jersey cubs fan

Your dollar figures are off. They don't include things like money the Cubs spent paying guys not to play for them, and in season acquisitions. Hendry has more resources at his disposal than the competition. Opening day payroll is not the only way to show that.

And the Cubs are by far in the best position financially and should therefore contend every year and win big quite often.

Yeah, I probably should have elaborated a bit more on that. Houston certainly isn't a small market team, but their ownership has been spending frugally of late, thereby making them appear more like a smaller market team than they really are or should be. St. Louis has been the same way lately. If you generically call it 1 big market and 2 decent markets, fine. But when you look closer it's not the same. Look at the NL East, NY, Philly and Atlanta are on a bigger scale than the Cubs, Houston and STL. Cincy, MIL, Pitt are very much small market teams. MIL only recently started dabbling in expensive players, only because a boatload of good young talent excited fans. Cincy has been an absolute joke of a franchise this entire decade. They are nothing more than the Washington Nationals. And while Florida is the quintessential small market team, it has regularly "gone for it" with major spending and investment. Hendry has been a major player with the organization since the early 90's, and right near the top of the hierarchy throughout this decade. And it took him until this year to field a team that was legitimately very good. And the biggest reason it happened was because he was playing with house money the competition could only dream of, while that same competition was cutting back.

By wearing another player's uni? My junior high football coach actually had a player do that once. The kid got thrown out and they had him switch jerseys right on the sideline. He wasn't even that good.

Now the Vazquez deal gives me hope that the Cubs can move a similar pitcher with a cheaper contract in Marquis at the Winter Meetings. if by similar you mean they are both pitchers, then yes, they are similar By similar I mean they are both decent innings eating pitchers. The difference is Marquis contract is a yr shorter. Also, Vazquez is much better at pitching. He was much better at pitching, 6 years ago. Vasquez has been fairly mediocre for quite a while, with one good year mixed in. He might be better now, and probably has higher upside. But I don't think he's much better at pitching. You must only be looking at era. All of his other numbers are significantly better than Marquis' over the past several years, and most of them are actually quite good. I haven't looked at his numbers but Javier has been hit pretty hardly for several years now, hasn't he? He's probably better with K's and might walk a few less, but he's essentially an okay innings eater.

Now the Vazquez deal gives me hope that the Cubs can move a similar pitcher with a cheaper contract in Marquis at the Winter Meetings. if by similar you mean they are both pitchers, then yes, they are similar By similar I mean they are both decent innings eating pitchers. The difference is Marquis contract is a yr shorter. Also, Vazquez is much better at pitching. He was much better at pitching, 6 years ago. Vasquez has been fairly mediocre for quite a while, with one good year mixed in. He might be better now, and probably has higher upside. But I don't think he is much better at pitching.* * With the emphasis on is and much.

LOL, truly hilarious ain't it? Oh well. I won't complain much. It exposed that we really aren't that great. If it makes the Bears look at themselves in a more realistic light rather than carrying on as if they're better than they are, then hopefully that will pay off in the future somehow. Still though, I must echo your sentiment: :roll: I think that was exposed a long time ago and this team has been looking at itself in a more realistic light ever since. The "think too highly of themselves" story was valid after week 1. But after ugly losses to Tennessee and GB I think most everybody realized their weaknesses, even if they occasionally talked big.

The past couple seasons Hendry mortgaged the future on second (and sometimes third or fourth) rate players and now he can't afford to keep his better performers.

Nobody ever asked? It could set a precedent, but this is different than some safety getting a surprising number of starts and overperforming. Forte is risking his career every week with the number of touches he takes. If he plays all next year at this pay scale and gets this workload, any team would be taking a huge risk by giving him the contract he will then be able to demand. It could be smart of Angelo to throw Forte another $3-5m guaranteed this offseason to appease Forte, rather than being forced to throw another $20-25m guaranteed at a RB whose best days will likely be behind him by 2010.

He signed for 2nd round money and was used like Priest Holmes. He either asks for more money now or risks never coming close to earning what he deserves while still being effective. I don't know a single featured back who has ever played for as little money as Forte made this year while touching the ball as often as he did without asking for more money.

Huh?

I think the beating that Forte is taking will take its toll. Peterson is a freak of nature and Forte doesn't have the line that Peterson has. I think its only a matter of time before something happens. Don't get me wrong he's doing amazing, but we need to get a better line for him and we need to get a good WR so he doesn't have to be our number one receiver and running back and literally touch the ball on every play. It's going to suck when he sits out this offseason to get an extension. He should, because he might only have 2 years left in the tank.

