jersey cubs fan

They never said he was the number one. They said they thought he could become a number one. As for an earlier statement, no, Hester is not listed as a CB by the Bears, there's no reason why espn should still be labelling him as a CB, he hasn't been one since 2006.

I think there are 2 PUP lists. The one now means they can come back at anytime. The next one is when the season begins, at which point he'd have to sit 6 games. Hester sitting out is annoying, but understandable. He's outperformed his contract possibly more than any player in the league. I hope he gets signed, but not to #1 receiver money. But why the hell is ESPNnews saying Bears CB Devin Hester? He hasn't been a CB in a very long time.

I disagree with everything this post stands for. When a player are slumping like the 3-6 hitters in the lineup. Forcing the player to swing and try to hit the ball to the opposite field often helps. Most slumps are the result of a player pressing. Putting players in motion help two fold. It takes away the thinking aspect of the at bat. Second it force the defense to be moving around and can create more holes for the hitter. The Cubs have had the leadoff hitter on quite a bit lately and they seem to die on first. Lee,Aram, and Soto are in really bad slumps. I feel the best approach to getting out the slump is by forcing the action. You can see how well it is going for the cubs to hit a three run homer. Sounds like something Joe Morgan would say.

I remember that first game last year vs the Chargers - what a defense. With Dusty, Brown, and Harris hopefully back healthy this defense could be really good. I hope Forte can chip block and catch a little swing pass, cause whoever is QB is going to be under a lot of pressure. I want to see more from Olsen this year. I hope he gained some strength, especially in his legs. Lots of If's there. The D is also a year older, Brown hasn't stayed healthy for an entire year since what 2003? Forte is a rookie, but should bring some promise. The only we we succeed this year in my mind is if Brown is healthy, one WR (Bradley?) emerges Bernard Berrian style, and Grossman is Sept 2006 Grossman for half of the season (should he be named starter) The D is a year older, but they aren't that old. They still have young stars at defensive tackle, linebacker and cornerback. Mark Anderson, going back to being a pass rush specialist is still young. If Grossman is Sept 2006 Grossman for half the season, they will win all 8 of those games.

I disagree with everything this post stands for.

I should mention that the article says that there is a chance Canning can still make a stronger bid to show they are serious and get back in the race. I am guessing because of Selig's support for Canning, he should still be considered in the race. That said, I am really surprised their bid is that low. Maybe the ground doesn't want it as much as we thought? Or Selig told him to underbid as punishment for the Cubs recent pissing off of MLB.

I don't think that was a critique of the play on the field. As they said, the Bears were in the SB 2 years ago. The rankings the way I see them, are reflections on how each team is run "as a business" and in that aspect, the Bears fare poorly. Right, but are there any stats? Anecdotally it's easy to bust on the Bears ownership. But as Wilson pointed out, that analysis was quite weak. It's a healthy profitable organization that still employs the vast majority of the people that brought them to the Super Bowl 1.5 years ago. The fact that Silver wrote this speaks volumes. In typical NFL media fashion, Jerry Jones is inexplicably listed at the top, despite the Cowboys having done very little since the Jimmy Johnson era. There are a lot of groups arbitrarily thrown ahead of the Bears ownership, simply because, it appears, he likes them better. He's basing this off of whether or not guys spend like crazy and sell every bit of ad space possible.

It's training camp time!

That's not an offensive personnel choice. If you have a QB battle, whomever takes the first snap is going to be labeled the leader of the competition. If they actually do have a coin flip, this would serve as a way to shut the freaks up about wanting to know right now who is in the lead. How is it not a personnel decision who will get snaps with the 1st stringers? We're now allowing decisions on the offensive side of the ball to be dictated by media freaks? Wut? A personel decision is deciding who the starter is. Would I prefer they just choose a guy? Sure, but this is a non-story and absolutely nothing to fret over. They aren't letting a coin choose, or the media choose. They are doing everything they can to have an even competition.

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Baseball is a game where a pitcher throws a ball and a hitter tries to hit it where the defense aint. The umpires have nothing to do with the game itself, they are merely a necessary evil brought in because players can't be trusted to accurately or fairly police themselves. Getting rid of umps would not take anything away from the game.

If it gets us turned around, fine... but at the same time, to think one man can mean so much to a team/season. Good thing it was just 6 weeks and not a season-ending injury! One man doesn't mean so much. This is still the highest scoring offense in the NL and Soriano has only played in half the games, so they've reached that number 1 ranking without him.

That's not an offensive personnel choice. If you have a QB battle, whomever takes the first snap is going to be labeled the leader of the competition. If they actually do have a coin flip, this would serve as a way to shut the freaks up about wanting to know right now who is in the lead.

I'm guessing Hoff goes down, then Hart when Eyre returns.

My favorite positive Cubs fact is they still have 8 regulars with an OPS+ over 100, and almost an entire pitching staff with ERA+ over 100.

