jersey cubs fan

And you are because it's a horrible idea. Wrigley Field in Wrigleyville is a very important aspect of the Cubs. Moving is a horrible option, and a new stadium would require moving.

The only way this is true is if there really is no advertising value in having your name on a ballpark. it is true. NOBODY associates Wrigley Field with Wrigley Gum. I don't even associate the Wrigley Building with Wrigley Gum It doesn't have anything to do with associating the name. People don't think United Airlines everytime they think United Center. Certainly it's not the same as a company that explicitly advertises it's name on the building, physically and on paper. I'm not arguing that the benefit to Wrigley is the same as the benefit US Cellular gets from having its name on US Cellular Field (if there is a benefit to that). But there is a benefit. WM. Wrigley Jr. Co. clearly gets some benefit from having its name attached, however loosely, to Wrigley Field. There is no doubt about that.

The only way this is true is if there really is no advertising value in having your name on a ballpark.

yikes I know, and with such an important game on the line too what's scary is that one or two things go wrong and we're looking at that in a game that DOES matter Ramirez injured/resting, Soriano injured/resting, DeRosa injured/resting/heart surgery. Then of course you'd need Dempster to get knocked out/injured in the second inning (if you really wanted to see the same thing). That's a lot of stuff happening at once. It could happen, but it's probably just as likely that it would be from the Cubs having won the first two games of a series before resting the vets than anything else. If we see that in any one game, it really doesn't mean anything, not scary. If we see that for a month, that's trouble, but I think Murton could stand-in for Soriano for a month and not hurt the team at all.

Rule number 1, take public transportation. And I wouldn't waste any time trying to take in either neighborhood. Yankee Stadium is a dud, but the atmosphere is pretty good. In college the bleachers were fun, as they were around $10, and you were guaranteed to see at least one boob an inning. But due to lots of booby inspired fighting, they went dry, and I haven't been back out there. The upper deck is insanely steep with narrow walkways. and you feel like you're watching from a blimp. There is a very large difference between games against Boston, the Mets, and maybe Anaheim, and every other game. The DBag factor declines exponentially in those other contests. I actually think Shea is a better place to see a game. The sight lines are better, and there are more accessible decent seats. Then again, I can easily get good seats to Shea, so maybe my opinion is skewed. If you go into Yankee Stadium wearing Yankees or Red Sox gear, expect harrassment. Anything else and you're fine, unless you are an idiot who invites trouble. If you go into Shea with a Yankee or Chipper Jones uni, expect problems, anything else is fine. Hotels are another question. You can literally get any level of quality. It's hard to point you in any one direction. Personally, I'd stear clear of Times Square. It's not horrible, but other than maybe seeing it for a few minutes, it doesn't offer much. Some of the hotel areas are actually in rather dead places for hanging out. If you don't need to sleep in Manhattan, there are plenty of options to stay in Brooklyn as well as Jersey City/Hoboken for a little less money, with plenty of public transportation (bus/ferry/train).

New England released Colvin. I wrote in windycityfootball that I thought he would be an interesting name, given he was a likely cap casualty, and provided he doesn't sign for big money. If the Bears lose Briggs, and use most of their draft picks on offense, as well as sign a free agent offensive lineman, I wonder if they'd have any interest in bringing back Colvin to help with the transition to a younger linebacking corps. He's clearly not an everydown guy, and his injury may or may not affect his ability to do anything in 2008. But he could be of use in limited action for the Bears.

4 QBs has been mentioned, but they haven't said anything about Griese being one of them. Every writer who follows the Bears has said Griese has pissed somebody off and is as good as gone. Angelo has said it's Orton vs Grossman for starting QB, and Orton has been extended. It would be a major upset if Griese returns.

I'm abstaining from this vote. But on the Pie/Theriot front, it just bugs the heck out of me that Theriot has been given a job for basically doing the same crap job that cost Izturis his job, while Pie is reportedly in competition with Theriot Jr. out in CF. I don't have an incredible amount of faith in Pie myself, but there's no doubt he should get all the playing time over Fuld, and far more rope to hang himself than Theriot has been given.

