jersey cubs fan

My issue isn't Cutler learning a new offense. It's more everyone else. If you believe some of the talking heads, Bennett has had issues in the past learning a new offense. Knox has had issues learning the Martz offense. It's pretty clear that the OL had issues with the protection schemes in the Martz offense last year and to start this year. I don't think the other 10 guys on the field (though probably shouldn't include Forte) really can handle another offense, the 3rd in 4 years for most of them. And like the rankings show, a complete revamp probably isn't necessary. I just feel everyone would be best served by not starting from scratch, though the guys on the offense for the most part are young enough to do so and still be in their primes when all systems are clicking. I think "learning the system" is more an excuse for not being good than anything else. How much does a guy like Tice actually offer consistency in terms of scheme? He knows what Martz was doing and obviously he's involved closely. But he's got a history as a tight end and doesn't have much ties to any sort of sophisticated passing game (which is what Martz at least tries to do). I'm not opposed to it necessarily, but I have significant doubts about his ability to get the most value out of Cutler. He's be more about staying the same than taking a step forward.

It's worse, but it doesn't excuse nonsensical statements about "this not being the Tribune money Cubs". Like they were bastions of lavish spending. Again, I wasn't excusing or defending anyone. Okay then, justifying? I'm not sure what word you want to use but Vasgersian's comment displayed a lot of ignorance that a paid baseball follower should not have. It's not even something Mitch Williams would throw out there, and he's an idiot who adds nothing to any conversation he's in instead of some fake football player mentality or something.

Nonsense. I specifically said you don't need to know every in and out, but a very general knowledge of the fact that the Cubs are very clearly willing to spend money is the least you can expect out of these people.

It's worse, but it doesn't excuse nonsensical statements about "this not being the Tribune money Cubs". Like they were bastions of lavish spending.

I certainly think it signifies that Ricketts is willing to spend, but I had my doubts prior to the signing of Theo and co. Ricketts paid an astronomical amount of money to purchase the team, and he inherited a very high payroll (and certainly way more than the production dictates). However, we still don't really know what his ideal operating budget will be. Ricketts paid a hell of a lot less for the team than it was reportedly going to cost. He's not embroiled in the Madoff scandal or going through a divorce that will force the sale of the team. Why would anybody think he's suddenly going to go cheap?

How in the world does Theo have a reputation as a guy who gets players on the cheap? And the Ricketts are not new. They've spent $140m on payroll in back to back years. It's very clear they have a lot of money to spend on payroll and will spend a lot of money on payroll.

I kind of disagree with your statement. When a team is a good puck possession team like the Hawks have been, then you can get by with a (game managing, inning eating) steady goaltender. I think one of the bigger differences between Cup winning Hawks and the current Hawks is their puck possession is not as good, which exposes the goalie more. I do not think any team can get by with a steady goaltender. Philadelphia has shown that though they have skilled offensive players, they are not really good at puck control, so they need a better goaltender to win. So to agree with your statement, yes the Hawks need to be better at puck possession in front of Crawford. Their skill level on the 3rd line is not as good as the Cup team and trading Campbell is going to hurt also. Plus I am not sure that Q is really a puck possession coach. Others have disagreed with my stance on goalies as well. Sure, some teams can't do anything without their goalie, like New Jersey or Buffalo. But having a franchise goalie isn't the same thing has having a franchise QB in football. They just aren't that necessary. They can help a mediocre team stay in contention, but for one thing they come and go. There's very little consistency with the top line goalies. Ryan Miller can go from all world to just another guy in a year. Chicago and Detroit can win cups with nobodies. Khabi and Luongo can go from stopping everything to absolute garbage at times. And Philly struggles from having garbage goalies, not the lack of an elite one.

It's like anything else in sports, obviously there is some semblence of ability and talent there, otherwise they wouldn't be in the NFL. But they are starting a guy like Roy Williams who may be out of football after this season and have some of the worst talent in the league out there. Earl Bennet is a really nice complementary receiver, but he hasn't been healthy enough on a consistent basis to contribute with the QB who really seems to want to throw to him. I don't have a problem with starting from scratch as far as offensive game plans are concerned this offseason. Cutler is established enough at this point where I don't worry about wasting his abilities while he learns a new system. Martz doesn't really have a coaching tree to choose from if you want continuity. I'd prefer the best guy otu there than the best guy to emulate Martz.

Probably just comes down to the fact that (for obvious reasons, of course) the Cubs haven't made any big splashes (up until Theo, at all) player wise under Ricketts. Because the payroll was already $140+ million. Anybody who is paying attention knows the Cubs have a hell of a lot more freed up money today than they have in the first two years of Ricketts ownership. They've already allowed their GM to eat money on Bradley, and then Silva, and appeared very open to the possibility of eating money on Soriano and Zambrano. They've spent big on international/draft, and went big with management. How in the hell does somebody have doubts about whether this ownership group will be willing to spend money? I'm not sure how bolding that defends a professional baseball media member to be clueless about the Cubs.

Probably just comes down to the fact that (for obvious reasons, of course) the Cubs haven't made any big splashes (up until Theo, at all) player wise under Ricketts. And payroll has gone down. Expecting these guys to know exactly how all 30 teams operate isn't all that realistic, IMO. Why? It's all they do. They are professional baseball followers. The Cubs are among the top 5-6 brands/storylines in baseball. Why can't I expect somebody whose job it is to follow MLB to have an accurate description of how the MLB teams operate? I don't expect him to know their minor league system or anything, but absolutely nothing in their 2+ years of ownership indicates a lack of willingness to spend. The Mets and Dodgers are big market teams whose ownership is a complete mess. The Cubs were sold more than 2 years ago to a financially solvent and very rich family that has been open in their discussion about plans. Yet many people lump the Cubs in with those teams who have ownership turmoil. It's nonsense.

