jersey cubs fan

He tweeted later: Saying the Bears aren't "anything spectacular" and that you only like one player from the D-line is pretty much taking a shot at the Bears there guy. You may well be right, but don't try to back off it. There's no "may" about it. He's absolutely right. This defense sucks. There isn't a quality lineman in the group, and Briggs has disappeared with Urlacher gone.

Why do you wish that? And it's not cutting your losses when you actually decide to make things worse. Obviously the prevailing view within the organization is that getting rid of Bradley's attitude/baggage/etc will make things better, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion. Okay, so the Bears are in the process of making a bad move because they are influenced by piss-poor logic. Why do you wish fans just accept that?

Why do you wish that? And it's not cutting your losses when you actually decide to make things worse.

The issue has been raised, with Hendry saying guys in worse situations have returned and Billy Williams saying he will keep working with Bradley and thinks he can still return and contribute to the team. The beat writers have pointed out that some players supposedly cheered upon hearing that Bradley was suspended and that there is very little chance of fences being mended. Hendry has to be willing to walk away from these trade negotiations if the terms remains so pathetic. Hopefully he is willing, but I'm not sure.

I never knew it changed from the original discussion. You can talk up Bradley all you want, but the damage is done. Lots of people were adamant that they could trade him with minimal financial loss and significant talent return.

That is a possibility, however, the Cubs are notoriously short-sighted and schizo with guys. They knew Bradley was a combustible nut job with inconsistent productivity and health concerns. and after one year of him doing almost exactly what many thought he'd do, they are trying to get rid of him. When they acquired Harden they acknowled he need to be treated cautiously, given extra rest between starts, and for the most part they did that in 2008. Then, in 2009, they throw all that out the window and expect him to be an every 5th day pitcher, and seemingly sour on him when that doesn't turn out to be a good idea. They gave up on Pie in a heartbeat, introduced Patterson to the public as a middle of the order hitter then allowed a bad manager to try and turn him into a slappy Otis Nixon wannabe. They change their minds and give up on guys really quickly when they don't fit into whatever flavor of the month "need" they feel they have to fill. It's possible they know Harden's shoulder is worse than it looks, but it's also entirely possible that they just don't want a guy who is guaranteed to not give you 33 starts and 200 innings, even though that's exactly what they knew they were getting when they traded for him.

You are confusing people criticizing him no matter what he does, and every deal having a critic. He's going to take heat on every move he makes because people have a wide variety of opinions, and therefore there is always going to be somebody who dislikes a move.

You dismiss the age difference way too quickly. He's 4 years younger. Hoff has already seen his prime, Hermida is just entering it. When Micah was Hermida's age, he was going through his first abysmal season of AAA. It's a pretty big difference. Fair enough. So replace Hoffpauir with Snyder. The point is that unless he has a breakout year, Hermida is not that much better than other in house insurance policies. I think you'd agree that the Cubs need more than insurance, they need a starter they can count on. Have you bothered to look at his home and away splits? Usually I don't, but his home field is one of those outliers that actually make splits something meaningful to look at. At home he's nothing to write home about. Away from home and he's pretty damn good for a guy under 25. Home: .253/.328/.393/.721 Away: .276/.359/.456/.815 He's an unpolished gemstone. I agree, but those away numbers have declined since his "breakout" season. I'm not advocating the Cubs getting him as their number 1 target, I'm just saying his circumstances are much different than Micah.

You dismiss the age difference way too quickly. He's 4 years younger. Hoff has already seen his prime, Hermida is just entering it. When Micah was Hermida's age, he was going through his first abysmal season of AAA. It's a pretty big difference.

Anyone who makes a big deal about anyone getting caught with weed deserves scorn, regardless of the race of the person that got caught. If you are making a big deal about the weed alone, I agree, but if getting caught puts that person's availability in peril somehow whether it be by league suspension or jail, or especially if the weed was being used before or during driving, then there's absolutely nothing wrong with laying on the criticism.

With Johnson, Fuld, Fox, Hoffpauir, and Snyder manning RF, we probably won't need a midseason trade because we'll be out of contention. Any of those guys might do a decent job for a week or two, but not on a regular basis. Yeah, not only are those guys in no way shape or form a 3rd OF, but the first half of the season does count. You don't purposefully go into a season with a weak position you plan on fixing later. 2/3 of the season is done by the time the trading deadline approaches. If you spend 2/3 of the season with such incompetence in the everyday lineup you're deliberately sabotaging your season.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNmPybFK2_o&feature=player_embedded

http://blogs.dailyherald.com/node/2863 Bruce says Cubs must consider Harden. He talks about the current uncertainty of the rotation and adds:

Last year was odd. It was the middle of the financial meltdown and nobody had any idea how the recession would affect ticket sales. Seemingly only the Cubs and Yankees were signing guys. If trading Bradley is the big move of the offseason, and it takes place in February, it could mean this team does nothing to get better in 2009 and actually takes a step back. I'd rather he get the best deal he can, but I'd also rather it get done before free agency (unless Ricketts says, "F it, go get what you want and we'll deal with Bradley later'.)

