jersey cubs fan

I wouldn't want the read option to be a staple but Cutler should absolutely run by design on occasion.

I know there's a lot of alarmism going on and I know concussions are a significant issue, but this is getting ridiculous. How in the world is this enforceable without really dragging down the games? I do not get all the "dragging down the game" alarmism when it comes to these rules. Steelers fans have been apoplectic because they are stacked with dirty players who make dirty plays and now get called on it. These rules are essentially enforcing the way every youth coach should have been teaching his players how to play the game safely. You can still hit the crap out of guys in this sport and still have fantastic contests without the stuff they are now cracking down on.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/ct-spt-0320-bears-pompei-chicago-20130320,0,4357384.column For when you have to remember why Angelo had to go. But also, after year 1 Emery has not exactly shown that he's capable of doing the opposite. Also this should be something that shuts up all the people who claim the Bears aren't good enough because ownership is cheap.

The transit options are the lifeblood of the attendance figures. It's not just meaningful, it's the most important thing. Dropping a stadium next door to O'hare goes beyond silly and is just flat out dumb.

In short it doesn't matter. If you live and work in the burbs you drive everywhere anyway. There are much more people and many more people with money inside the city and those are the people that baseball teams depend on to sell seats. You need the office worker with the $100 ticket to be able to hop off the train and enter the stadium right after work. Suburban parks don't work in areas that rely upon city centers and public transportation. There is a reason every new stadium that popped up were built in cities, and not in the exurbs. That's fine for a place like LA, where everybody drives everywhere, but it would not work in Chicago. It doesn't matter if it helps out a portion of the fan base that would now have a shorter drive to games. It would alienate a much larger portion of the fan base. I just google mapped public transportation from the loop to Wrigley as 26 minutes. The NCS Metra from Union Station to the O'hare transfer in Rosemont is 32 minutes. That six minutes can't be a deal breaker for the downtown office worker (read: me for the last 5 years). That's one train line, and only Metra, not the CTA. In the comparison to Citi Field, (which again sucks and nobody has been going for years) there is a subway line and a commuter train. Yankee Stadium has multiple subways and commuter lines. You have to compare Chicago's situation to NY and Boston. They may have football stadiums located far from the city itself, but that's for eight dates a year and only weekends. In a sport that plays everyday in a city that relies on transit for commuters, a suburban stadium is a awful idea. You need easy access of public transit and this location does not allow for it. It's also butted up against multiple runways and a tollway and only accessible from one direction. It's horrible. Wrigley Field has thrived for decades with no parking. Why? Because you don't need to drive to the stadium. If you insist on it you can, but it's not recommended. That doesn't hurt the team. Moving away from the city would hurt. Again, you can make it easier for a few hundred thousand theoretical customers but you will be making it much hard for many more people and virtually eliminating the tourist dollar.

In short it doesn't matter. If you live and work in the burbs you drive everywhere anyway. There are much more people and many more people with money inside the city and those are the people that baseball teams depend on to sell seats. You need the office worker with the $100 ticket to be able to hop off the train and enter the stadium right after work. Suburban parks don't work in areas that rely upon city centers and public transportation. There is a reason every new stadium that popped up were built in cities, and not in the exurbs. That's fine for a place like LA, where everybody drives everywhere, but it would not work in Chicago. It doesn't matter if it helps out a portion of the fan base that would now have a shorter drive to games. It would alienate a much larger portion of the fan base.

is it raw's turn now, or mine?

Ugh. I have no problem with the players getting more of the pie, but they shouldn't be [expletive] over the amateurs to do it. The new CBA and now this are a [expletive] joke. That's the way of the unions though. Above all else protect the current members while negotiating away the benefits of future members. Owners are willing to spend a little more now to protect costs in the future. In this case it's a pretty easy sell too, since veteran players hate money going to unproven rookies (or rookies minus 5 years). NFL and NBA each negotiated away the potential for draftees to make a ton of cash, and MLB already gave up the American amateurs.

might as well take the Giants in addition to the Jets.

