jersey cubs fan

He based his opinion on the fact that none of them have contributed to the majors yet. That's absurd. He's never been one to have a sophisticated view about asset valuation, so I'm not sure why you would assume he meant something other than what he said.

Why is it a bad faith effort when you draft a signable guy higher than necessary to save money in your pool? Bad faith would be drafting a guy with no intention of signing him.

There's like a 220 point differential in their major league OPS. Ian Stewart's 2008, 2009 and 2010 dwarfs what Wood has done in the majors. They aren't the same player. His minor league numbers wouldn't be the only reason to go after him, but his minor league numbers, age and relatively decent start to his major league career do offer some hopes for a rebound and justification for interest.

I'm thinking there's a legit difference between very impressive and destroying the minors. Maybe the widely panned reference was about the Lahair argument. Nah, I figured someone would think I was talking about Lahair. I wasn't. Just in general most people seem to take minor league numbers with a grain of salt for players who have more than enough MLB service time under their belts without living up to their minor league hype. Stewart kind of fits that mold, but people still refer to his minor league service time as a reason to remain optimistic for a turn around when the last time he was regularly playing in the minors was 2008. Again, I don't want people to think I dislike Stewart, I don't. I would very much like the Cubs to target him He does have a fair amount of MLB service time, but it's not like it has been horrible (until this year at least). You figure he's still pre-prime and has a strong minor league track record, so there is some reason to expect his next few years to be better than his early MLB playing time. He started in the majors at 22, that's rough for non-elite guys. What a guy does from 22-26 does not lock him into his career, especially when those years of production are over relatively scattered playing time.

and the team is sold to pakistan

I'm thinking there's a legit difference between very impressive and destroying the minors. Maybe the widely panned reference was about the Lahair argument.

Not sure why 11, but is it a placeholder since the new week usually isn't available until Wednesday? Well, he has week 11 in there for week 12 as well. This is the main page: http://www.the506.com/nflmaps/

Is Cade McNown some sort of respected alum?

Obviously it wasn't low risk. It was a misdirection screen in tight with a careless QB rolling out to the right, with his back to the play and throwing blindly off his back foot. It's a stupid play and it makes no sense to pretend otherwise.

That doesn't matter though. If two people do their jobs correctly (Hanie throwing the ball on a line and Williams blocking the linebacker) then that play works. This is Monday morning QBing. The only reason the play call sucks is because it was not executed well. No, it is not. It was an idiotic call for that time and place on the field with far too many moving parts. It was the epitome of being too cute when the Bears should not have been cute. You had a QB playing really poorly and throwing the ball to the opposition and you asked him to do something you shouldn't have asked him to do. It was dumb and it is pointless to try and pretend it's only hindsight. It was the exact same play called in Week 1 vs. Atlanta when Cutler missed Kellen Davis wide open in the flat. While I agree it wasn't necessary to call that play, it wasn't a dumb call. First down is the only chance that play has of working. QB has to be smart enough to see it wasn't there though. The fact that they tried it with Cutler before and it failed hardly qualifies as a defense for trying it there. The coach has to be smart enough to know he has a careless QB out there who is throwing the ball to the opposition. Where and when did it take place in Atlanta? I see 1 1st/10 incompletion to Davis on the play-by-play, it occurred on the 40. I vaguely remember the play. You try that stuff in the middle of the field, not in tight in the red zone with a pressing defense, a careless QB and a team in desperate need of points (and not a turnover).

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/chi-chiefs-orton-to-get-chance-to-start-vs-bears-20111128,0,5229489.story

You didn't directly refute anything. You claimed they looked better in November and I pointed out you may think that because they played a series of bad teams. I know ND fans are incredibly sensitive to perceived criticism but you are making a much bigger deal out of what I said than is reasonable.

Every union is more willing to negotiate away future members money before their own.