you don't mind him? He's good, "minding him" shouldn't even be an option. I like pretty much everything they've done so far this offseason. Clark and Olsen are both good receivers. I'm fine with Grossman, Orton and a draft pick (2nd, or preferrably, 3rd round or later) taking QB duties. I don't like the talk of possibly 4 QBs, unless the 3rd and 4th are both non Griese. Nothing against Brian, but if you are bringing back Orton and Rex, there's no value in Griese this year. I wish they'd get rid of Archuleta, although I'm still a little unsure about how his contract affects the cap. Do the Bears see some QB that is going to be available in 2009 and are just waiting or do they actually think the same 3 QB's is a good idea? Every indication says they will be cutting Griese soon, which would mean they don't see the same 3 as a good idea. It would also seem to be a near lock for them to draft a QB, and let him be 3rd. They have stressed open competition at QB this year, with some reports even suggesting Orton has the upper hand, so it's definitely not status quo. As for 2009, they might have some names in mind, but I don't believe they are waiting for whomever that may be. As for comments about this being a horrible offseason for the Bears, I think Chicago fans are conditioned to assume the worst with management. But the people in charge of the Bears are clearly not the normal incompetent management crew, regardless of what Rick Morrissey or Jay Marioti think. I still believe they can and will turn the ship back in the right direction this offseason and have this team contending for NFC superiority again in the near future.

I guess I don't have a problem with the idea that these guys won't make the roster out of spring if everybody is healthy. I do have a problem that veterans are handed jobs simply because they are veterans, and that baseball people still feel veterans deserve hand-outs. Seniority is a horrible way to make a decision about anything. But as long as these guys remain candidates to take over jobs once the bums bomb, I'll be fine. I don't like Lieber, Marquis or Dempster in the rotation, but I'm not exactly dying to see Gallagher start 32 games this year either.

I used to think that. But Hendry didn't take long to give up on Jacque Jones or Cesar Izturis, and reportedly has given up on Marquis. If Samardzija doesn't get any better, I could see them souring on him soon. And if a new owner brings in new management, there's no longer a tie to the kid. The player could also decide to give up in a couple years and salvage a football career if it's at all possible while he's still young.

No, I don't think that's the point of the draft. The point of the draft is to stock your system with usable assets. Safe and boring can also be useful. You saw GMs go absolutely insane for a bunch of boring innings eaters in recent years. Shooting for the stars can be fun, but it can also leave your system devoid of anything useful. I think it makes sense to go for some guys who are good bets to contribute something, but probably not able to do much else. If you can sign them for little, it can be a nice little investment. And with teams often looking for major league ready (but not necessarily high ceiling) young help in trades, these guys can be quickly turned into something even bigger and better.

I wonder why this same principle doesn't seem to extend to journalists' use of "anonymous sources." Why is it not okay for a blogger to write anonymously (i.e, "hide behind a screen name") but it's okay for a newspaper columnist/reporter to print comments from "unnamed" or "anonymous" sources? If it's cowardly to criticize someone while using an screen name, isn't it just as cowardly for a journalist/reporter to criticize a public figure through the use of unnamed or anonymous sources? Yet, I don't see the same collective outrage from journalists regarding unnamed or anonymous sources (who generally make a journalist's life easier) as I do regarding anonymous bloggers (who generally make a journalist's life more difficult). because the journalist wouldn't get the quotes in the first place if they didn't promise anonymity to the source I know that, silly. If the basis for calling anonymous bloggers "cowardly" is that it's unfair to criticize a public figure without at least allowing the public figure to know the identity of the person who is criticizing him, why isn't it equally cowardly for a journalist to print a column that includes critical comments about that same public figure made an "anonymous" or "unnamed" source? The biggest difference is the journalist is putting his name out there. I don't see either situation as cowardly though. There's nothing wrong with the responsible use of anonymous sources.

While I didn't have a problem with their original anonymity, it was alwasy a weakness that "real writers" could point out, justifiably. Now that they have spilled the beans, I believe they would be better served to use their real names.

Clark has been good since coming to the Bears team, probably since he's been in the league. Any lack of numbers was due more to the team than him. He's good, and fairly compensated. The clamoring for improvement at TE was always overblown. But now that they are both on the team, neither should take time away from the other. Olsen is the better receiving TE, Clark is the better all-around TE. If only one of them is in, defenses will be able to easily know Olsen is in for a pass play, while Clark's presence gives no indication run or pass. I think the majority of snaps should include both players. Whether it's at the expense of a WR or FB doesn't matter. They are two of the Bears best offensive players, and need to be used properly.

I endorse this post with the strongest possible recommendation. I would have liked him much better had he been a 19 year old instead of a 21 year old. In 171 IP in A and AA he's given up 199 hits and struck out 82. Those aren't good numbers. They look even worse considering the competition. That has been my assumption for a while, and will be until proven wrong. Hendry has really thrown a ton of money around the past couple years without nearly enough to show for it. While it would be nice if the new owner cans him, my biggest fear is the new guy will see all the money wasted on mediocrity, and decide he can spend a lot less while getting the same results.

