jersey cubs fan

the write-up portion of completely different

I think it's fairly common for those taller lineman to have already had knee surgery in high school, let alone after 3-4 years of college. I doubt very man do it simply for precaution.

A) If everything goes well for vitters, I'd say .300/20 is more in his wheelhouse than .275/20. B) A .275/20 3rd baseman is super awesome. C) He's *really* close to being there, seeing as how he actually hit in AAA. Ronny Cedeno hit in AAA.

Did Chuck Wasserstrom put together those stats for Topps?

Erm... The Fridge wouldn't be worth a nickname if he showed up today.Yes, they're bigger than they were in the 70s and 80s. People said that same thing about the fridge in the 90's, 20 years ago. Proper PED usage isn't making guys larger, it's making them stronger/quicker and allowing them to heal faster. Richard Dent and Reggie White were two of the premium pass rushing ends of the previous era, and they are the same size as many of today's guys. Dick Butkus was a 6'3" 250 pound LB, which isn't different from todays' players. There are a few big fat dudes clogging up the middle, but that style of play isn't as popular as the smaller faster players.

Pretty fortunate for them that next year's draft is stronger.

I feel like some people are relying far too heavily on completely unproven ranking systems to determine the value of football players. Isn't this like the antithesis of NSBB? I mean, I understand that baseball advanced metrics are a million times more reliable and proven, but there was a time when they weren't as widely acclaimed. Also, there's a lot of discussion of PER in NBA threads, FO ratings are used as gospel in most NFL threads, and even pass blocking efficiency (which is the ranking system I assume you're referring to) has been used to make many an argument without being questioned. Why all the sudden is this system "completely unproven"? All the sudden? It's never been. This isn't baseball. Baseball metrics work because you can specifically track individual performance, as it is an individual game, and the sample size is ample in any one season. Football is not, and tracking individual performance with a system like this is flawed from the outset.

But if you are predicting 1.5-2.5 WAR from a guy, ever, let alone only the peak season, isn't it nearly impossible to suggest there are 24 guys better in the system?

If you could ever get a platoon to work out that way, sure.

I feel like some people are relying far too heavily on completely unproven ranking systems to determine the value of football players.

There's no need to cross him off the board yet because the "possibility" of other guys is useless. The Bears need a LT. They cannot miss out on one by only looking at ideal candidates.

I think Orlando Pace is a really bad comp for the discussion. He's much more likely to be the next John Tait. The Bears were forced to overpay Tait because, hey what do you know, they had no offensive line. Tait was nothing special, but he filled a huge hole and allowed the team to stabilize the line for a few years (before the lack of attention in the draft, and aging among the rest of the line once again made it a problem).

Can't wait to see where he goes this summer. Aaaannd the fans rioted, continued their racist chants and the game has been suspended. Cool look, Holland. Jozy wanted to keep playing: folmokaked akaglen

The NFL gets a pass because there isn't the same regard for the record books and "sanctity" of the game that MLB has. And because people love the violence, and the game is as violent as ever. But it's obvious that the NFL is juiced. The one thing that always strikes me when watching old (not all that old, even 20 years ago) NFL highlights is how small the players were. Today's players are monsters in comparison. Bigger, faster, stronger. And not just a little, either. And yes, the hypocrisy of the media when it comes to MLB and steroid use is ridiculous. Even more ridiculous is the feigned ignorance regarding the steroid era, and how "shocked and betrayed" they felt about the "revelations" of PED use. Its disingenuous horse [expletive]. The rampant steroid use was at best ignored and at worst tacitly encouraged by the league, ownership and the media that ate all of it up. And for most of the steroid era, it wasn't even illegal within the sport. Now if you use now, you're in a whole different category (at least in my book) than McGwire, Sosa, Clemens et al. Now a player really has to have an arrogant disregard to use what is explicitly banned. While there is crossover, you also have to take into account that baseball media are not the same people as football media. Baseball people lived on the mythology of their heroes forever. It was always about the innocence of childhood and the past. Baseball media is sanctimonious by nature. Also, guys weren't really smaller 20 years ago. Steroids were huge in the NFL in the 70's/80's/90's. They may be faster now, but they aren't all that much more huge. There are more guys today who can be described as ripped, but that's probably more to do with the refined training (and PED) use, rather than increased usage.

Deadspin:

From what I understood of what was said at the convention, presently the plan is to just have an open air setup there with seasonal attractions like skating rinks, farmers markets, etc. That's what they said when asked about the triangle building. I vaguely remembered something about that no longer being part of the plan but had assumed some sort of building would have to be there eventually. I can't imagine that just stays an open space in the long run.

Does he really have the right to be making such demands? I know his first few years in the league he was absolutely dominant, but the last two have been injury plagued and his performance while on the field has been pretty shoddy. He of course should be payed as one of the better LTs in the league; but to blow away pretty much the rest of the LT market? I don't think so. Of course he has the right to request $10m/year. Dominant tackles are rare, and valuable. They also don't make it to free agency very often. The NFL salary cap keeps going up but first contracts have shrunk with the new CBA. The whole reason the union was willing to accept that is they see more money going to already established players rather than unknowns. If he can make $15m under the franchise tag, and his first contract was 5/57, why wouldn't he ask for $10m per as a 28 year old free agent? Nobody likes to pay running backs anymore. The league is all about passing and in order to pass you need a QB, a WR and a LT. But he's not really a dominant tackle anymore. And he's not likely to be franchised, so, maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not really sure what you mean by that part. The question was if he had the right to request $10m/year. The answer is that his agents would be incompetent to have the starting request be any lower.

Does he really have the right to be making such demands? I know his first few years in the league he was absolutely dominant, but the last two have been injury plagued and his performance while on the field has been pretty shoddy. He of course should be payed as one of the better LTs in the league; but to blow away pretty much the rest of the LT market? I don't think so. Of course he has the right to request $10m/year. Dominant tackles are rare, and valuable. They also don't make it to free agency very often. The NFL salary cap keeps going up but first contracts have shrunk with the new CBA. The whole reason the union was willing to accept that is they see more money going to already established players rather than unknowns. If he can make $15m under the franchise tag, and his first contract was 5/57, why wouldn't he ask for $10m per as a 28 year old free agent? Nobody likes to pay running backs anymore. The league is all about passing and in order to pass you need a QB, a WR and a LT.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-wrigley-field-rehab-0125-20130125,0,3128450,full.story You will probably see a combination of inside the park and rooftop ads. Most inside park ones won't actually obstruct views.

I think that threat has to remain implied right now and not part of the message that gets disseminated by the media.

In the end this is all just negotiations. The Cubs have numbers in mind and the rooftop people have numbers in mind, and the powers that be appear to be on the Cubs' side. They will come to an agreement that in the end is going to involve a substantial increase in revenue for the Cubs with contained costs that would be dwarfed by the costs of building a new stadium. Ballparks cost $1B now. The Cubs do not want to spend $1B, they aren't getting money from Illinois, and no suburb is going to be able to kick in a big enough number to make it work. It won't be a rundown dump when they are done.