tfarks
-
Posts
3,634 -
Joined
-
Last visited
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 tfarks
-
The Clippers aren't complaining about not winning. The Timberwolves are complaining about losing money. Oh what do you know, a small-market team that lost a superstar to a big-market team.
-
That's fine. Doesn't matter what you want. Unless you own an NBA team and haven't told us?
-
What's silly is that's what you whittled that down to. The only reason to bring up 30 years is to point out the fact that the NBA has been heavily lopsided for 3 decades. The owners of small market teams are fed up. They can't make enough money being the doormats every year and having their superstars leave. Stern's "big stars in big cities" plan needs changed. The problem is the money discrepancy and congregation of stars in big cities. And how that will likely lead to the same big market teams winning even more. That's fine if you're a Lakers or Heat fan, not so much Cleveland or Toronto. If we want to look at more current winners. Let's start after the Bulls second 3-peat. Since 1999, the Spurs have won 4 times. Lakers 5 times. Dallas, Detroit, Boston and Miami once. The winners become a bit more varied, but look at the markets. Detroit bucked the trend, that's it. In 12 years. So it's great to say oh look, it's not that bad, more teams are winning...kinda. When the same teams are getting [expletive] on. I'd prefer to see more teams like OKC in the league. Rather than LA reloading with Dwight Howard and Chris Paul going to the Knicks. Or I wouldn't, I'm also cool with the super league. The doormats would have to go though.
-
Yeah I think Dallas made it 9 btw
-
Just got that texted to me I'm going to assume it's not serious or not from a smart person. Both.
-
Just got that texted to me
-
Isn't it 9? And arguing that it's unfair requires glossing over the details. Take a team like the Pistons; they're one of the 9 because they won in '89 and 90's and then not again until 2005. There are some big gaps in between a lot of those wins. You also have something like 17 different teams making the finals during those 30 years. You've also got 6 different title winners in the last decade. I remember looking up not that long ago, that with luxury tax, the Lakers spent over 2x more than the Pacers did. If I'm recalling correctly? I'm not saying we need a commie league where everyone gets to win, but it is unfair when you look at money spent and free agents and trades being heavily favored to the large market teams. Just recently we saw what happened with the Miami Heat and Carmelo Anthony. Soon we will see it with Chris Paul and Dwight Howard. In the NFL, you have someone like Peyton who spends his entire career in Indianapolis. No I don't think it's saying much that 17 teams made it to the Finals in 30 years, when the same franchises are the ones winning them. I think there are steps that can be made to make more than 8 teams win in 30 years. And the small-market owners are not budging on that stance. They want what the NFL and NHL have. And I would too. Or, the 12 team super league.
-
In the last 30 years only 8 teams have won it all. The NFL is successful for a variety of reasons, parity being one of them. I'm a fan of supporting the small-market teams so that superstars aren't leaving or forcing themselves out to places like New York and Los Angeles. The new CBA can rectify the economics and competitiveness for all 30 teams. All the while the owners and players can still make boatloads of dollars. Either fix the [expletive] or just make a 12 team super league and get it over with.
-
Only way to settle this. A VORP-off between NSBB and SoSH. /Value over replacement poster.
-
This is David Boies' idea.
-
Stern: [expletive] just got real.
-
Theo & Z meeting at Goose Island Brewery right now
tfarks replied to Old Style's topic in Chicago Cubs Talk
Cause Theo is getting drunk and punchy -
Who will be the manager? no Ryno talk version
tfarks replied to Magnetic Curses's topic in Chicago Cubs Talk
They're giving Maddux time to write some new material for his official press conference. -
He did not need to rip off his helmet to tackle him. That's called unnecessary. Cutler was already going down, was Suh trying to help him back up by pulling on his helmet?
-
Yeah, chances are they won't go 6-10, but that's not the point. No, chances are they will be Super Bowl contenders again. And that is the point. Definitely not. Part of the problem in Indy is that they've proven they're [expletive] drafters. I don't like what the Polians have done lately either, and would like to see them go. But Bill was also there when they drafted as well as anybody from 98-06. I don't think this situation is that hard. Their 2011 draft was actually good. They have 2 starters for their OL and a DT and RB who have both contributed well all season. With 5 total picks. They had an extremely poor run that's haunting them. But to say the 2012 draft has no shot at restoring their status in the AFC is willfully ignorant. That being said, can't be too comfortable while Chris Polian is calling shots. He truly needs to go.
-
it was a bad call, but it really didn't matter that the refs called the penalty. Yeah that was the thing. Everyone just kind of said eh who cares? But it was woefully fitting that the Lions got away (namely Suh) with multiple things while Briggs got flagged for a clean hit.