You made some good points just now, but this I could not ignore. How is Forte merely a "fine" player? He's more elite than Cutler is, and I'm a very pro-Cutler person. Now I might buy that Cutler is more valuable to his team than Forte is, but that's an entirely different argument. Talent wise....Forte is not elite. Production is clearly elite. He's not super fast (Chris Johnson). He's not super elusive (Jamal Charles). He doesn't run over defenders (Peterson). Not a knock against Forte, because he's had an MVP type year, but I think his success is largely scheme influenced. Any RB with above average talent would be successful in this offense. I agree with your description. I think it's a combination of having above average talent, but also a specialization as a pass catching RB.

Probably just comes down to the fact that (for obvious reasons, of course) the Cubs haven't made any big splashes (up until Theo, at all) player wise under Ricketts. Because the payroll was already $140+ million. Anybody who is paying attention knows the Cubs have a hell of a lot more freed up money today than they have in the first two years of Ricketts ownership. They've already allowed their GM to eat money on Bradley, and then Silva, and appeared very open to the possibility of eating money on Soriano and Zambrano. They've spent big on international/draft, and went big with management. How in the hell does somebody have doubts about whether this ownership group will be willing to spend money?

I assume he said something about at least they could drive up STL's cost for Pujols.

I watched a couple minutes of the hot stove show last night while they talked Pujols/Fielder. The focus was on Seattle probably not being a realistic destination for Fielder and Washington being a legit spender this offseason. But they also talked about the Cubs and for one of the few times this offseason media people talked about how much sense it makes for the Cubs to sign one of these guys. But it was all the analyst types making those statements (plus Peter Gammons actually), while Matt Vasgersian went with a new one, saying "this isn't the Tribune money Cubs, we still have no idea how this new ownership group of the Ricketts family will spend money." The Ricketts family was chosen as the buyers nearly three years ago now. They've been in control for more than 2 years. They have made it clear at every opportunity that they are willing to spend and spend big. Why are people who get paid to talk about this sport so freaking clueless?

Yes, they are different situation, but Fielder/Pujols are much better than anything the Cubs added that year. And while you did have core hitters to build around, you also had black holes at SS and CF to worry about. Those Cubs didn't have anybody like Starlin Castro on the squad poised for a breakout. And it's not like that 2007 squad was all that special. They still ended up no better than average at best on offense, being weighted down by a lack of power and patience (they ranked 15th in walks and 11th in HR, and were 8th in OPS). I don't think it will be hard for the Cubs to construct an average lineup, or better, following the addition of a stud 1B.

On the contrary, that could easily be information you purposefully want out there. You are telling the player not to accept, and it is in his agent's best interest to keep the Cubs 1B position open while other bidding wars go on. Boras wants to find him a bigger deal, Pena wants a bigger deal, the Cubs want a better 1b. There's not much benefit, if any, to keeping that information secret.

Yeah, my guess is it works fine at the start, but between Bobby's style and how Boston's management does things, it will end badly. Then again, most managerial stints end badly, or they wouldn't end.

It seems like Crawford is suffering the same thing that plagued Hjalmerson last year: after signing the big contract he started trying to do too much and got away from what he does well that got him the big contract in the first place. At what point should we start worrying that Crawford was a flash in the pan? Not yet but a couple more weeks of erractic play and the panic button will start glowing red. The goalie position is overrated in hockey. They just need a stable guy back there. The rest of the teams' struggles are much more concerning to me. If they start playing better, he will start looking better.

I've been a nominal supporter of Martz from before they hired him. They needed an actual NFL caliber offensive coach, and he was/is one. I do not blame him for the garbage talent they have on offense (at receiver and line), and I think raw grossly overstates what he's had to work with. But he did run a quality tight end out of town and he has not maximized the talent of the players he does have. I do not like a coach that needs players to fit his system and refuses to tweak his system to fit the players. Martz was never going to be a longterm solution to the position. He was always going to be in-line for some head coaching position, and I think that college would be perfect for him. Martz stabilized the offense, but they will need somebody else to allow it to grow and actually get the most out of Cutler.

Sitting through 3-4 games like that a year is absolutely worth not playing under one the other 78 games a year. I'm thinking a retractable roof, which wouldn't be up the other 78 games of the year. If you only used it when the weather was inclement, I'd have zero problem with it. But since the Cubs aren't moving to the burbs and no one will be dropping a roof on Wrigley, it's all hypothetical anyway. And it's colder than well digger's ass at Wrigley way more than 3-4 games a year, BTW. A retractable roof doesn't just disappear when open.

Sitting through 3-4 games like that a year is absolutely worth not playing under one the other 78 games a year.

I've always been skeptical of the notion that Greg was a great teacher who could help guys just from being around them. It's rare for an elite player to translate what he was able to do into an equally successful coaching gig.

And you want to build a $1.2 billion stadium in the suburbs with a retractable roof to combat the handful of people that don't show up to a couple bad weather games? It's not going to happen, nor should it happen, so leave it be.

It would be nice to upgrade from Martz but I absolutely have no faith in Angelo/Lovie hiring a better offensive coach.

There really aren't. A suburban stadium is a horrible idea and not a real option.