jersey cubs fan

What an incredibly stupid post. Yeah, when a mediocre lineup is aging it is a problem. When you are loaded with Hall of Famers and keep acquiring new young studs it's not so much of a problem. But seriously, that was a really stupid post.

I really liked Hub when I was a kid, but now I don't listen to a thing that comes out of his mouth. I think it's the earring.

The offense sucked. The offense has sucked for much of the past decade. They had one outlier year in 2008, but other than that this Cubs organization has been horrible at fielding an effective lineup. Their core is quite old, and they have no stud hitting prospects either. It looks like they might be able to get decent production from shortstop in a couple years, but none of the other posiiton prospects are standouts. They need offensive help, and it's not just a matter of getting guys back healthy and performing as their normal self. Alfonso Soriano is going to be 34 years old, he's been injured every year as a Cub and wasn't all that good to begin with. Lee is 34, he's had 2 standout seasons in his career and other than that he's been an okay 1B most of the time and his contract is up this year. Aramis turns 32 next year and he can opt out. He's a really nice bat, but a significant step below the elite hitters. The middle infielders are crap, and the rest of the outfield is in doubt. Fukudome is okay, but he's also turning 33, and his best value is if he's playing CF in comparison to ofther CF, but he's probably going to RF, and who knows who they get to replace Bradley. The offense should not be as bad as last year, but it could still be no better than average, with their best players all approaching their mid 30's. They could fall hard the next couple years.

I think a complete fix of the line has to come through the draft, but scheme and coaching can play a big role in improving things.

I don't see it happening either. I'm guessing Lovie and Jerry get one last chance to make it work with a new OC next season. the problem there is the only kind of system that's easy enough to learn in such short a time is a turner-esque west coast system. Well yeah, it's not an ideal situation. I'd prefer they cut loose everybody and start fresh. But they will feel the need to do something, and the best thing they can do is try and get a guy who can salvage the Cutler experiment. Turner has never develop a top quality QB, college or pro. He's been around for a long time and hasn't done it. Maybe his system is fine, but he can't coach a QB to perform in it. I can't see the Bears giving them another chance to make a move with the defensive coordinator situation. The offense continues to disappoint, as it's been a bottom half squad for nearly every Ron Turner season. In 9 seasons as OC the offense has ranked in the top half only twice, and only once have they been top ten. They have been 20th or worst in most every other season. They've had a consistent lack of ability to move the ball and score points. They have to make some sort of move affecting the offense.

I didn't say he can't, I said I have doubts that he would. He's a defense first guy. And in Pittsburgh he was employed by one of the best organizations that consistently wins and has a strong ownership/front office situation. He's had a couple guys come through his system and branch out, but Pittsburgh always found success because of defense, and they haven't missed a beat since he left. They went through plenty of QB's as well. The Bears are committed to Jay Cutler right now. They have to make it work with him. They have to find somebody who can develop him, and in my opinion that requires a serious offensive mind.

That's nice, but how do you propose accomplishing that one? Their teams aren't exactly giving them away, and neither is a free agent or soon-to-be free agent. If Cabrera is available you look into it because he will likely be the best player they have a chance to acquire and the best player on the team for several years. You don't pass on an impact bat because you have your eyes on a division rival's best player who is 4 seasons away from free agency. If you can get Cabrera now, you have his services now.

He can look, but will he find it? Shanny is kind of old, and he was fired from his last job. This isn't Holmgren leaving GB for Seattle in '98 on his own terms as a 50 year old. His team struggled toward the end and he was canned, and a lot of people have given up on the Coach/GM model. It doesn't tend to work.

I don't see it happening either. I'm guessing Lovie and Jerry get one last chance to make it work with a new OC next season.

Doesn't read like a guy who was sucker punched.

I believe Bolland was expected to miss as much as 4 months. With an early November surgery that would keep him out until March, which might give him a month to get back into playing shape before the playoffs. So, it reads as if he's effectively done for the season. Not to me. It's nearly a 7 month season with another 2 months of playoffs, and the Blackhawks should qualify. He could play 3 more months when he returns. That would mean he missed half the season. Done for the season means he's not playing until next year at the earliest, like Brian Urlacher.

Yeah, his age would be an incredibly unique value if he really becomes available.

Maybe that's a clash that can't work, but Angelo already conceded some personel power to Lovie after the Super Bowl, splitting some of those duties with a head coach is fairly normal, and when one guy has specialized in defense while the other has specialized with offense, it makes perfect sense. I don't see the clash. I doubt it happens for a variety of reasons, but I don't see why it can't work. As for cubbyviruses "ownership committed to winning comment" I don't even know what you are looking for? Words? Do you want a Rickets style press conference where they talk about winning? Are you looking for Jerry Jones style talk? Or maybe Snyder's bluster and reckless spending? The Bears owners committed serious money to many guys. They allowed the team to trade number 1 picks for a franchise QB and freed up money immediately to extend that guy. They've signed several expensive free agents and they haven't lost a single high quality player to free agency due to cheapness. They don't sign the biggest free agent fish out there, but that rarely works anyway. And they don't go after the biggest named coaches, but that's a hit or miss proposal at best anyway. They certainly don't spoil the fans, but their "cheapness" doesn't prevent the team from winning either. I am concerned that they won't make a move with the pending labor dispute on the horizon, but I wouldn't say they are any less committed to winning than any other owners out there. It's not really about ownership commitment. It's about football people making better football decisions and players playing well enough to win. This team has football issues, not ownership issues.

