jersey cubs fan

well of course not to you.

They were fair points, I addressed the ones that needed addressing.* Doesn't change the fact that his price is being suppressed by non-market forces and complaints about "king's ransoms" are absurd. Actually, your point about coming off a cy young season was not a fair point he's coming off a season that was better than the one he had 3 seasons ago, similar to the one he came off 4 years ago and a step below the season he had 5 years ago.

The only reason why the price of Peavy is as low as it is is because he has a no-trade clause and he supposedly is insisting on going only to the Cubs. If they were free to trade him to anybody, the Cubs collection of misfit toys wouldn't even allow them in the bidding process.

More like a city council person's ransom. And how is Peavy worth less now than he was a few years ago? Are we assuming his career is winding down? More expensive Older Shown some tendency towards injury Not immediately coming off a Cy-quality season I'm sure there's more. Older? Older only reduces a players worth when you're talking past his prime. He's not that expensive, not anymore than he would have been had you traded for him and wanted to keep him. He signed his current deal 4 years ago and is in the last year of that contract.

More like a city council person's ransom. And how is Peavy worth less now than he was a few years ago? Are we assuming his career is winding down?

Another coach with actual NFL experience that is not Bears related.

The girth is also a problem.

They got to the superbowl because their offense was good enough to get them to that game. They won the actual Superbowl game because of their defense. Their defense was better than their offense but I do not believe that they could have made it out of the AFC on defense alone. It really comes down to this. Is it an accident that the Bears have not been able to develop a QB the last 20 years or is it because they focus the bulk of their resources on defense? Have the Bears had little offensive success because of bad coordinators or because of a lack of offensive talent? Perhaps the answer is both. So why can't the Bears get a good offensive coordinator? Why do they keep hiring Defensive guys as head coach? The Bears team philosophy hasn't changed since the days of Ditka and they have 1 superbowl victory to show for it versus many one and done playoff appearances. So if you want to say that defense wins championships thats fine by me. It just hasn't won the Bears many championships. That fact is undeniable Yet three of the four teams left in the playoffs this year were The Steelers who were number one, The Ravens who were three, and The Eagles who were four. None of those teams are the Bears. All of those teams have a QB that they drafted in the first round and supported with a good O line. And neither Ben nor Flacco are all that good.

That's the big problem with the Bears. If you are going to emphasize D, you can't afford to actually be bad on the side of the ball you emphasize. They need to be better at preventing yards, even if it means less of an emphasis on turnovers.

They got to the superbowl because their offense was good enough to get them to that game. They won the actual Superbowl game because of their defense. Their defense was better than their offense but I do not believe that they could have made it out of the AFC on defense alone. And the Bears almost won the Super Bowl this way as well. This year's Steelers team isn't good offensively, neither is Baltimore, and one is going to make the Super Bowl. You can win with an emphasis on defense (which the majority of SB winners this decade have won with). But it's very hard to win with incompetence on offense. You don't fix incompetence by abandoning your defense.

This story has been around at least as long as when Scott Eyre signed with the Cubs.

Well, at least you saved yourself with that disclaimer. I think it absolutely does have a lot to do with their emphasis on defense, as well as the running game. They've invested heavily in the post Walter RB position, with all sorts of top picks. They've invested in 5 first round RB since 1986, including two top 5. They've had 3 first round QB's, none in the top 10. Plus 2 2nd round RB and 0 2nd round QB. The "brightest" offensive mind this organization has employed in the past 30 years is probably Ditka, seeing as how he's the only guy to have developed 2 legit NFL QB's, in McMahon and Harbaugh. I think the lack of emphasis on the offense, and the QB position in general, has been a major contributor to their problems. there has always been PLENTY of emphasis on the QB, every friggen year we hear the name "Sid Luckman". The reality is that the type of emphasis they provide is knee-jerk (Kordell Stewart), ill-advised (Rick Mirer), a bust (McNown, **Grossman**), or just poorly coached (**Grossman**-not sure where he fits anymore). The Bears seem to be paralyzed by their own failures. Its just time for them to wake up, and understand that developing the posistion takes longer then 9 games I think that goes back to my point about not having any serious offensive guru types who can and have developed QBs. The biggest offensive mind they've hired is a gimmicky college guy, Crowton.

Well, at least you saved yourself with that disclaimer. I think it absolutely does have a lot to do with their emphasis on defense, as well as the running game. They've invested heavily in the post Walter RB position, with all sorts of top picks. They've invested in 5 first round RB since 1986, including two top 5. They've had 3 first round QB's, none in the top 10. Plus 2 2nd round RB and 0 2nd round QB. The "brightest" offensive mind this organization has employed in the past 30 years is probably Ditka, seeing as how he's the only guy to have developed 2 legit NFL QB's, in McMahon and Harbaugh. I think the lack of emphasis on the offense, and the QB position in general, has been a major contributor to their problems.

