jersey cubs fan

I'd like to file this idea under the definition of "how to make a bad contract worse". Trading Dempster for Vizcaino already accomplished that goal. This would be more like reshuffling bad contracts. The Cubs have plenty of arms that can fill the mediocre reliever role Vizcaino would fill, they don't have any shortstop depth in the organization.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/chi-10-cubs-chicagomar10,0,5823546.story Sullivan writes that Vizcaino is in jeopardy of losing his bullpen spot this spring. He's an older (will turn 35 before the season ends) reliever with a bit of a checkered history. I have my doubts that they'd release a $5m reliever right away, especially when they have other guys with options.

Please tell me you're kidding. It's a spring training crowd, time for rest and relaxation.

The US B squad beat America Jr.

What in the world are you talking about?

I thought it was Santo.

The Rams haven't really been pass first for a while. Not since Steven Jackson has become a star. They threw the ball 55.5% of the time this year to the Bears 54.8%. He was the Rams leading WR this year when the team was an absolute mess and clearly phasing him out of the offense. Neither TO or Holt will make the Bears championship contenders, but they could easily put up the same numbers, though they are different types of WRs. Add in the lack of distraction created by Holt and the off chance that he could work with Hester, Bennett, and a rookie WR to become 1/2 the route runner that he is, then I think Holt is worth a 4th or 5th rounder. He probably wouldn't whine too much about playing for the Bears, because he would be getting his money and he does have some history w/ Lovie. If Holt is asking for a release so he can be a free agent, and choose his location, what makes you assume he won't be a distraction if that request is denied and he is traded to the Bears, who don't know what a passing game is? If they do get Holt, then not going after TO is forgiveable, but they are extremely unlikely to land even Holt.

Yes, I felt that was going to be the case, but there was no reason why it had to be. It's not just a case of Jerry choosing not to get involved in a big-named player where the Bears already had somebody, but him refusing to improve a blatantly obvious must improve position.

The 31 other teams excuse doens't hold much water. There were only a couple teams where it would have made sense to bring him in. New England wasn't a fit. Indy wasn't a fit. The only teams where it would make sense are teams where he would be the #1, where they stood a chance of contending with him, but didn't have much to lose if he blew up. There's no way he just took the first offer and signed before other teams had a chance to offer more. He took that money because nobody was offering more. His release was not a surprise, and Angelo should have been prepared to open up talks immediately.

See, I don't get the idea of being torn. As I said before, what's the worst that could happen? A non-playoff team doesn't make the playoffs again? This isn't a very good team you'd fear TO would ruin, it's already on the verge of entering mediocrity. They need a couple things to even consider contending next year, an offensive tackle, a WR or two, and a defensive end or solid safety. They haven't come close to solving any of those issues, and only have 2 picks in the top 50 this year, where you can reasonably expect to find starters. You have to sign a free agent somewhere, and when an impact WR falls in your lap, you have to take it. Then you draft the other spots. As things stand now, they have to draft fairly well just to get back to last year's highly flawed team. Then where's the improvement coming from?

I would much rather have the headache and the draft pick than Holt minus whatever pick they would have to give up. But the guy has asked to be released, presumably so he can pick his destination, and contract. How happy is he going to be to be forced to go to Chicago? He's probably going to demand, at the very least, an extension, probably one that pays him similar to what he could have gotten as a free agent. I have my doubts about Holt's ability to produce outside of an offense first passing team that plays in a dome against division foes that don't play defense.

If Vlad is only a year older than previously stated, that still leaves him a couple years younger than I think he is.

Yeah, but don't evaluators often use the phrase that the hitters will let you know how he's throwing? The opposition matters when evaluating how the guy looked. That said, I'd be fine adding Pedro to this staff. The Cubs can live with having a guy who can only give them 100 innings.