The Cadrdinals?

Shouldn't be a surprise. Last offseason they were coming off a Super Bowl run, the year before they were looking to build on a playoff appearance. I don't think they are purposefully wasting the best years of the defense, the problem is they haven't found a quality offensive coach or the correct quality offensive personel. They've drafted RB and QB in the first round. They've spent big on free agent lineman and WR. They just aren't good at picking the right guys and developing them. I have a hard time envisioning this team being in the same picture as the 2005 and 2006 versions, but I'm still somewhat excited for football season. It's not a hopeless season, like the 2005 and 2006 Cubs. They could make some noice.

Those might be three of the least frequent walkers on the roster right now. Edmonds and Fontenot are taking bases on balls, as is DeRosa.

Is it any wonder why this organization hasn't had a genuinely good offensive team in ages? You are against swinging hard?

Why do you care about sound bites? And how many sound bites provided by others are actually meaningful? The guys that talk the most have nothing to say. I don't care what Urlacher thinks about the world, I just want him to play football well enough to help the Bears win games. I don't think anybody can reasonably call what he did as holding the team hostage. as the face of the franchise, he has an obligation to the fans to give them something. i don't care what it is, just don't go out there and be an ass. say something canned for all i care, just don't comport yourself like a fool and embarass the franchise. i think it unreasonable to be so surprised that someone would take offense at his boorish actions toward a city that's done nothing but support him and make him it's poster boy. if he's going to be an ass, he should play better than he did last year. I'm not surprised in the least, I just think it's absurd, especially coming from the guy who rants about Cubs fans who don't like Jim Edmonds being on the team for irrational reasons. Urlacher hasn't comported himself like a fool or embarrassed the franchise.

I'm confused as to why. The only two years he was optioned were 2005 and 2007. In 2006 he stayed with the major league club all year. I thought it was a similar situation to Corey Patterson who was in the minors and majors in 2001 and 2002, but spent the entire 2002, 2003, and 2004 years with the major league club and still was able to be optioned down in 2005. Is it because 2001 was just a September call up? So then you only get 2 options for players that spend at least a full year on the major league club? Damnit, I thought I had this all figured out. Ronny Cedeno was optioned to the minor leagues during spring training, 2004. Why would a team do this? Was he on the 40 man for a certain amount of time and they had to option him to keep him or something? I don't recall the exact details, but I do remember that when they added Cedeno to the 40-man roster it seemed to be an entirely unnecessary move, as there was little to no chance anybody would select him in the rule 5 and keep him all year. He was not the least bit productive at the time. It seemed at the time to serve only to start his option clock. He was added to the 40-man roster in November of 2003. As jersey says, it was almost certainly a foolish and unnecessary move. Regardless, when he was sent to the minors in March or April of 2004, he burned his first option year. But did they have to burn an option in 2004? Yes, of course. With a few specific exceptions, any time a player is on the 40-man roster, but not on the 25-man roster or the major league disabled list, said player is using an option year. They wouldn't have had to if they didn't 40-man him though, correct?

Sometime around AA or AAA, hitters should be able to square around on his heat if they know it's coming all the time... but your point still stands. It was mistake enough drafting a reliever in the first round. We really shouldn't exacerbate the mistake by fast-tracking him at the expense of some long-term effectiveness. Potential long-term effectiveness. They may get the best return on their investment by fast tracking him as a reliever (the only thing he's shown he can do effectively) and then possibly trading him away.

I thought I read a quote from Cashner saying he was going to be a reliever, and that it was a good thing because that's the best way for him to get to the majors quickest. From what I've read I don't see him as a potential front of the rotation guy, and I think the best way to maximize his value to the team is probably to see if he can be a solid reliever. As he learns to pitch, then maybe consider stretching him out.

One time my softball team got to the field a little early and the umpire wasn't there so we took batting practice for a long time and people were taking like 15-20 swings each and really wacking the ball then we lost the game and decided we shouldn't have taken so many swings in batting practice because we were all worn out. Plus we were drunk.

I'm confused as to why. The only two years he was optioned were 2005 and 2007. In 2006 he stayed with the major league club all year. I thought it was a similar situation to Corey Patterson who was in the minors and majors in 2001 and 2002, but spent the entire 2002, 2003, and 2004 years with the major league club and still was able to be optioned down in 2005. Is it because 2001 was just a September call up? So then you only get 2 options for players that spend at least a full year on the major league club? Damnit, I thought I had this all figured out. Ronny Cedeno was optioned to the minor leagues during spring training, 2004. Why would a team do this? Was he on the 40 man for a certain amount of time and they had to option him to keep him or something? I don't recall the exact details, but I do remember that when they added Cedeno to the 40-man roster it seemed to be an entirely unnecessary move, as there was little to no chance anybody would select him in the rule 5 and keep him all year. He was not the least bit productive at the time. It seemed at the time to serve only to start his option clock.

at the risk of repeating myself: why?