I know that hockey isn't the only sport that is irresponsible with salaries, but they're the most economically challenged of the 4 major sports, and they continue to give out these kinds of deals. From an admittedly new-ish hockey fan, it just seems pretty ridiculous. These things are relative though. The best players in the NHL don't even make half of what the best players in MLB, NFL or NBA make. In this case, Perry is making about 1/7 of the team payroll. That would be like the Cubs paying an MVP caliber player $21 million per season. Good point. And I was referring more to an overall trend of long term deals with hockey players that have seemed ridiculous over the years, and probably mis-attributing one thing to the other. I've never seen a study on the matter but anecdotally it seems to me that guys who are really good hockey players in their early 20's tend to stay really good hockey players for a long time. Injuries play a role, but there are no pitchers or running backs in hockey, guys who are going to get injured early and often. Goalies are a different beast, as very few of them are actually consistently good for long. But there are only 1 or 2 on any team that matter. Perhaps the poster boy for injuries that derail a promising career is Eric Lindros, who still had an amazing career in reality. Most of the time these contracts are locking guys up at a fairly significant discount to what they can get on the open market, often in the $5-7m range. Compare that with the now relatively standard deal in baseball that's 6-8 years long at $15m+ per season.

Well it is a suburban stadium afterall. Even as a suburb that borders the city thats what you get. If the Cubs couldn't stay at Wrigley (which won't happen anyways) they could do worse, like Schaumburg or something. Comparing it to Wrigley or freaking Yankee stadium is dumb. It is not dumb at all. Yankee Stadium is in an outlying borough. It is nowhere near a business center of any kind and fairly isolated, similar to this proposed location. The comparison is made however, because baseball is an everyday sport that relies on people going to the stadium from work. In cities where public transit (trains, not freaking buses or shuttles from parking lots) is vital for commuters you need your stadiums within easy access of the city's main transit options. The Blue line is the worst line in Chicago. It takes forever to get from O'Hare to downtown, let alone to simply transfer to another line. And a mile plus walk from a station to a stadium is absurd. Citi Field, which blows, has subway tracks across the street and transit trains is the same spot.

The blue line sucks, takes forever to get anywhere and is not located near the area described. And buses are not decent. Compare to citi or Yankees stadium that have multiple trains right across the street. Yankees stadium is a few minutes from manhattan and the trip is okay. Citi is far from anything and blows. This would be worse than citi.

No way. There's no good reason to pay for a backup QB.

I don't think people are coming to any conclusions about the quality of this team based on any particular spring training game. I think people came to the conclusion long ago and the site of the opening day lineup just sort of reiterated the thought.

there are no decent public transit amenities in the area.

I don't think it would be a disgrace to the team at all. I think the city would be the ones in disgrace for not being able to work out a deal with an owner who is willing to foot the entire bill for the project. Having a stadium butting up against O'Hare would blow. There are multiple runways within a couple hundreds yards of the described location. It would also likely cost the team roughly $1B to build a new stadium worth building, even if they get the land for free.

#Cubs game Tues will feature Opening Day lineup: DeJesus cf, Castro ss, Riz 1b, Sori lf, Schierholtz rf, Castillo c, Valbuena 3b, Barney 2b

I'm not a fan of the idea. But I'm all for other locations making offers.

I hate blocking tight ends. Everytime they target one they end up with a guy who isn't that good at blocking. By the time they pay a new blocking TE, are they going to save a whole lot over what they would've paid Spaeth? They probably never should have gone after Spaeth in the first place.

The former is part is talent. No it is not.

I hate blocking tight ends. Everytime they target one they end up with a guy who isn't that good at blocking.

Well, why don't they equal talent? For one, they can equate to how close to the majors a player is. Also, they equate to what rules apply to the player. A guy like this, without restrictions, is going to get more than a guy who falls under the restricted category and is much more talented. Circumstance plays a very big part.

Soler looks like a big old raw athlete. I didn't want to believe it would take as long as reported, but I can see why it would.