And they really swung and missed. Really the article wasn't funny at all, that was my point. I believe it was, and that you think otherwise because you are upset that they ripped a Bruce Miles article.

you don't mind him? He's good, "minding him" shouldn't even be an option. I like pretty much everything they've done so far this offseason. Clark and Olsen are both good receivers. I'm fine with Grossman, Orton and a draft pick (2nd, or preferrably, 3rd round or later) taking QB duties. I don't like the talk of possibly 4 QBs, unless the 3rd and 4th are both non Griese. Nothing against Brian, but if you are bringing back Orton and Rex, there's no value in Griese this year. I wish they'd get rid of Archuleta, although I'm still a little unsure about how his contract affects the cap.

What does that matter. Sure, that's probably all he can say, maybe. But that's the point. He sucks, but he has a job because Cubs brass doesn't understand that simple fact, and he can't bite the hand that feeds him. The problem is baseball is still filled with all this nonsensical ignorant gibberish. It's not much of a problem when the player thinks it, because what players think doesn't matter (unless the players think they have to swing at everything in order to get jobs). The problem is that not only players think it, but executives, including many Cubs executives, think it. I'm a big Bruce Miles fan, but as soon as a I read the article I knew it was fair game for FJM.

1. Not sure why you think this. 2. What an absurd statement. 3. They are equal opportunity attackers. There was an article about a crappy short white baseball player who is unjustifiably worshipped for all his gamey scrappiness, and they poked fun at it. What's the problem. They didn't necessarily poke fun at Bruce Miles, as they mostly picked on the actual quotes made by Cubs people, namely Theriot. We know Bruce "gets it", but if you were to take one look at that article and not know anything about it, you might come away confused about Bruce's personal opinions. There's no clear indication either way that he buys what Theriot is selling, or that he thinks it's all bunk. But it's an interview, not an editorial. Personally, I could do without any articles of that nature. Baseball would be such a better game if words like that were never spoken again, but that's not happening anytime soon. Bruce is a beat writer who reports on the team, and the guys involved with this team think this way. As much as things make look like they've changed for the better, with players like Fukudome drawing interest by the Cubs for things like patience, it's important to note that when Theriot says "I've been lucky to have coaches and management who don't buy into that stuff." it really summarized the truth about any number of horrible baseball players the Cubs have employed. They are all lucky that Cubs management has been so bad that they think guys like this are worthy of jobs. It's no wonder they've been such an expensive club who still looks at 88 win seasons as the holy grail of their possible success.

It only bothers me in that the Cubs chose to pay for that speed and aren't going to get much out of it - regardless of the fact that it was a stupid motivation to sign him in the first place.

Not that I buy into this stuff, but people like to point out that the Superbowl loser doesn't make the playoffs the year after. But nobody ever points out that those teams are usually back in the playoffs the year after that. The last 3 SB losers (which is as far back as I checked) from the NFC (not including Seattle who made the playoffs the year after) that have missed the playoffs in the year after, have made the playoffs the very next season. Carolina even went to the conference championship in 05. Not sure I buy into all of that, but I get what you are saying. The way this team is structured, the O and D-Lines must be outstanding at all times. Some teams have skill players who can take pressure off their lines; we do not. Its easier to re-build lines, IMO, then it is to aquire outstanding skill players. While I don't necessarily believe in the trend itself, I think what it tells you is those teams that lose the Super Bowl were really talented to begin with, and didn't need a ridiculous turnaround to get back to playoff caliber 2 years later. The Bears weren't good this past year. But injuries played a large part in that. So did stupid coaching arrogance. If they learned their lesson, and return to some form of health, there's no reason they can't get right back to playoff caliber. Also, the offensive line was never outstanding, and they still won. They were decent, and overly praised because A) Chicago loves their lineman, and B) They played every game together. The line was stable, but it was not very good. Eventually they just stunk.

February 28 @ 2:05 PM against San Francisco. Cubs.com has this wonderful thing called a schedule. :wink: Reminds me back on espn.com when people would post a question asking for a stat that was easily found by clicking on the stats button just to the left of where they were posting. How do people obsessed enough with the Cubs not have knowledge of, and ready access to, their website, schedule, stats, etc?

Not being able to be caught stealing as often may be a good thing for the team. However, not having the running thing takes away one of two things they vastly overpaid him for, that and leading off. Stupid Cubs. It's also concerning that injuries are starting to add up and linger when there are 7 years left on the deal. I think there's a fairly sizable risk of him further hurting himself, and I am concerned. It was one thing when we all knew he'd suck in years 5-8, it's quite another if he's going to be missing considerable time (and not being all that great) in years 1-4.

I wouldn't be so sure. His on base skills include an Isod of 80 and absolutely no power, not to mention being pretty old when putting up numbers. Fuld is probably a closer comp to Ryan Theriot in that regard.