jersey cubs fan

Sadly Kerry Wood's year has not been anything to write home about, so I don't see how you can guarantee different results. Getting rid of Kerry Wood for financial reasons did not mean he had to trade for another multi million dollar reliever with a significantly worse track record. I hated losing Wood, but I understood the financial motivation, what I don't understand is then turning around and wasting a ton of cash on Gregg, just like trying to trade DeRosa at a high and then wasting the financial benefit on a guy like Miles.

Considering how freely they've handed out contracts to others this year, it makes me think more and more that the coaching staff didn't like Brown's "coach on the field" monikor in some way shape or form. Maybe they thought he was ignoring them more, or dogging it a bit. I would think he'd be as good as anybody else they have, but skills erode quickly in football, and it's quite possible Brown has slipped more than I thought. The Bears defense more so than most requires athleticism, which means youth.

They are in a legal battle and there's no real need for it to be enforced until September. So they aren't enforcing it yet.

I don't know. The best baseball teams win a little more than 60% of the time, and that's including against all competition, good or bad. How often does the best baseball team beat another top 8 team? 53%? The best NFL teams win 80% or more of the time. I think being the best might matter more in football, but it still doesn't absolutely determine the champion. That still has a lot to do with the length of the season though. If football played 162 games, there wouldn't be anybody winning 80% of the time. Similarly, if baseball played only 16 games, it wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility that a team on a hot start wins 10 or 12. If football played 162 game seasons I don't think you'd see a single team make it through the season, and I might get called up before December. Baseball games can essentially be won by one guy, and often that guy doesn't play all that much. A pitcher can more or less determine a game on his own in a series of 1 on 1 matchups, but then he doesn't come back for 5 more games. Football teams are 11 on 11 every play. A good baseball team can lose 12 of 16, I don't think a good football team can. And a bad baseball team can win the same, not so with football.

I don't know. The best baseball teams win a little more than 60% of the time, and that's including against all competition, good or bad. How often does the best baseball team beat another top 8 team? 53%? The best NFL teams win 80% or more of the time. I think being the best might matter more in football, but it still doesn't absolutely determine the champion.

Even if they win the division, this team is not winning the World Series. I love statements like this that have no basis in reality. If they win the division, they have approximately a 1/8 chance of winning the World Series. Just like every other playoff team (some marginally more, some marginally less). There's no curses, jinxes, or inherent failure genes in the players. There's nothing to keep bad players from playing very well or great players from playing very poorly in a stretch of a few games, especially in a game like baseball. I don't understand why people continue to make absolute statements like this when it's obvious that the playoffs in baseball are, for all intents and purposes, a slightly weighted crapshoot. But you have to have heart to play craps, Cubs don't have the heart.

I don't think last year's team was stacked at all. They were balanced, and had most of their players either outperform expectations are reach the high end of their expectations. Most teams have guys underperform, and the 2008 Cubs got lucky that nobody really did that. I think the problem was Hendry assumed this was still a 97 win team, did nothing to actually improve them this offseason (despite the payroll going up while most others went down) and decided to tinker for quirky postseason matchups. As I recall, lots of people assumed this was a natural 97-win team, not just Hendry. I recall a lot of people thinking this team might win 90 and win the division by default if the competition stayed in the 80s.

All those people desperate to get Reed Johnson in there against righties everyday will have their dream come true.

Does it help to imagine how difficult it will be for him to guarantee that third year?

You can't be serious. That's absurd. The best teams don't always win championships, especially in a format like the NFL's one and done playoffs. Do you not agree that baseball playoffs are a crapshoot? And those involve 5 and 7 game series. The difference is the best football teams usually win a much greater percentage of their games than the best baseball teams, so one would expect the better team to prevail more often in any one game than say, in baseball. But it's still not a guarantee that the best team wins the SB. Any prognostication can only be expected what is most likely to happen, not what will definitely happen. Failing to predict that Tom Brady would get injured and his team would therefore lose 5 more games and not make the playoffs does not make something a poor predictor. So then what's the point of talking about who's great and who isn't? It doesn't really mean all that much in the end. Congrats, you were the "best team in football" but missed the playoffs. Pointless and stupid. Following sports is pointless and stupid. But we do it presumably because it's entertaining and fun. NE missed the playoffs because their best player got hurt early. They easily win that mediocre division with a ridiculously easy record against both western divisions if Brady was healthy. Personally, I don't really care much about talking about who's great and who isn't. I just want to see the teams I like win champsionship. The best way to do that is probably to field the best team you possibly can.

