jersey cubs fan

Anybody can build a great team eventually if they tank multiple seasons and suffer no repercussions for losing as often as the Cubs have lost. It's the easy way out. The timeline matters. I think you can give Dave Littlefield (as an example) forever under those circumstances and he won't win. he suffered repercussions for losing. They had 15 fans at their games.

Huh? I've said before that I didn't think or understand why the debt was a concern. And yes, an interest rate at or around the rate of inflation is a major reason for that. Seems weird that this discussion would be going on a week and you wouldn't previously mention your biggest reason that you don't think the owners are concerned about paying off their debt before now. Just struck me as odd. The discussion has not centered around whether or not the owners should be in a hurry to pay down their debt though.

http://www.milb.com/assets/images/3/5/0/43576350/cuts/Mock_Press_PhotoB_3wy3vzit_ik6ytq0v.jpg

High of 41 with rain scheduled. I'd be surprised if it started on time in any case. It seems every time there's a little rain in the forecast somebody says something like this. I don't get it.

Ahh, stupid me not paying attention. That is who i was planning on drafting over the weekend, then I forgot he was still available. Oh well, that's how the J-E-T-S are run in real life anyway.

Well, if you decide not to give Cutler $18 mil a year and then hand the starting job to either Jason Campbell or Caleb Hanie, you've made a horrible mistake and it's not refusing to give Cutler $18 mil a year. Alex Smith has been the very definition of league average (or worse) and he was just dealt for a ridiculous haul. Joe Flacco has been very inconsistent throughout his career and Football Outsiders has never ranked him above 14th best in the NFL. So, basically the Ravens went expensive and have a league average QB. Even in the playoffs this year he was fairly hot and cold. My view is that you can't wrap that much of your payroll (Flacco) or future (Smith) into the very definitions of league average QBs. They're not going to make you better (ala Peyton, Brady, Rodgers, etc) and instead are going to hamper you from doing so. I was probably in error putting Romo in that group. I'm not sure he's worth $18 mil a year, but he might be good enough to make it reasonable to pay it. I agree with your overall point that you have to overpay for some of the better QBs, but I don't see how Joe Flacco and Alex Smith support your argument. Romo maybe, but not the other two. I think you are equating the ranking of football players and baseball players here too much. For one, I wouldn't say being ranked 12th or 14th is the definition of league average, because there are more than 32 QBs that play every year. And the thing you really want to avoid above all else is below average play. That will kill you. Also, it is by far the most important position. It's not one of 5 starting pitchers. You can't just let a guy go because you don't want to overpay him and spend the same money on two guys who will combine to start 40% of your games at the position. Go ahead and let your average QB walk everytime he's due a raise above his worth and you'll set your team back 2 years trying to replace him. The luxury of the non-guaranteed contract also helps in this matter because if you're Flacco type QB does start to slide, you aren't tied to him for the life of the deal. The bottom line is it is very difficult to find competent QBs. Without one, you're doomed. Once you find one, you will be happy to overpay to keep that position stabilized and give your team a chance to win Super Bowls, like Flacco's team has done.

Jets take DE Ezekiel Ansah, BYU. WR is an option but you're just wasting talent by having Sanchez throw toward it.

Would love the eagles to do something fun and stupid and take geno smith here. But I will pick Sharrif Floyd this time.

Drafting qb in first round would be preposterous. There isn't one worth taking in the first on his own merit and it would completely negate everything they did in free agency. They need impact guys on day 1 and 2 who can contribute today. Not the next mark Sanchez.

I loved what he did before the draft last year and I've liked what he's done before the draft this year (right moves, although he did overpay for some serious mediocrity). I still dislike last year's draft, am very skeptical about his coaching hire (and the subsequent staff hired by Trestmann) and hope to hell he hits a grand slam a month from now.

seems like a very suitable starter

This is what I think as well. I don't think the ad cost the Cubs any money, but if it did I'm not upset with the Cubs. I'd be upset with Rahm. It cost them room for negotiation plus time. Which in the end, costs money.