I'm glad they kept him so they can at least avoid having to use a draft pick on the position. You really have to wonder what the motivation was for not using the guy much and running the crap out of Forte. Then again, they played Marty Booker over Earl Bennett all year and had no intention of keeping him either, and he wasn't doing a thing to help the team. I'm really disappointed that they could have had TO for very little and apparantly didn't even express interest. The WR position would have been solved for this season, giving them flexibility to draft guys at any spot. Since they are ignoring the position in free agency they have to get one early and hope he contributes early. I like Hester as a receiver, but thinking of him as a #1 is way past being just a stretch. He'd be a solid 2 with a real receiver taking double teams, but there's no way he's going to be the "must stop" guy that any defense worries about every play.

shouldn't that stadium also make a lot of hitters look worse than they are? Yes. But doesn't the difference between good teams and their opponents increase in a low-run-scoring environment? Or I am misunderremembering that? I don't really get what you are saying.

And Moises "pee on his hands and then ground out ot the left side" Alou Anyway, I bet dusty is pumped. Moises was failed check swing grounder to the right side.

Not with the Cubs he wasn't.

Wouldn't they be better off with a guy like Holt or Harrison then? Those guys don't offer near the risks and won't complain about Peterson running the ball 30 times per game. I don't think Harrison has much to offer. He's been in the ideal place for a WR that past couple years and hasn't been healthy enough to play or perform.

Shawn Hill? I knew he was injured 4 years ago.

The thing about Tank and Cedric is gun/dui/police problems vs TO's divaness. I agree that he doesn't seem to be very Bearslike, but TO works hard and doesn't get into trouble with the law.

Best record in the league?

You have to wonder what Harbaugh's impression of TO from his time there. He was special teams coach then, right?

I feel like there's a good amount of defensive backs who do well out of small schools. I don't know if there are very many linebackers or lineman who have succeeded out of these schools though. Your theory would make sense, because I believe you have to be a much better athlete to compete in the NFL on defense, and those guys usually go to the best schools. Whereas some of the offensive positions require a little more subtle skill set. But I've never seen the numbers.

Childress dealt with TO in Philly, and supposedly has ruled out his team's interest. I've heard talk about just about every team but Oakland saying no, but I haven't heard anything from the Bears saying such a thing. Personally I think it's no lose for the Bears. If this was a 12 win team, I could understand not wanting to upset the apple cart and bring in a misfit who could ruin things. But if Owens came here, what could he ruin? Is the fear that they fall from .500 to a 10 loss team? Big freaking deal. The last thing we want is to be stuck in mediocrity. I would rather risk disaster (which is an exaggerated description of the negative things that could happen) while trying to create the best team possible than settle for the mediocrity we are assured of from this offense without a massive influx of talent. TO doesn't really help a team like New England. With Brady, they are great, and TO isn't going to make them better. TO needs 2 things if you want to maximize his value, a chance to be THE GUY and an ability to win. The Bears are clearly not very good. But if they sign TO, suddenly they can concentrate on the offensive line and defense in the draft, significantly improve their passing game and probably turn into a 10-11 win team, or potentially a 12 win homefield advantage type team. Lovie isn't a disciplinarian, but we do know his players love him. If there is one thing they've done under him it's give their all, with few exceptions. The problem has been a combination of talent (primarily an offensive issue), strategy, and on defense especially, health. Give him a big one year contract with incentives and the chance to earn big money if he comes back. Give him incentive not to get himself cut this year, and to play 16 games, and you might get the most out of him. His career is winding down, and a lot of times these guys want to make one last splash. Again, what's the worst that could happen? Miss the playoffs again and draft a little higher? I'll take it. This isn't a juggernaut that we can't risk ruining.

I know he was a 2nd rounder, I was talking about 1st and 2nd round picks, which is why I discussed Manning and Hester. But your reasoning is awful. Tank was the starter be default. He never came close to living up to the hype. Everybody said if he could stay out of trouble and on the field he'd be great, but he was nothing special. Rex Grossman was the starting QB of a Super Bowl team and that was far from a solid pick. The defense was great for many many reasons besides Tank Johnson. He wasn't even the 4th most important defensive lineman on that team.