jersey cubs fan

Even beyond the "access" question, if you break the news of an alleged affair without any apparant incentive or other story making that story newsworthy, then you are forever more the guy who tells on your for banging chicks that aren't your wife.

Teams turn their record around in one year all the time. it's not impossible by any stretch. And often times it's the result of a coaching overhaul. Good teams that have one bad season can turn their record around in one year under the same coach, but when you have three straight years of mediocrity and decline and keep the same group in charge (and don't have a first day draft choice) the chance for a one year turnaround is lessened. Pittsburgh bounced back from a 6 win season to go 15-1, but they were a double digit win team in the two previous years and got a new QB. They bounced back from one disappointing 8-8 year but that was after two more double digit win seasons and a coaching change (not to mention partially caused by their QB going through a windshield). Philly is sort of the model for bouncing back from disappointing seasons while maintaining continuity with the coach, but their struggles often depend on McNabb's health. The Bears have been bad offensively and defensively for three year's now, and they don't have a day one draft choice. I don't see a quick turnaround coming with the same coaching staff.

It's tough, but if they can get to work on it right away, it can work. Presumably any new OC would have more time to work with Jay Cutler than Turner did, since the trade didn't happen until April. I do think it's a big risk and and unlikely to work for 2010 though.

They shouldn't care, considering several teams are handing out 10+ year contracts. Plus, the Hossa "problem" was different than just being longterm.

I did watch it, and in it he referred to the incident as a minor traffic accident in front of the guy's own house, acting as though it was something much less than what it really was. And it was just a bunch of blurbs from the media. It was pointless. It can be funny sometimes to take one second shots of every news organization saying the same thing, or saying something weird, but that was all they did and it was a really lame bit. I don't see how what they did portrays any sort of problem.

What is idiotic about that?

I think people like Jon Stewart sound like idiots when they say something like this. It very clearly wasn't a low speed zero casualty car crash. The dude was clearly attacked by his wife with a golf club because she was livid that he was banging other chicks. Throw out the celebrity status and this story will make the news nearly any day of the week, especially a slow news day like Black Friday. There's a bajillion stations dedicated to telling news 24 hours a day, and several news programs morning day and night on other channels. There is all sorts of airtime to fill and not nearly enough news. Some will say things like "why not report on the economy or the war or climate change", which is just downright stupid since all of these stories are already talked about all the freaking time. There's absolutely nothing wrong with news organizations talking about this story. It's a billion dollar man who is the spokesperson for hundreds of billion dollars worth of companies who has always portrayed himself as an upright boring family man. It's a story, the fact that people are reporting on it is not a story.

Well what's the point of telling people, I knew all about this the entire time? What's the point of trying to paint yourself as some pulitzer winner for having the courage to report the story that the Enquirer is running with? The fight is news, the crash is news, the fact that you knew Tiger was cheating the whole time and didn't say anything, that's just masturbatory. I don't know about that. I guess it depends on how it's portrayed, and I'm not sure what the specific example was that started this discussion. But a media member saying, "I was aware before but kept my mouth shut" isn't necessarily masturbatory.

No. I'd bet 7-9 keeps him here for another year, and then 6-10 is up in the air. I guess that makes sense since 7-9 means that they beat the Packers or a disinterested Vikings team. But they have to at least fire Turner and also bring in a new defensive coordinator. If that happens I can live with another year of Lovie at the helm. I can "live" with it, only because I don't want to die. But I am so sick of Lovie's cowardly decision making and the horrible coaching on this team. 8-8 might give me some hope that they can fix things, but I don't see it. I just don't see how they can keep tweaking things like coordinators but keep the men in charge. People forget this but Lovie's already had 2 offensive coordinators. He started with Terry Shea, then went to Turner. He's had 3 defensive coordinators, Rivera, Babich and himself, and the defense has just gotten worse. He was given greater personel authority after 2006, and personel just got weaker. He already had to demote his buddy and take over the D coordinator spot, which should have been the "last chance" option for him to save his job. What more can you do? If he keeps taking these hits, but remains the head coach, how does he maintain credibility? I think he's already lost it. Players talk about their respect for the guy, but I think it's much more clear that they like him and appreciate his easy going ways, but their lack of effort displays something other than respect. Coaches who keep getting demerits and power taken away from them will always lose the team. I think you have to cut him lose or keep the status quo. And status quo can't work.

Ive always been a fan of Polanco and his oddly shaped cranium, but 3/18mil? Even if he wasnt 34 years old, that would sound like a lot for him. I guess Ibanez worked out for them so who knows. All I know is if This were the Cubs, there would be people with torches and pitchforks outside Hednrys door. That sure seems like a good deal for Polanco. That does not seem like a good deal to me, but I'm guessing that means he will be their starting 3B. Also, "if this were the Cubs" and the Cubs were 1 year removed from a World Series title and one month removed from another NL pennant, I don't think many people would have room to freak out with pitchforks.

There never have been any legit excuses. Hendry has been in this organization for a decade and a half, he had a major input on every team of this decade, and he's had the backing and support of owners, including ever increasing payrolls while many teams were flat or even declining. If there was a lack of young talent in the organization before, Hendry shares the blame. If there were missteps in the past, Hendry played a large part in that. He has been here forever and his teams have been major disappointments. This offseason isn't going to make or break him. He may stay or he may go, but Hendry has solidified his legacy, of extremely expensive mediocrity and occassional moderate success, and that won't change with this offseason.