The Cubs best pitcher had shoulder surgery. It is a big deal.

Last year's option was Samardzija, Marshall and Wells. I'm not sure how these options are better. And they are going into it with a lesser staff (injured Lilly and likely no Harden). "The past" extends beyond last year, Literal Lamont. I do not understand why you're responding to me like I'm saying this is a good thing. I never said this wouldn't be a lesser staff: that's obvious to anyone with an iota of common sense. I'm not. All I pointed out is that with the backup options the Cubs have there's a huge middle ground between "OK, this can work" and "holy crap, this team is going down in flames." I simply don't agree with the idea that they're automatically [expletive] if Lilly starts late. Okay but you weren't responding to somebody who said everything automatically goes to [expletive] if Lilly starts late. hyperbolic harry Samardzija, Marshall, Gorzo, while they are already counting on Wells and apparantly letting Harden walk is really disappointing. It would not be a happy way to go into a season. And I would never assume a 30-something pitcher coming off shoulder surgery is great bet to come back strong at the earliest timetable. I would expect delays at this point.

I don't see how that could be a bad thing. Hendry's already telegraphed that he wants Bradley gone at any cost. I don't also want him jumping at the first offer he gets. It's a bad thing because it leaves the team unable to make other moves before this one is made and they know what they are left with, and at that time the good players are gone and most teams have made the trades/signings they want. That could leave them in a situation where all they do is dump Bradley and sign a hitting coach, while resigning a mediocre reliever of their own, and maybe acquire some other bench schmuck. 2005 sucked, in part because the 2004/2005 offseason was all about dumping Sosa and that didn't happen until February.

I had myself convinced that this Bradley situation would be resolved immediately after the WS -- like today or tomorrow. Today doesn't look likely. For the first time in a long time I heard Mike and Mike this morning and Buster Olney was on and supposedly getting a bunch of texts about a developing deal and I was thinking it was Bradley.

Well at least we know Hendry never gets over excited about intangibles like WS experience, or left handed leadoff ability. And he never overpays for free agents.

What about Nomar? Hanley/Jeter/Arod are 70-90 walk type guys. Castro has about as many walks in 2 seasons as Hanley had each year in the minors. Jeter drew 58 walks at 19 in A ball. Arod was in the majors.

I'm penciling him in as an average starter. If they can get a good 6 years of cost effective averageness out of SS that would be pretty big.

I'd bet he stays in NY anyway.

I'd only be strongly in favor of getting rid of him if he insists on bringing back the same offensive coaches.

I get that, but my complaint was with the media types who are absolutely apoplectic if the topic of Lovie's job security comes up. They just keep repeating winningest NFC coach since 2005 besides Coughlin. It makes no sense. He's been here 5.5 years, they have 2 playoff appearances, are 2-2 (including 2 embarrassing defeats) and haven't been there since 2006. The topic is worth discussion. Will the Bears pull the trigger? My guess is only if they completely fall apart and somehow lose 10 games. But 7-9, 8-8 should at least make them consider it. But should a media member scoff at the notion that it should be discussed? Absolutely not.

I'm still down on the Bears. They need to win 10 games this year to not be a disappointment and they absolutely have to win this game to accomplish that. They can win it, but I have no idea if they will. If they came up short again this year, 3 straight non-playoff years, Lovie's job has to be on the line. I'm not going to waste time getting into those reasons, but I want to bitch at all those horrible Chicago Tribune Live morons who cannot fathom how somebody could possibly think that Lovie should be on the hot seat. They keep spouting off the nonsensical note that Lovie is the winningest coach in the NFC outside of Coughlin since 2005. Who cares? First off, Lovie has been the coach since 2004, when his team won 5 games. Why do they ignore that and only talk about 2005 and beyond. Second of all, some coaches weren't around then, which means they can't beat Lovie's totals, even if Dallas has more wins as an organization. And it ignores Andy Reid whose team has been much more successful than the Bears this decade, and have won several more games than Lovie's teams since Smith took the job. And that doesn't even count the 10 playoff wins Reid has, or the 5-3 playoff record since Lovie took the job. And to top it off, it ignores all the AFC teams with better success. Why the hell is Lovie's win total minus his worst season in comparison to other coaches who have been coaching since that time the reason you can't discuss getting a new coach? The biggest portion of that success was amassed in 2005/2006, we might be going on 3 straight disappointing. Why can't an NFL coach's job be up for discussion under that scenario?