What's the point of that question? I never said they could. But they could have made it more difficult to refuse and at least allowed for negotiations to go more smoothly. You start with thought of the city kicking in something financially and work down to where the Cubs pay and get what they want. Instead, you back yourself into a corner and force to negotiate from the other direction.

I can't talk specifics because I'm just not that well versed in the rest of the league anymore. But it's not like I'm actively looking to deal the guy, I was more goofing on the wording of that other post.

What counts as a win here? Every other team gets public funding and we were looking like we were heading that direction too, until the Joe Ricketts crap came out. For that reason alone, its already a loss, isn't it? Negotiating win against Tunney? Thats not a win for me. Beating our chest because we're the business that keeps everything else booming and they're allowing us to fund everything ourselves while capitalizing bigtime from us? Sorry, but the minute the 150 mill public funding waived bye-bye, the chance for a win waved bye-bye too. Most teams can manage to get help, but we couldn't. Loss. It shouldn't matter how off the wall Joe Ricketts' ads were. Rahm should be doing what is best for the city not using city funding to slap a business owner on the wrist because they don't like their dad's choice of presidential candidate and made a stupid ad. Rahm believed that giving that money for the renovation was either good or bad for the city before the ad came out. That ad should not have changed his opinion. If that ad truly cost the Cubs renovation money then be mad at Rahm, not Ricketts. Can you really be upset with the Ricketts because they apparently aren't playing dirty Chicago politics? Sure it would be great for the team if they could get public funding to improve their stadium, but it looks to me like A) nobody was going to get that money from the city or B) nobody was going to get that money honestly or ethically from the city. The Ricketts are victims of Chicago politics. You can't blame the landmark issues that were contrived in 2004 by Tunney to protect the people giving him some sort of kickbacks on Ricketts. You can't use the fact that every other team gets funding to knock the Ricketts. No other team has the ridiculous restrictions placed on them by their municipal government. That was done before the Ricketts bought the team. Oh come on. Should? What does "should" have to do with political reality? If business owners cannot operate under the obvious political constraints in place then they aren't good business owners.

I sure as hell wouldn't need an historically comical overpay to part ways with Castro. Alright, let's hear this. Just a standard overpay will suffice for me.

Well, they filled a lot of holes in free agency precisely so they could draft BPA in the first and not force themselves into a Chris Williams situation. Bennett isn't exactly Marshall when it comes to filling the position they signed him for. If they see the value in a guy and he drops to them, it wouldn't be weird at all. That is especially true with an offensive minded head coach implementing a pass heavy system with a need for as many weapons as possible. Plenty of teams utilizes 2 TE weapons at once. You don't have to have one pass catcher, one blocker and one guy who is okay at both. If you subscribe to the theory that it's best to become dominant at something and then dictate the game that way, then that could be an excellent selection. Bennett isn't exactly a guy they are going to depend on to lock down the position for 4 years by himself. His contract actually makes it reasonable to cut him after year 1, since that is when his actual salary escalates. You keep the pressure on him to perform and it he does fine, but if you can get better production out of a guy in his first contract, who cannot negotiate a raise for another year, why not? If the value is there, take it. It would be weird to take a RB or QB in the first round. Or to do something stupid like trade up for a linebacker. But drafting a TE doesn't seem weird to me at all. Not my first choice, but an acceptable option.

How many pitches did he throw? Stanford isn't releasing that info this year. Law or someone else said they doubted he'd hit 120 pitches in a game this year though. Were the 3 HBP just a hardassed college macho thing or was he wild? Those would have to be some quick k's and easy innings to not get up to 120 through 9.

If UK is taking the Cardinals and raw takes the steelers that leaves the Eagles and Redskins. I'll take the Eagles and Washington doesn't have a selection until the middle of round 2 anyway. Let's get started. Chiefs are on the clock.

No Gretzky?

How many pitches did he throw?

2.7 PA/league game

75,000 what?

That's a special kind of weird. EDIT: Full two-round mock, minus explanations: http://boards.buffalobills.com/showthread.php?457404-Todd-McShay-Mock-Draft-4-0-Updated-3-28-2013-Bills-Select-Chance-Warmack Why do you think it is weird? Because of Bennett?