value by looking at similar players even though he has not hit the market yet, so we can know Lovie's market value by looking at what similar successful coaches have received. simply looking at and citing what other coaches have gotten is not what fair market value means, though. we have no idea what the market would have been for lovie, maybe mike holmgren money, who knows? lovie may have gotten his money but he would have had to wait to receive "fair market value". this point has been driven home lately by chicago radio personalities, so if you want to debate "fair market value" with someone, call boers and bernsy today at the score between 2 and 6, dan bernsetin will be more than willing to share with you what the term means. This is all about wording? Ok, he got a salary that is comparable to other coaches with some success on their resumes. Being that it was comparable, his deal was a "fair" deal, and all the talk about the Bears underpaying him can end. Is that better?

No it isn't. Fair market value is based on what the market is willing to give you. If you don't hit the market, there's no judging of what that market is. Coaches hit free agency all the time. College coaches are virtual free agents at all times, as are most coordinators. Then you have your steady supply of former head coaches not under contract. Yes, it is-and Lovie would have been paid by a team. Just as we know what Z's approximate value by looking at similar players even though he has not hit the market yet, so we can know Lovie's market value by looking at what similar successful coaches have received.

102 RBI for Soriano in the leadoff spot? with Izturis in the 8-hole? I don't know, that's crazy talk if I ever heard it. Not really-Soriano had 95 RBI's last year getting a .244/.318/.326 out of the 8 spot, and a .183/.243/.269 out of the 9 spot. That should be able to be at least duplicated by Cub hitters, and quite possibly exceeded-also considering the Cubs will likely score more runs than the Nationals did, so Soriano will get more AB's and more RBI chances-I don't see how 102 is crazy at all if he hits 40 HR again. plate appearances, plate appearances. He'll get more of both :D

the thing that gets me is that they didn't even need to give him "fair market value" as he was never on the market. they had a closed negotiation going on, lovie was never a free agent. the bears proved to be more than fair. Fair market value is based on what other coaches have received with extensions. Coaches don't go on the FA market very often, as teams give their coaches about what other similar coaches have gotten. Lovie's deal is very fair-in fact, it's very similar to the deal Dungy got a couple of years ago.

102 RBI for Soriano in the leadoff spot? with Izturis in the 8-hole? I don't know, that's crazy talk if I ever heard it. Not really-Soriano had 95 RBI's last year getting a .244/.318/.326 out of the 8 spot, and a .183/.243/.269 out of the 9 spot. That should be able to be at least duplicated by Cub hitters, and quite possibly exceeded-also considering the Cubs will likely score more runs than the Nationals did, so Soriano will get more AB's and more RBI chances-I don't see how 102 is crazy at all if he hits 40 HR again.

Didn't Manning give the Colts a little salary relief too or was that another QB? Yeah, although it really was an accounting move that was expected since the day that he signed the contract. Basically, he had a 10 million dollar signing (roster) bonus, which was going to count all against the cap, and they converted it to a signing bonus, and now only 2 million of it will count against this year's cap. Thanks for the help-guess I started thinking faster than I typed. I have edited it now.