BS, the Patriots team won with defense. They didn't have an all world offense until last year, when they didn't win. The Steelers won with a much better defense than offense. (3 and 4 in points and yards allowed - 9 and 15 in points and yards gained). The Ravens, Steelers, Patriots, Bucs and Giants won with d over o. The only team this decade to win with an emphasis on o was the Colts. You had STL and DEN in the late 90's, but there's hardly anything resembling a trend of offense over all else. And this year's final 4 has 3 defensive-oriented teams. Basically you are just making stuff up to support your claim. I do agree with you that the Bears style of defense, depending heavily on turnovers, does not make it easy to succeed consistently. Turnovers can be flukey, both in terms of causing the fumbles, and which team ends up with them. What the Bears also did was basically stick with the same bodies that got them to elite status, and since they are a defense predicated on speed and athleticism, they declined quickly when they no longer had a bunch of 25 year old super freaks.

he'll have to get a rap sheet first. Pacman and Tank are both gone, and they've only had 1 player arrested in the last 2 years. No wonder they rolled over like a bunch of little girls this season, no tough guys. Was that one before or after Sunday? http://deadspin.com/5129668/its-becoming-more-and-more-clear-that-dallas-cowboys-players-shouldnt-leave-the-house

he'll have to get a rap sheet first. Pacman and Tank are both gone, and they've only had 1 player arrested in the last 2 years. No wonder they rolled over like a bunch of little girls this season, no tough guys.

As a team with a cheap starting RB, inexpensive QB and no receiver making a huge amount, I think it could be smart for them to overspend a little on the line. That's essentially what they did with Tait when they first brought him over to be the RT. It was necessary at the time. They don't have a very high draft pick, and don't have any important free agents of their own to resign, meaning there will be money available to spend on the line.

yes because he was the most FEARED hitter. i'm glad rice got in because i'm sick of hearing about him. I thought it was most feared right handed hitter.

The one thing that does make sense is those guys would be free agents, and it would allow the Bears to spend draft picks on the line and WR still. I think Warner is too old and will be too expensive after this playoff run to justify bringing to this team. Leftwich could be a smart choice because it's doubtful he'll be all that highly sought after.

I didn't realize how much of a decline he's had. But middle infield is a young man's position. He's in his early 30's and has averaged 158 games the past 7 years and 709 PA. He might have a little Jose Vidro in him.

That is nuts. It is so far the only "more lefthanded" change they've made in the offseason of going left handed, and they didn't even save all that much money. A couple million this year but no more than a couple hundred thousand over the course of the contracts. I guess time will tell, but I still think you are dead wrong and just frustrated. Time will tell what? Dead wrong about what? Hendry stated a goal of getting more left handed. He replaced Jim Edmonds with a fragile Milton Bradley, that doesn't make them more left handed. He replaced Mark DeRosa with Aarond Miles, that does make them more left handed. He said the reason we did this was because we wanted to get more left handed. There's nothing to disagree with there.

Would Pitt let him go that easy?...I feel like Big Ben gets hurt a lot so Leftwich gets more time than you think your feelings would be wrong... Big Ben does get hurt a lot. He doesn't miss a lot of games, but he gets taken out fairly frequently. I think Byron entered 3 games this year after Ben was taken out for health reasons, and another 1 or 2 just to get reps.

Would Pitt let him go that easy?...I feel like Big Ben gets hurt a lot so Leftwich gets more time than you think I believe they signed him to a one year deal this offseason. It's not like they are married to the guy. They have never shied away from letting free agents walk. I doubt they'd go out of their way to keep him around.

I'm the exact opposite. You'll be able to get around the VWR problem. The plan for season tickets is downright disgusting. You'll have a situation where only businesses are getting the new season ticket openings. If you read closely they mention that cash in addition to subscriptions would be a way to earn your place. That is absurd. I've been on the list for a number of years now and the thought that some company can jump in front of me because they want be able to schmooz clients rather than watch the game is downright apalling, even if I wasn't going to get on until my sixties anyway. I suppose I could get a subscription and throw it in my waiting area and write it off. But that doesn't look like it'd be enough from having people jump ahead of me. F- this corporate greed which flies in the face of the standards currently in place. If it makes you feel any better, a lot of the business people who are buying tickets either use them personally but write them off as a business expense, or just hand them out to employees who want to go to games. I think the non-fan schmoozing aspect is a bit overblown. And if they are schmoozing, it's more effective if the client you bring is a Cubs fan. But I agree with the negative stance on this.

That is nuts. It is so far the only "more lefthanded" change they've made in the offseason of going left handed, and they didn't even save all that much money. A couple million this year but no more than a couple hundred thousand over the course of the contracts.