-
Yeah, chances are they won't go 6-10, but that's not the point. No, chances are they will be Super Bowl contenders again. And that is the point.
-
Yeah that would definitely be reaching. That play should never be called a penalty.
-
Age is certainly a factor they have to deal with. Most of all Manning. But I think the re-invigoration of a team that just wasted a season will be a factor as well. And all the new young guys that will be coming in. Just looking at the offensive side of the ball. What's really changed? Being a year older? The o-line has gotten younger and better and they can run the ball finally. If Manning comes back as Manning, and with the extra picks they get, there's a much higher chance for success than failure. IMO.
-
Yeah, they had a nice run, but it was the fewest wins in 8 years. They were already looking like a lesser team than the real contending Colts squads of the past decade. Yes but I can't think of a better way to restock a team then having the ability to trade away a #1 pick. I mean, how many times has it even been done? This is a very fortunate opportunity for the Colts to get this. But a lot of other things do have to go right. It will be very interesting to see play out.
-
Yeah true. That's a big risk and they're gonna have to roll the dice. One positive precursor, Manning's arm strength was never his elite tool, it's always been his accuracy and intelligence.
-
They were only 10-6 last year with him and lost at home to a one dimensional Jets team. They have also gotten worse. Given how poorly they have done building around Manning in recent years, and the fact that Manning probably won't be anywhere near his best if he does come back, there are plenty of reasons why they may not be Super Bowl contenders for the next 4 years. That was yet another 10 win season, and that one-dimensional Jets team also beat the Patriots and barely missed out on going to the Super Bowl. And they improved their offensive line since then, which was the worst I'd ever seen for Manning. Only masked by his elite ability to get rid of the ball. And like I said, things are contingent on how many picks they can get and what they do with them. If they're just competent with these picks I have zero doubt they're Super Bowl contenders. Didn't say they'd win one, but with Manning they have a good a shot as anybody. They haven't really gotten much worse, which sounds weird to say. There's still the same All-Pro players there that were there for years. Manning is just far and away that damn important. The Polians regression in the draft has really come back to bite them. The only thing to offset that is the return of Manning and a boatload of draft picks. Both of which are possible. But everything certainly isn't rosy, especially with their poor excuse for a head coach.
-
So then do they trade the picks for as much as possible or keep Luck on the bench? Because spending that much money on a backup QB when your starting QB makes so much is going to make it very difficult to add to that horrible team. I think as soon as they find out Manning can throw again. And gets the feeling back in all his nerves they will fish for the biggest deal they can to stock up picks. And they will want to do that on draft day. They absolutely want to avoid Luck and Manning together. This will not be a Favre/Rodgers situation, Luck will not sit on the bench for 3 years and do nothing. The only way they keep the pick and Luck is come February Manning tells them the therapy didn't work and he still can't throw. Decision is clear, no one's feelings get hurt. And the team isn't horrible with Manning on it. They're really good. Manning is the biggest MVP that ever existed. Well, in football. If they add multiple picks there's no reason they won't be Super Bowl contenders for the next 4 years. Except that brings up another point. The downward spiral of Bill Polian and the unwarranted promotions of Chris Polian. If I'm Irsay, it's time for a new front office before their biggest draft day decision since 98'.
-
I wouldn't exactly call it a beautiful situation. It's a silver lining to a pitiful season, but there are tough decisions to be made. Let's not pretend that cutting Manning won't have some negative effect on his relationship with the team. If they do trade the picks, they should ignore the desire for 3 #1s and get as many early picks in this year's draft and next as possible, to restock the team for Payton's last 3-4 years. Personally, the more I see of Luck, the more I doubt him as a can't miss guy. If they do cut Manning and go with Luck, they still have a god awful football team that needs to be completely rebuilt. Well you can call it whatever you want. But 1 losing season isn't really a huge deal considering how much they have been winning for a very long time. I'm right here in Indy and the sad Colts fan holding up a sign saying Where have all the good times gone? is not the normal reaction. It's a throwaway year to get a #1 pick, big deal. And it's not really cutting Manning if the guy can't play anymore. If he can go, they will stick with him throughout his career. There will absolutely not be a scenario where Manning leaves and plays for another team. Irsay is 1000% behind Manning for life.
-
Yeah I agree. Manning's recovery is the #1 factor here. And what I hope to see happen. If he gets healthy again then Luck will be traded and used to go after another Super Bowl for Manning's last 4 years. This is a beautiful situation for the Colts. If Manning can't get healthy again, or doesn't return to form they roll with Luck. In the other direction, they probably win another Super Bowl based on what they do with the picks.