jersey cubs fan

Perhaps that's not all that's wrong with your deals.

That 82 OPS+ is actually pretty impressive for a toddler. Not in comparison to his 120 as a fetus. Blatant steroid use involved here.

Not all bad contracts are created equal. GMJ is owed a little more money, is three years old, and a much worse baseball player. Bradley disappointed people with an OPS+ of 101, GMJ was at 82 this year. For their careers GMJ has a line of .258/.333/.408 while Milton has a .277/.371/.450. The Cubs would be getting considerably worse, and spending a little more money to do it. Why in the world would we even consider it?

That's over-thinking it, to my mind. I don't think Q calling that timeout cemented in the guys' heads that they were [expletive] if they didn't score. It said they had a golden opportunity to take a two-goal lead and it was worth the extra time to draw something up. Now, that said, I disagree with Q calling the TO there because it gave Detroit's PK'ers a breather. Q calling the timeout was overthinking.

The Vikings aren't going to be THAT good. They'll lose some games to teams they shouldn't. Agree. Minnesota was going to roll early this season, especially with their legal system coming to the defense of their players. Favre doesn't have 16 quality games in him. And Peterson is a fumbling machine. They are going to lose a couple heartbreakers on top of the just the games they are likely to lose. By the time they see Chicago the first time, Favre will already be slipping. This is all going according to script. Let's enjoy.

So in my completely novice hockey strategy mind, I saw Q's timeout during the 5 on 3 as an unnecessary panic move. It was basically telling the team, if we don't score here we are doomed. What is the point of putting that much pressure on yourself for a 5 on 3? Sure, it sucks not to score on one, but I'd rather just not score and go on than call a timeout, adding extra emphasis on how screwed we are if we don't score, and then not score.

It won't be hard if they eat most of the money. But some people are suggesting it won't be hard to move him without eating money. Those are very different things. I'm sure reality is probably somewhere in between. They'll probably end eating half of it or something, unless they just take a bad contract in exchange (or some garbage prospects). And if you ask me, either of those scenarios are bad, so even if it's "easy" to do, the lack of gettiing quality value for the asset means it was hard to make a good move.

agreed, which is why he's being suspended from playing football instead of going to jail for a long time. what punishment do you think is appropriate for lying to the ncaa? How long is the punishment? The NCAA is notorious for screwing people over for relatively minor mistakes, I wouldn't entirely blame a kid for lying about something he might have thought could land him in a heap of trouble. I don't necessarily have a problem with them punishing the guy, but is he suspended for the season or something? That would be nuts.

I don't know, I don't see this fellow they got as being particularly desirable to anyone. And I doubt Johnson was much of a cap hit. Looking forward to the game tonight. I don't care what happened last spring. DETROIT (still) SUCKS! The maneuvering may not necessarily be about acquiring somebody another team would want, but rather acquiring somebody you wouldn't mind using in replace of whomever gets traded.

It won't be hard if they eat most of the money. But some people are suggesting it won't be hard to move him without eating money. Those are very different things.

Yeah, but with Bradley ready to be traded for pennies on the dollar, there's more money not available to upgrade the offense. I'm of the mind that there won't be a big bump in payroll next year, and with the limited flexibility because of existing contracts, not offering Harden arb is the most concrete way to add some maneuverability. Figure that if the Cubs pick up (liberal estimate) eight million of Bradley's 2010 contact along with ditching Harden, that potentially opens up $12 million. However, with salary increases for remaining players, it could drop that number significantly. When they end up with a rotation of Lilly, Zambrano, Dempster and 2 of Wells, Marshall, Gorzo and Shark, the moderate jump in offense they get with whoever replaces Bradley (actually they probably won't get a bump) won't matter.

I don't see Ricketts interfering with a baseball decision like this. Maybe he'd add enough payroll to make it less of a risk in Hendry's mind, but I'm sure Hendry has a pretty good idea what Ricketts is going to offer up as a budget.

Interesting the drama behind it, I guess, but the fact is we had a surplus on defense and Brent Sopel is better than Aaron Johnson. Which isn't saying much for AJ. I was under the impression they were very deep at forward and if they needed anything it was defensemen.

There are absolutely reasons why they shouldn't offer him arbitration. I happen to think the reward is greater than the risk (because I think the risk is pretty low of him accepting), but there is definitely risk involved and potentially serious risk. Risk isn't a reason not to offer arbitration. There's risk in every contract you hand out. One year of maybe $10m is not that much risk in the grand scheme of things. And the potential reward is much higher.

