jersey cubs fan

You aren't even coming close to addressing the topic that is being discussed.

You are a horrible person.

When he's on he's alright? He's not Martin Brodeur, but he's a good goalie. I really don't get all the constant concern about Huet.

I really think you are overstating their bargain shopper reputation. They just signed a $5m/year OT last offseason (plus 2 more guys to substantial money), and that is hardly a bargain. They traded 2 1s for a franchise QB and extended him in the same offseason. They traded for Ogunleye when he was a holdout for more money and signed him. They overpaid big for Tait, paid Miller a lot, gave Muhsin a big contract, etc. They aren't the Redskins, but they aren't bargain shoppers. New England and Philly are big bottom shoppers than the Bears. Chicago doesn't even let their guys go as often as most other teams.

How do results speak for themselves. The Cubs have been a good pitching team for 10 years. If what they are doing is wrong, that shouldn't be true.

Your faith is not very enduring.

Why did you earlier say that field turf is a detraction? Aren't some of those cities named turf stadiums?

And it's probably going to get worse as more people get to look at it. It's a gimmick system that kills quarterbacks, and modern football is a quarterback's sport. It's also incredibly dull.

This is the answer. There wouldn't have been enough room for the FIFA reg'd field dimensions, signage and photogs. In 1994 FIFA let us cut corners on the stadia for the sake of market penetration. No reason to do it this time. Also, the fact that the Park District was considering putting field turf onto the surface, and I can see why we were left out. KC was added due to Lamar Hunt's lingering influence on the USSF. What about the Chicago Fire stadium in Bridgeview? I'm sure that's way below capacity.

Yes, this is true, but it doesn't negate the point that the Cubs are in a worse situation because they have huge terrible contract and some really big not terrible but not good contracts and some small but bothersome contracts and they aren't that good to begin with and they have exactly zero impact young cheap players.

I think he is a relatively intelligent douchebag.

I just hate the option. It's so dull and unimaginative.

How and why? All sorts of really good players have had other players where their numbers after they are done playing for a team.

But the point is the Cubs have it worse than most in regards to this issue.

Why? Forget for a moment that the whole number retirement thing is stupid, but it never happens immediately. Usually it waits until after a guy is inducted in the Hall. Why does it have to happen right away? Why does a guy need his number retired at all?

They don't have to individually be huge terrible contracts to put the team in a tight spot. You add Soriano, Zambrano and Dempster together and that is a really large amount of money to have guaranteed for three seasons from now to just three guys, none of them stars, and all of them questionable in their own way. People have brought up the Yankees, but that is a team that can literally fit any contract, and they have stars under longterm deals, and have constantly had a ton of cashing coming off the books to make acquisitions possible. There's really no point in comparing the two. The Cubs operate in a budget, a higher budget than most, but still a budget. They have to make choices on guys, and they have too much money tied into too few guys for too long. Somebody can make it work, but for a team that has a distinct financial advantage over the competition, this seriously erodes that advantage. If they spend $30m more than the next guy, and have $50m tied up in Soriano, Dempster and Zambrano for 2012, and get something short of really good performance out of them, that is going to hurt regardless of how creative the next guy is. This team has averaged just 88 wins the past three years with those guys in key roles. You are going to have to spend a lot of money in the next couple years just to maintain the level of skill, let alone get better, which should be the goal.

Not personally, but he has ordered the hits.

And Dempster and Zambrano, and Byrd. Still a fairly significant amount. The problem is they have guys signed longterm, but not their best players. Ramirez and Lee are going to be gone or have big deals of their own. It's not an inescapable hell, but it's a really big problem, that is going to take work to avoid.

I said I didn't mind "losing" Fewell, and you said I'm suggesting this means they will luck into a better candidate and that it's possible the defense would get worse.

I'm not suggesting that, what I was saying is that a Lovie disciple was not likely to fix this Lovie defense which has failed miserably for three years. 2010 depends on the OC and Jay Cutler. They cannot rely on the defense to make a difference. The defense could most definitely sink far enough that Jay and the OC can't overcome it. And the search for OC isn't going all that well either. I guess you just aren't going to read what I wrote.

I'm not suggesting that, what I was saying is that a Lovie disciple was not likely to fix this Lovie defense which has failed miserably for three years. 2010 depends on the OC and Jay Cutler. They cannot rely on the defense to make a difference.

You have to think that Lovie's lame duck status is a factor in all these guys passing on the Bears. I am not disappointed. And quite honestly, this might actually make Lovie consider a gig like UT a little more (although it remains a very unlikely scenario). I never thought for a second that a guy like Fewell would make any difference in 2010.

I'm not sure how or why you can't count guys. Lovie was a college coach as well. In addition to Saban, Bobby Petrino quit and went back to college. Al Groh resigned from the Jets to take the Virginia job, and he was a pro guy for a decade before going back. Pete Carrol went from NFL assistant, to NFL head coach, back to NFL assistant and then chose college. Lane Kiffin went from college to Pro and college. Spurrier quit the Redskins. Butch Davis went back and forth between the NFL and college, and he resigned (albeit forced) from Cleveland before going back to college. It might be odd to find a guy to leave his current gig and go back to college, but coaches go back to college all the time, and it's not unheard of for them to leave gigs on their own. Dennis Erickson has gone back and forth multiple times. Mike Sherman has gone back. Good ole' Lou Holtz quit the Jets after less than a full season. It happens all the time. Guys get fired or quit NFL gigs and take college jobs.

I'm not sure how much Lovie is getting with the Bears, but from what I've heard, Tennessee is willing to pay $3+ million to the new head coach. Lovie would be interesting, but much like with Gruden or Cowher, I'd wonder about his adjustment to the college game (especially recruiting). He does seem to have the teaching mindset, though, that would be important in college. Everything I've read says they owe him $11m over 2 years. And in his mind, he might believe that a solid 2010 season could put him in-line for a contract extension in Chicago after the season, assuming they won't go into a 2011 season in the last year of a deal. So he's owed $11m with hopes for another $5+m added on for an extra year if 2010 is a success. I can't imagine the Bears paying much in a buyout if Lovie wants to leave. They made it clear they want to go into 2010 with him, so if he leaves, he's leaving that money on the table, or at least the vast majority of it. They might be happy to see him walk, but they would have to then send Jerry and Ted on another coach finding mission, which could wind up costing more this year and next (all the coaches signed through next season would be on the hot seat for being replaced with the theoretical new guy).

If that level of performance has already been pulled from one's rectum, presumably there would be no need to remove it a second time. If it happens again it probably was never in there in the first place.