jersey cubs fan

File this under, "probably doesn't matter":

me too

Because being close to .500 isn't exciting. with 2 wild cards, being around .500 means you're probably still in the playoff race in september. yes, that's exciting. I don't see that as exciting. It should be a given that a Cubs team is capable of flirting with .500. That's like bare minimum for an acceptable season. It's going to be exciting when this team actually looks like it may be very good.

I just wasn't sure how to respond to it. If the draft is so different now that everything that came before is meaningless, then there's not much for us to go on. If anything, I suspect that the changes make the non-first picks even less important. You aren't going to have many useful talents slip when they cost a lot less to sign. My guess is you'd see the 50 best taken in the top 50 now instead of having a handful of those guys slip into the later rounds for signability reasons. It should strengthen the first 2 rounds and do away with a lot of guys who were overdrafted just because the better players wouldn't be signable.

Because being close to .500 isn't exciting.

Because the odds of them becoming a useful MLBer are inextricably tied to their trade value. Teams don't trade for prospects because they are shiny and cool. They trade for them because they have a chance to be major leaguers someday. Yes, a chance. But they don't actually have to become useful major leaguers to maintain value as a trade asset for multiple years before actually never being a useful major leaguer.

Yes, but that value has to be considered in addition to the money you have to spend on that player you want in the first place. It's not the negligible value which you've described.

Sanchez is back baby. If it wasn't such a vital national priority to defeat the New England Patriots, the New York Jets Follys would be a tremendously entertaining program. NFL Lines For Week 17 - NFL Football Line Week Seventeen NFL Line 12/30, 2012 Date & Time Favorite Line Underdog Total 12/30 1:00 ET At Buffalo -3.5 NY Jets 39 12/30 4:25 ET At New England -10 Miami 46 12/30 1:00 ET At Cincinnati -2.5 Baltimore 41 12/30 1:00 ET At Pittsburgh Off Cleveland Off 12/30 1:00 ET Houston -6.5 At Indianapolis 46.5 12/30 1:00 ET At Tennessee -4 Jacksonville 42 12/30 1:00 ET At NY Giants -7.5 Philadelphia 46 12/30 8:30 ET At Washington -3 Dallas 48.5 12/30 1:00 ET Chicago -3 At Detroit 44.5 12/30 4:25 ET Green Bay -3 At Minnesota 46 12/30 1:00 ET At Atlanta Off Tampa Bay Off 12/30 1:00 ET At New Orleans -5 Carolina 54 12/30 4:25 ET At Denver -16 Kansas City 42 12/30 4:25 ET At San Diego Off Oakland Off 12/30 4:25 ET At San Francisco -16.5 Arizona 39 12/30 4:25 ET At Seattle -10.5 St. Louis 41

Except the money allocated for a 2nd round pick means you have more money to afford the BPA in the first.

I'm hardly in love with Bourn as the answer in CF, but even with my rather lukewarm view toward him, I'm not at all concerned with giving up a 2nd round pick for him. If it were a first rounder, that'd be a different issue, but draft picks in MLB are such a crapshoot that if you can guarantee yourself even the average/above average production that Bourn will give you, it's well worth giving up a second round pick. It's the money vs likelihood of decline that scares me about Bourn. It's the draft pick and the financial flexibility that comes with that pick's allocation that concern me.

The league's most celebrated ball turner-over and the most celebrated ball taker-awayer, I guess it makes sense.

You aren't going to have sustained success while relying on a strong defense to carry a poor offense, but it does happen a year or two at a time quite frequently.

The NFL is doing away with this week's Bears game? That doesn't seem fair.

romo

That has nothing to do with his huge drop off on punt returns. He's a returner. History tells us those guys are flashes in the pan and do not last. He also hasn't taken anything resembling a step up as a receiver and probably should have been the guy released this week.

So I've read this post a couple times and still have no idea what it means.

I could see them giving him up to 4 years if the money is reasonable enough, or giving him a bit more annually on a shorter contract. I'm "tourn" on Bourn. On one hand I think at 4 years, he'll still provide great value the first couple years with only marginal decline the last couple. But it will cost a second round pick. I think I could be convinced to be happy either way. On one hand Bourn is another solid bat who provides a different type of offense with great defense I hear, and is a nice piece to add to the ever improving ML team. On the other hand, the 2nd pick netted us Underwood and Vogelbach, and we will have a very HIGH 2nd round pick next year. Both of those scenerios are good, either add a high quality guy to the ML team, or add what will likely be a high quality guy that will probably slot into our top 15 in a great system. I wouldn't call Bourn a solid bat myself. The guy is basically a tick below average as a hitter. His position provides the value, but his bat really doesn't. Even among CF he just provides average production at the plate. His value comes via the much less reliable assumptions made about his defense and baserunning. It may or may not be real productivity. I don't see that value as real myself, although I wouldn't mind if they signed him at an extremely lower price point than has been discussed to date. He's just not worth those extreme numbers plus losing a pick.

That's not true. I disagree. Go look at Football Outsiders. They have the number one ranked defense in terms of efficiency, the 4th ranked ST, and the 24th ranked offense. Basically this means that if the defense isn't damn near perfect they're screwed. I realize history will show that some teams can win this way (2000 Ravens come to mind), but I'd venture to say that it's the exception rather than the rule. Also, the Bears SOS has been tough, but not as hard as it might look on paper. Again according to Football Outsiders, Detroit's has actually been a bit tougher, as has Minnesota's, Seattle's, and San Fran's. I'm not sure how you go through that thought process and still think it justifies saying this team is closer to 7-9 than 10-6. Hell, if Earl Bennett could catch a ball they'd already have 10 wins and would be looking at 11.

Should QB size really be that big a deal anymore? Yes. Those scrambling QBs don't last for the long run. They will have great games, and amazing stretches and possibly even terrific full seasons. But over the course of their careers they will get too banged up to be consistently great like the big mostly pocket passers who dominate the league.

They are 9-6 and have played a tough schedule. I think they are a lot closer to being 10-6 than 7-9.

I was listening to the games on Sirius in the car yesterday and had the Cowboys broadcast team. When Spencer got called for grabbing the facemask the announcers said, "on the replay you can see he didn't actually grab it but he did brush by it, and you just can't get near a quarterback's helmet these days." http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/1899g8uq6pwnsgif/original.gif

Mannelly signed an extension through next year.

Yes, that's what the thread right above this one is about. below

Yes. They need to win to get a first round bye. A 49ers loss would also give them the bye, but they play at the same time as the Packers, so they can't count on that. Well that's cool. I wasn't sure what to root for while driving last night. The only thing I knew was Crabtree needed to get me some more points.

I don't understand why people pretend it's hard to root for the Packers this weekend. They may be the most publicized rival, but The Vikings are hardly a friendly peer.