Seriously, try paying attention sometime. Who said be as good as DeRosa? How about be as good as he was in the past. Miles lost 100 points in both OBP and SLG off his career. But his career norms were already a downgrade from DeRosa's career, let alone his time in Chicago. They traded Mark DeRosa and signed his replacement, Aaron Miles, almost simultaneously. He was going to play a lot, likely 400+ PA if he was able to maintain his normal productio and stay healthy. He got hurt and he tanked, so they stopped playing him. But the plan was very obviously to have him be the new super sub guy. Just because you are wrong doesn't mean you have to be a jerk.

That's a really weird post. considering you are comparing him with guys who either already make more than $20m a year, or pre-free agency guys who are going to get huge contracts themselves. How do you propose the Cubs go about acquring these countless other options? There aren't countless options. There's a finite numbers of true impact bats, and the Cubs don't have them and they won't have access to them. I mean I can see not wanting to trade the farm for a guy, but you are acting as though the Cubs have the opportunity to acquire any number of similar players for far less, when they really won't. Maybe one or two will actually hit free agency, but then you're competing with deeper pocketed teams.

But that wasn't the plan. He was hurt and much worse than expected. He was going to play a lot more. Seriously, it's incredibly ridiculous to pretend Miles wasn't brought in to replace DeRosa. He was the super sub that could play OF, and multiple IF positions. He was given a 2 year multi million dollar contract. This team did all it could to not call-up Jake Fox when they needed help at 3rd. Guys like Fuld were not really in the plan. Miles was slated as a guy who was going to play a lot, but he sucked so much worse than they expected that he did not. If he was just mediocre he would have had 400+ easily.

Yeah, I assume the only way Shanahan comes in is if Angelo is gone to. I'd be beyond shocked if that happened. Is this because people assume Shanahan will be his own GM? Didn't he lose GM privileges in Denver? I really don't think there's a strong trend toward letting a new coach come in and be the coach/GM. Is there a coach in the league with that set-up right now? The closest maybe Belichek now that Pioli left, but it's very rare. Everybody's favorite spokesperson for that model, Parcells, isn't even in that situation as he's the head football guy, with a GM working under him and a seperate head coach.

Since nobody else is making the new threads, I'll keep doing it. It's come to this, Bears are 10.5 point underdogs to the Vikings. You can make an argument that the Bears should have won that game against the Eagles, and maybe even by 10 points, given all the sure touchdowns Cutler missed. Maybe Vegas knows them well be now. Chicago has lost 2 in a row by 4 points, and both games they were 3-3.5 point underdogs. The perception has been the Bears are getting their butts kicked, and while that has been true in 2 of their games, for the most part they've been in the other 4 losses, and maybe should have really won a couple of them. I had predicted a series split with the Vikings, losing in the dome. So there's no reason to change that now. The Vikings should really handle the Bears with ease, Maybe they'll get some turnovers, and stay in it early, but I doubt it. The 7th loss should end any and all hopes of making the playoffs, as there are 4 teams ahead of them on the WC hunt, and three of them have 6 wins already. You have to think it will take 10 wins to qualify. It looks to me like the Bears might only have 2 games remaining where they will be the favorites, possibly a 3rd depending on how they and GB do the next two weeks. Go Blackhawks.

Why? It's exactly what they did. They traded one guy then signed his replacement for a little less money. Just because Miles bombed so horrifically bad that they didn't use him as much as planned doesn't mean he was not the replacement for DeRosa. That's what he was and it's idioitic to pretend otherwise. Jake Fox wasn't even in the Effing picture when they made that move.

Cowher might be the least enticing big name out there. The Bears need a true offensive mind and I have serious doubts about Cowher bringing in somebody like that. He's just a hothead defense first guy with questionable game day decision making in his past. So, he's a more intense Lovie.

I believe Bolland was expected to miss as much as 4 months. With an early November surgery that would keep him out until March, which might give him a month to get back into playing shape before the playoffs.

Any team that wears black tops with black pants automatically sucks. No sir. Black on Black is great, especially since the black tops and bottoms both have a lot of yellow and gold in them as well. Now, the Saints all black unis are ugly because they are all black except the little French emblem thing (whatever it's called) and the numbers. It would be hideous if the helmets were black. fleur de lis. Whatever you desire

I don't know what he projected as, but he had 15 HR, and 67 XBH in his first two years compared to 6 and 51 for Starlin, so he was already more powerful.

They get it because they put the effort into doing it, no? It doesn't really bother me. Watching all three games uninterrupted is basically impossible and when Thanksgiving is at the in-laws, far less acceptable than at my family's. So the Lions game provides a decent opportunity to turn away from the TV and talk to people, which in turn makes you look like such a great guy to forego some of your precious football time for things like family. Also, it's great for napping.

I do this all the time, leave your bags at the hotel. Most of them have that option, either with the bellhops or somewhere else. Your night game plan requires a 2-night stay anyway. You can do the day game with a 1 night stay, or just as easily add a 2nd night after the game. And really, what do you think those extra eyeballs are going to do for Northwestern? It's great to get the exposure of a bowl game, but outside the difference of a weedeater bowl vs the rose bowl, I really don't see any advantage to being on one with a slightly larger audience. It can only be a negligible advantage. I really think you're making a mistake by glossing over the "stuck in Orlando" factor. That town sucks.