As ugly as the tackles have looked at times, I think the biggest weakness is in the middle. Kreutz stinks and needs to be cut. And they need upgrades at guard. I think they have the bodies to get the job done on the outside, but the guards can't run block worth a crap, and they are getting destroyed in passing situations. There is no pocket. Jay can't step up, he has to step on an angle every time to avoid the ends while at the same time avoiding a tackle or blitzing linebacker coming up the middle.

No. I'd bet 7-9 keeps him here for another year, and then 6-10 is up in the air.

I can't really blame media members for not reporting on Tiger's affairs earlier, and then being more than happy to spill now. Once it gets to the point where the story is out there, and Tiger's wife attacks him and he ends up in the hospital, they should be free to report it, because it absolutely is a story. And all this talk about privacy is bunk. If you choose to make your living as a spokesperson, getting paid to tell people to buy products because you personally think they are quality products and use them, well then you are inviting people into your personal life, as you are selling yourself. You aren't a private citizen, you've given up the security of privacy for a hefty paycheck. It was your own choice. You can be a pro athlete, and pro athlete only, making millions while retaining a reasonable amount of privacy. But when you begin to sell yourself, you've surrendered a great deal of that privacy. And once your affairs get in the open and you wind up in a hospital because your wife attacked you, all bets are off.

We've been through this before. Just because the phenomenon we're discussing cannot be distilled down to a column on fangraphs (Attitude WARP? Personality WARP?) doesn't disprove its existence/importance. Neither does it prove it. There's no logical explanation how it can/has/does have an effect, so until somebody comes up with one the only reasonable assumption is that it's pointless.

What I want to know is if Elin will ever appear green side for another tournament, because that will be highly viewed television.

No it's not. They've already come out and said they are sticking by him. He's still a meal ticket. MJ wasn't even playing anymore when his marriage fell apart and that really didn't hurt him. This isn't going to damage Tiger at all.

Or wait until your ready to make a lifetime commitment to someone. Obviously he wasn't. Has nothing to do with her being hot or he being rich and famous. He being rich and famous has a lot to do with it. He may have been truly in love and felt he was ready for a lifetime commitment, but pro athletes really need to wait, at least until they are out of their prime earnings years and/or out of their 20's. It's all well and good to talk about a committment, but a guy on the road with money is going to get hounded by extremely attractive women. I'm sure he's turned down about 100 times more than he's ended up with, but it only takes one, and it happens.

I don't even get what the point is in trying to determine what is theoretically holding down his value. Even if it is the "attitude thing" that doesn't support any notion that Bradley's attitude actually has a negative effect on how a team plays on the field.

There really isn't any clarification needed. I said it would be nice to upgrade from Zambrano to Halladay while at the same time maintaining your net quantity of prospects, because you help the team in the short-term but maintain the longterm help that is required to replace the agining core of the team, Lee, Ramirez, Soriano, Fukudome, Lilly, Dempster. I'm not advocating for any move. I don't see anything of the sort happening. I was pointing out that Halladay is better than Zambrano, and while he's older, that's not much of a factor since Zambrano's relatively young age is offset by all the negative aspects.

Halladay is clearly the better pitcher, but we don't need to do this. We have plenty of prospects, that's not the problem. We may have the prospects, but we also need them. This team will need an influx of young talent to makeup for the inevitable decline and departure of the core of this team, which is already too old. If you can keep your overall prospect balance constant, or near constant, while upgrading your veteran pitching situation, that would be pretty nice. So are the Cubs "already too old", or do they need to "upgrade (their) veteran pitching situation" by swapping a 28YO for a 32YO? You'll get no argument from me that Halladay > Zambrano, but if you're truly concerned about the age of the team, then this is a big step in the wrong direction. It's increasing the age at one spot, but maintaining the prospects. Zambrano isn't young. He's got a lot of miles on his arm and has shown signs of serious wear and tear. Halladay has been a much more stable and effective pitcher. That's not a big step in the wrong direction at all. Halladay is better now and likely to be better for a few years. You upgrade the team, but at the same time you don't trade away prospects, or at least you don't take a significant net hit in prospects. I see no way this actually happens, but it would be a good thing for the Cubs if it could. The advantage of having prospects around to replace the older core is they are cheaper to employ, have room for upside, and presumably have a much larger window of time where they can be useful. Zambrano is already ridiculously expensive, he's shown a likelihood of already having passed his prime and settling into a lesser pitcher, and he may or may not have a lot of years ahead of him. Swapping him for Halladay doesn't really have any negative repercussions on the age of the core.

No, but they don't lose their free agents either, and very few teams do spend huge on free agency. Chicago paid heavily for Tait and Muhammed, they stepped up for Ogunleye when he was holding out, they paid Urlacher and Briggs when most teams would let one walk. The reputation is left over from the Halas era, and the end of the Ditka era, when he blamed it all on cheapness. This organization doesn't have great owners, but in a salary cap game, there's very little an owner can do to make a positive difference.

Not forever, no, but some coaches are still staying a long time. Ferentz has been at Iowa for 11 years and counting. Greg Schiano has been at Rutgers forever. How long has Mack Brown been at Texas? Pete Carroll has been there for a decade. Bowden just retired, Paterno is still at PSU. College football head coach is a fantastic longterm gig. There are only a handful of places were a lack of NC will actually doom you to being fired, and there are countless places where sustained success is good enough to keep you raking in the dough.

Chris Williams is playing left tackle is practice.

Everybody makes the claim but the evidence does not support the notion that the Bears are a cheap organization. They spend money, they spent too much money on Lovie and Angelo which is part of the problem, and they don't lose their players.