You are looking at this as the guy who started the site, of course you know the difference. But you are miniscule, and most people will only have vaguely heard about some bleacher something or other site that sucks balls. So they will lump you in with them and it's your fault, not theirs, for thinking people should automatically distinguish your site as valid. It's not a matter of people not being able to read the words. It's the fact that they are incredibly similar names, and one of them is much larger and very much regarded as junk. If you don't want to change it, that's fine, but you're fooling yourself if you think the only reason they would be identified together is because some careless readers don't automatically know the difference between bleacher nation and bleacher report.

what the hell did the players get out of this deal that made them so happy to give away so much money for people entering the league? i never really heard all that much about real threats of a legit salary cap or anything. The knowledge that owners will be spending their money on proven veterans (union members) and not prospects (non-union members).

So anyways, this is a must win if they hope to make the playoffs.

You don't have to save the time out. You have 25 seconds and 2-3 plays where you throw it into the end zone, so it's either TD or incomplete and the clock stops. Regardless, stop pretending it wasn't an idiotic play call on a tight field with 30 seconds remaining and a careless QB at the helm. You call that play on the 50, not the 6.

If you can't get the deal you want for the guys, fine, that's understandable. But this notion that the Cubs shouldn't even be involved is just flat out stupid.

My comment wasn't about ND having a weak schedule, just that the idea that they played better late than early is skewed by the fact that they played some tougher teams early and some weaker teams late. How much was it about playing better against Navy, Wake Forest, Maryland and Boston College, than playing Michigan and Michigan State? They played USC and Stanford in the 2nd half. Yes, and lost. They played better late was a meaningless claim by you, supported only by the notion that they won 4 straight against garbage teams.

A run, or preferably a safer pass over the middle and/or in a only we can catch it spot. Basically nothing risky. You settle for the FG at that point and go into the half ecstatic. It was an idiotic play call and it's really stupid to pretend that it monday morning quarterbacking. It was exactly the type of thing I didn't want them doing at the time of the play, not the next day. Also, according to the video of this play the Bears had a timeout available. There was no need to spike it. But if they end up 1st and goal from the 4 there's still plenty of time to try and throw 2 relatively safe pass plays and then kick.

And it wasn't just a pass into the flat. It was a very slowly developing play with the QB rolling out and looking to his right, backing up 10 yards and allowing (by design) pressure in his face, and a guy standing around waiting for the ball. He has very little chance to see where he's throwing, as it's designed to turn and throw without really knowing where the coverage is. You basically assume a guy is open. As for the guard not blocking the DB/LB, he basically didn't have a chance to make that block. When he turned back from the line the other guy was 4 yards away and three steps to his side. He was a smaller faster player sprinting into the backfield. There was no chance for him to block the guy and so he looked to go to the next level. It was a poorly time play call that was poorly executed in large part by a QB who was playing poorly. You don't call that play there.

My comment wasn't about ND having a weak schedule, just that the idea that they played better late than early is skewed by the fact that they played some tougher teams early and some weaker teams late. How much was it about playing better against Navy, Wake Forest, Maryland and Boston College, than playing Michigan and Michigan State?

That doesn't matter though. If two people do their jobs correctly (Hanie throwing the ball on a line and Williams blocking the linebacker) then that play works. This is Monday morning QBing. The only reason the play call sucks is because it was not executed well. No, it is not. It was an idiotic call for that time and place on the field with far too many moving parts. It was the epitome of being too cute when the Bears should not have been cute. You had a QB playing really poorly and throwing the ball to the opposition and you asked him to do something you shouldn't have asked him to do. It was dumb and it is pointless to try and pretend it's only hindsight.

Yet it could easily apply to them in just the second year of that kind of deal. It certainly could. But it also might not. I'm not saying that means "don't sign Pujols or Fielder." I'm just saying that the Cubs aren't in some sort of identical boat to all the other big market teams who sign big-money free agents. They are in the same boat as almost all of them. The Yankees and Red Sox are the only two perpetual contenders that only add elite talent to elite teams.

Huh? They lost by 14 at home to USC, and 14 again to Stanford (and were down 21-0 with the game over at halftime). They were better late in the season because that is when they schedule all their garbage games. They were a fumbled snap from tying the USC game and it turned into a 14-point swing. They put a lid on Stanford at the half and Hendrix was moving the ball well. I didn't say they were going to win but ND was competitive in both. And your last sentence is nonsensical. It seemed to me that most of their second half games were their pointless matchups with teams like Navy and Boston College. You claimed they were better late than early but I don't think winning games against ACC also rans means you were playing better.