The jury is not out, they were very clearly a fluke super bowl team. They were 9-7, outscoring their opponents by 1 point, and they have a 38 year old inconsistent QB. They aren't a young team putting it together, they are a mediocre team with the ability to put a bunch of points on the board at times.

Because they should have all gotten into their delorians to see what happened in the future, duh! The day Dusty Baker signed up for the Cubs that future was decided.

Yes, but like my 12 year old cousin, if the ball stays in the air until it reaches the infielders, for Miles that's considered a line drive. No matter how soft it was hit.

I'd like to see that, but I don't think they have the personel. I don't think either of those guys would be effective at all dropping back. It's not about being effective. They just have to cover their area and cut off a passing lane. Both being 6'5" and the two most athletic DL on the team, makes them the most likely candidates. They still have to do more than just back up though. I don't think they are nearly as athetlic as the type of 3-4 ends that typically run that sort of zone blitzing scheme.

As a directional kicker and not a big boomer, he probably has a small margin of error between great kicks and shanks.

Yeah...as good as Hester was...you have to think Toub had a lot to do with the 06 season. Manning led the league in yards per return last year and Knox is doing the same thing so far this season. He's definitely doing something right. The Bears have generally been excellent in all areas of special teams too including punt and kick coverage so I think he has to get a lot of credit. I've been critical of Maynard but the numbers disagree with me. Why critical of Maynard? He's only really had the one bad punt that I can think of (the shank against Seattle). I thought he was bad a couple years ago, but he's generally been a really good punter.

Haha. I guess I can see where Turner might have the inspiration to use the pass more with a QB he can trust to make good decisions and actually make the plays happen. What's weird though is Rex Grossman certainly sent the ball 20+ yards down the field more often than Cutler has been so far. Is it because Berrian could get open better than Hester and Knox? Or does Turner feel that Hester and Knox have better potential after the catch over running deep patterns and catching the ball over their shoulders? There has only been one lengthy connection and that was to Knox in game 1. Everything else has been possession type throws. Maybe Lovie is open to a more pass friendly attack as long as they are passes that they don't create turnovers. Sort of a smash mouth, in your face, clock gobbling short passing game. Bennet caught some passes that were somewhat lengthy. I think a lot of it has to do with the lack of pass blocking. They aren't going to the really deep drop because they are old on the left side and inexperienced on the right. They don't really have the time to prepare for those big 40+ yards in the air throws. But they are fine with the intermediate stuff, and that is where your bread is buttered.

Bears in a landslide. They haven't even attempted to establish the run. I guess that's endorsement enough as to how bad our run blocking line is in that the coaching staff won't even try to establish the run. A coaching staff and organization that has always bled smash mouth, in your face, clock gobbling run game. Luckily, Cutler has enough weapons through the air on offense to make up for the lack of ground game. However, hardly ever running the ball does make the running game a bit stronger in that the defense isn't expecting the run. And Forte proved that if you can get through the first wave of defenders, he can match any linebacker and quite a few db's in a foot race. I think it has more to do with Cutler than bad run blocking. I think Turner is pass enamored. If you're gonna be pass happy though, like Brad Biggs was saying on the radio this morning, you really have to start drawing up some big plays for some of these WR's. So far we've had what...one long pass, and that really was a short pass with a nice Hester run for a TD. If you believe Hester is really a number 1, and you believe that Knox is an up and comer, start watching how other teams are getting their receivers open, and get some packages designed specifically to do that. I don't necessariliy agree with that. This isn't the Colts. The Bears are closer to what Philly has been, using the short passing game as a substitute for running. It keeps completion % high, keeps the clock running and moves the chains. They've tried to go deep, but haven't had great opportunities. And while their receivers have some talent, none of them are capable of getting themselves open deep even when the defense is covering it. And can you really say clock gobbling on here?

I'd like to see that, but I don't think they have the personel. I don't think either of those guys would be effective at all dropping back.

We could be worse is nonsense? Give me a [expletive] break. I guess I'm just more concerned with who IS our GM rather than who ISNT. If Ricketts loves Bill Bavasi or Jim Bowden or Steve Freaking Stone, I couldn't give a [expletive] whether or not Hendry deserves to keep his job (he doesn't). I want the Cubs to be in the best possible situation next year... and there's a very large amount of GM candidates on the market who would be actively taking this team a step backwards. And I think that's a pretty pathetic way of looking at things. They could be a heck of a lot better, and I'd like to see them do so. Hendry epitomizes mediocrity and I don't see why we should stick with that out of fear of failure.

He and Zambrano were both better than people give them credit for. And they both took an inordinate amount of blame for the struggles of the season.