jersey cubs fan

that description is very ugly.

ew a Canadian?

But then I read this: It's widely assumed that Barney is a better defensive shortstop than Castro. There's nothing new there, and as he points out, that is another story.

The math would pretty much guarantee that some people would get shut out.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/nhl-rogers-tv-deal-makes-history-12-years-142955620--nhl.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Looks like Browner is going to be again. Again, NOT PED. Same thing as Thurmond...Weed. Guess they visited Colorado recently That's not what's being reported. I've seen PED's reported for both. You can't expect a Seahawks fan to acknowledge the obvious.

So does Brad Ziegler get to decide the max contract somebody suspended for PEDs gets to receive? Or do we need blood from the stone and ban guys for multiple seasons? I didn't say that and honestly I don't know what the answer is. Here is how it looks to me though, I could easily be wrong: Player A is going into the final year of his contract. He decides to take the chance at getting caught and juices up to boost his numbers in that final year. It works but he does get caught. He apologizes and sits for the required 50 games, comes back that season, gets to play in the playoffs and signs a large contract that offseason with another contender. To me, it doesn't seem like the punishment was adequate. Like I said, I could be wrong, but the timing and the results cannot be argued. 50 games is probably not enough but I don't know what is nor do I know if the team, the Tigers in this case, shouldn't be forced to feel some of that pain too. The team is taking the risk. If he gets suspended again, the team takes a hit. If he just stops using and sucks, the team takes a hit. I don't see what your point is. If a guy gets caught today he can't sign another contract? He can only play for the minimum? There's no point in fretting over it. The parties involved know the risks and have decided they are worth it. You aren't being wronged.

I feel sorry for Chicagoans that don't like Hockey because they are missing out on a dominant team. I still lived there during the Bulls run and that did nothing for me, except for an excuse for some fun parties.

I thought the union was kind of hanging ARod out to dry on his own.

It's probably some stupid Kris Bryant bobblehead day or something. What the hell big announcement could they have? They've received $300 million in funding from the Kodak city council to upgrade their facilities.

The team didn't have to offer him that contract.

He paid his debt to MLB. Did he? He served his suspension, did he not? I don't know, did he?

For what it's worth, the Blackhawks are signed on with WGN to air (some) games through 2015-2016. I haven't found when their contract with CSN runs through.

Comcast/NBC is attempting to position itself as a competitor to ESPN, which is the behemoth of all cable networks and especially sports. NBC wouldn't necessarily be "paying up" for Cubs/Hawks without having to, but rather positioning itself to dominate the Chicago sports market for the next generation. The thought is possibly that while they are making money off of CSN, that agreement runs out in a couple years and if they aren't involved, that network could conceivably disappear with the four teams making arrangements with other networks. Comcast doesn't want other networks in Chicago, so, much like a team that locks up a pre-arbitration player to a favorable contract, they could keep the Cubs on board and on their family of networks by making them an offer that is considerably higher than the current deal while still lower than what it would theoretically cost to let them become free agents in 2019.

It's only 10 years old. And the team that is probably the biggest draw has either been approaching/in bankruptcy, up for sale, going through a sale or going through its reorganization. And then you have the Blackhawks which went from a non-existent television entity when the network began to a huge draw. It's not surprising to me that it hasn't happened yet.

I can't imagine any of these guys doing it on their own, and the only real partners are Fox, Comcast/NBC and Disney/ABC/ESPN. There's a slight chance that Tribune/WGN would want to do something big I guess, but I doubt it. I can still see Comcast/NBC just splitting itself two ways, with with separate partnerships. If they get $1.00 per subscriber with the current arrangement they could theoretically get $0.75 from a Cubs/Hawks channel and $0.50 from a CWS/Bulls channel. Comcast is certainly used to offering multiple channels within the same market, and I'm sure they can figure out the cost synergies.

Not sure how the simultaneously thought works here, and I'm unaware of this theory. However, wouldn't the first shot cause agents to draw their weapons and wouldn't the drawing of those weapons increase the probability of an accidental discharge and thus an accidental discharge that hit the person who most drew the attention of everybody surrounding him? It would be astronomically improbably for it to actually happen simultaneously, but the theory would be one shot led to the drawing of arms and thus the accidental shooting by the agent. The odds go way down at that point.

Looks like Brian Billick will be on this call with freaking Brenneman. Somehow the Bears are 2.5 point favorites and look poised to fall to 2-8 against the spread, with a couple pushes along the way.

was there a thought he wasn't out for the year?

I've seen 14 already.

The only reason the decision is right is because of the odds of success if your play call is decent. If the play call is horrible the odds of success go way down and the decision is not right. This isn't a series of individual events, they all tie in together.

I think we better hope that they just do a much better job in other areas of the game because those weak spots always seem a lot easier to address in theory than practice. If they start scoring 40 points a game, and halt the occasional opponent's drive, you can live with weird decisions.

I guess if you want to be dishonest about the situation, sure. Not sure why you would want to though.

Yep, smart fans never expect a win until two years from whatever day it currently is. When you finish building your army of straw men, mind trying to have some conversations with adults? The short of it is you cannot separate the decision to go for it on 4th down and the play-call that went with it. It doesn't matter if going for it is "right" if you are running Michael Bush up the gut again. The horrible decision to run that play negates any positive takeaway from actually going for it. Then you have the entire pre-half segment and a host of other bad decisions and it is painfully obvious that Trestman is handicapped by his glaring head coach decision making disabilities.

Yep, smart fans never expect a win until two years from whatever day it currently is.