You can't suck and go 10-6. This team isn't great by any stretch. But teams that go 10-6 in the NFL are absolutely legit playoff teams and going 4-0 down the stretch is in no way shape or form "backing into" the playoffs. You can't suck, but you can be mediocre and be 10-6. See 2007 Cleveland Browns. They won over: Bengals (7-9) Ravens (5-11) Dolphins (1-15) Rams (3-13) Seahawks (10-6) Ravens (5-11) Texans (8-8) Jets (4-12) Bills (7-9) 49ers (5-11) Winning % of teams they beat: .343 (55-105) Bears have beat: Colts (8-4) Eagles (6-5-1) Lions (0-12) Vikings (7-5) Lions (0-12) Rams (2-10) Winning % of teams they beat: .326 (23.5-48.5) If they won out that would include a 4-8 team, a 6-6 team, a 5-7 team and another 5-7 team. I'm not doubting their deficiencies. I'm saying it's absurd to say that a 10-6 Bears team sucks, if they end up 10-6. And winning 4 straight to end the season isn't backing into the playoffs. Take a look at the AFC East teams who have fattened up on incredibly weak divisions. Arizona is going to have the benefit of having nobody in their division, and whoever the heck wins the AFC West will have benefitted as well. The competition is the competition, if the Bears win 10 games they will be a legit playoff team. If they lose some more games and still win because Minnesota falls apart, then that would be backing in. But that's a different story.

You can't suck and go 10-6. This team isn't great by any stretch. But teams that go 10-6 in the NFL are absolutely legit playoff teams and going 4-0 down the stretch is in no way shape or form "backing into" the playoffs.

This makes no sense. If they win out they go 10-6, beating multiple 2007 playoff teams along the way. How is that not legit? The Giants played like crap for a good portion of last year and barely got into the playoffs before winning the SB. Not that I think the Bears can do that, but they would be every bit the legit playoff team if they went 10-6.

biching?

If Sunday was the symbolic end of the season, than this loss would be the real end. No coming back from that loss, but I don't think it will happen.

The Bears are 6.5 point home favorites. Jacksonville is pretty bad and should be on the verge of shutting down for the season. If they can't win this one they are going to finish below .500.

Looks like his contract with ESPN was up in Feb. and they decided not to renew it. Apparently Salisbury was upset because more popular athletes were paid more than he was even though he was a better broadcaster/analyst than some were. Isn't Salisbury the one who sent out pictures of his wang?

He's been here for a lot longer than 2 years, and in order to win those 2 divisions (with weak competition) he absolutely sold out the future. He needed unprecedented financial freedom to win those titles. We've had to deal with some absolutely horrible teams during his tenure and it's virtually assured that we will deal with the same problem very soon because of his horrible management decisions. A monkey could win divisions with the money Jim had at his disposal the past 2 years. A good GM shouldn't have to shell out the contracts he did for the guys he got. The foundation should have been in place years before. A good team should have had the Cubs winning 85 games each and every year with multiple 90+ win seasons.

Blah blah blah sample size. Is there anything specific about Peavy that makes you think he's inclined to pitch poorly in the playoffs? He's a gutless choking dog?

this....you NEVER take points off the board...it was a stupid call at what turned out to be a critical part of the game. the coaching this year has been horrible. This wasn't taking points off the board. Taking points off the board is accepting a penalty on a made field goal. This is going for it on 4th down from the 1, which teams do all the time, and should do all the time. To pretend that you should NEVER eschew the field goal for a potential TD is absurd.

I'd go on 4th down inside the one every single time if I have a good defense. Granted, Peanut screwed up badly, but you put a defensive team like the Bears against a team w/ their backs against the endzone, the Bears should either come out of there with either a safety and a short field OR a punt and a short field. In previous years, that punt also meant a potential return TD. Good defensive/ST teams should be able to get their offense right back in position to score again if they fail on 3rd down. Also, nothing was wrong w/ running the ball. The FB dive was stupid. And the 4th down call was stupid because it was a slow developing play. If Forte hits that hole hard and straight ahead, it's a score. JSC was pretty bad. Orton was pretty bad. Rashied was bad. I was all for going for it on 4th. But running 3 of 4 times definitely was stupid. It's a defense that can't be moved with an offensive line that can't move anybody.

Is that a bad thing? Are they supposed to say one thing at the beginning of November and stick with that until spring training, no matter how things change or progress during the offseason?

I don't know the details of his contract, but I'm fairly certain he's getting paid a whole heck of a lot less than the league's best. I say let him make a couple returns per game. I would never have him return punts when he's back inside his own 20. He's such a moron that he's a risk to pin you back deep in your own. When teams have to punt from inside their own 35, put him back there to tempt them to kick out of bounds or something.