Going back the past few years, which super bowl winners were the best team? Pittsburgh? Maybe but I'm not so sure, they were kind of flawed and were lucky to win a couple games. Giants? No. Colts? No. They were probably better in years they didn't win. Pittsburgh? No. New England back to back? Yes, most likely they were truly the best and the champion. Tampa? Arguably yes. They didn't lead on point differential but absolutely dominated on defense. The first New England win? No Baltmore? I don't think so. They did dominate defensively, but didn't even win their division. STL? Probably. Ridiculous point differential. The 90's basically had 4 great teams taking turns winning, with SF, Dallas, Denver and maybe GB. In any one of those years its possible one of the others was actually a better team. The 80's was mostly a "best team won" decade, but that was a different era of the NFL, pre free agency. Bottom line, the best team in the league has won super bowls, but it's not a consistent indicator of who the best team was.

You can't be serious. That's absurd. The best teams don't always win championships, especially in a format like the NFL's one and done playoffs. Do you not agree that baseball playoffs are a crapshoot? And those involve 5 and 7 game series. The difference is the best football teams usually win a much greater percentage of their games than the best baseball teams, so one would expect the better team to prevail more often in any one game than say, in baseball. But it's still not a guarantee that the best team wins the SB. Any prognostication can only be expected what is most likely to happen, not what will definitely happen. Failing to predict that Tom Brady would get injured and his team would therefore lose 5 more games and not make the playoffs does not make something a poor predictor.

I don't think last year's team was stacked at all. They were balanced, and had most of their players either outperform expectations are reach the high end of their expectations. Most teams have guys underperform, and the 2008 Cubs got lucky that nobody really did that. I think the problem was Hendry assumed this was still a 97 win team, did nothing to actually improve them this offseason (despite the payroll going up while most others went down) and decided to tinker for quirky postseason matchups.

that's like the nonsense mike and mike do every postseason

Here's what St. Louis Today's Derrick Goold said about it: This was after Miles signed with the Cubs, so he wouldn't have been making up the offer to try to ratchet up the supposed interest. LaRussa wanted him back, whether it was logical or not. Also, from the same story: This was from his agent, but again the story was written after he signed with the Cubs - after it would have been beneficial for the agent to throw out fake offer estimates. It's never not beneficial for an agent to make it look like there is great interest in their client. If an agent can dupe people into thinking 9 teams wanted their guy in an offseason when no teams were signing guys, he looks like a pretty good agent in the eyes of some perspective clients. It's all meaningless nonsense. It was a horrible decision by Hendry to aggressively pursue a dime a dozen utility man and give him a 2 year contract.

A) No, the Cubs could not win the world series. B) The Cubs are one of ESPN's most pimped out teams, they would ride that story until the freaking cows came home and burned down the town again. apparently people haven't noticed how frequently the cubs have been on espn this year. i know that the yankees and red sox are covered more - which makes sense since those are the most popular teams - but the cubs are given a lot of press too. Yep, the Yanks and Sox are for sure ESPN's top sweethearts but third I would say is a close race between the Cubs and Mets. To think that if the Cubs win a WS that ESPN wouldn't ride that story for weeks is ludicrous. I think the Cubs are easily #3, followed by a group that includes the Dodgers, STL, San Fran, Mets and then whatever flavor of the month team floats their boat. Detroit has held this distinction, Tampa for part of last year, the Angels at times.

Did I miss something? Hes been playing with a sore knee for a little while now after banging it against the wall making a catch, I think it was last weekend. I thought it was back in may. Last weekend was May.

I think they would. There were multiple teams interested in him at the price Hendry ended up paying at the time the Cubs signed him.. Did his agent tell you that or Jim Hendry? Nobody was signing anybody at the time they got Miles. The only active teams were the Yankees signing the big tickets items, and everybody else was sitting on their hands waiting out the market. And Hendry got aggressive going after an unnecessary utility man who was non-tendered by a division rival that has to actually think when they spend money.

There never was a need for Aaron Miles. And even if Fontenot does prove himself capable of full-time duty, something he hasn't come close to doing yet, the Cubs are still stuck with Aaron Miles and his contract.

Doesn't say anything of note, just references the Haugh article and another in the denver post about pretty much nothing.

Considering Plaxico was busted accidentally shooting himself, and being a jerk, Matt Jones did some blow, while Marshall has been arrested multiple times for domestic abuse, I find it a little troubling that Haugh refers to those other guys as having "tired tales" while Marshall "may" fit into that category. Domestic abuse is by far the most serious offense on any of those lists.

Considering all insider seems to do is aggragate stories from local papers I'm going to assume it's talking about David Haugh's story saying that the troubled WR he'd to look at is Marshall who will be a free agent next season and was recently turned down when he requested a contract extension.

A) No, the Cubs could not win the world series. B) The Cubs are one of ESPN's most pimped out teams, they would ride that story until the freaking cows came home and burned down the town again.

Just about any deli anywhere is better than any of those by a very wide margin.

He'd probably have to pay for his salary this year and some of next. Teams do look for those types of players, they typically don't give out 2 year multi million dollar contracts to get them though.