UMFan83

This is a great start: It's funny how against this contract I was when it was handed out in 2006. I hated Soriano as a player and I knew what a big mistake we made when we signed him. That said, I actually feel like I completely underestimated how bad this contract would be at the time, if that makes any sense. I went from thinking it was a horrible contract that will slightly hurt the team long term and be a thorn in our side, to knowing that it's a deal that gigantically hinders the Cubs long term. Seriously, imagine if we don't sign that contract in 06. It's hard to say what would happen. Does Ted Lilly sign with the Cubs? Do we win the Central in 07-08? I don't know but we'd be in a much better situation right now. Ahh who am I kidding, we would have wasted the money on someone else.

The stupid stadium capacity always works against us. I'm satisfied with the renovated Soldier Field from a Bears standpoint, but in terms of having a stadium equipped to host a multitude of international events, it sucks. The Olympic plan would have been much easier if Soldier Field was built to accommodate an Olympic Opening ceremony, and now this goes against us partially because of the stadium size. Again, I love Soldier Field for football. It's small, and somewhat intimate for football at least. The seats are over the field for the most part, the luxury box crowd is accommodated and best of all the sound travels pretty well there compared to some other cavernous stadiums in the NFL. But seeing as how the city built this park, it surprises me that they didn't concern themselves with Soldier Field being a multi-use facility, or at least more of one than it is.

I'm depressed about this slap in the face, but I personally don't think the USA will win the bid to host anyways.

Not with Golden State. He was a 2 time all star with the Hornets and not since.

I'm concerned Tyrus is one of those guys who you trade and then he wakes up and becomes a good player. But you have to trade him for him to get the message, so he'll continue to be inconsistent with the Bulls. Argh. Just like Cedric Benson (except that he wasn't traded). It's true that the Bulls haven't had an All-Star since the Jordan years right? Yup. Only the Warriors have a longer streak (1997 vs. 1998)

For all the talk around here about the MLB playoffs being a crap shoot why isn't the NCAA tourney viewed the same way? Teams get hot at the right time and make a nice run. Unfortunatel,y Purdue has not had success in that manner. However, they have been able to endure and triumph through a very tough conference season 21 times. That cannot be dismissed just because of the lack of their tournament success. In some respects it's a crapshoot, but the best programs get to the Final Four and Title Game much more frequently than your Boilermakers. At some point it has to count for something. As for your next point, how do you have any clue how "very tough" the conference seasons were in 1920? Of your 21 Big Ten titles, 13 were won between the years of 1911-1940. I mean for many of those years, the radio didn't even exist. Yes I know that's part of the "historically the best" argument that Bum made, but you cannot honestly compare a Big Ten title in 1921 to one any year after 1960, when there were advancements like the shot clock, national recruiting, and television that completely revolutionized the level of play in college basketball. You can't win 62% of your titles 70 years or more ago, then have a couple of good recruting classes in the mid-80s and mid-90s while having a tournament history that pales in comparison to half of the conference, and then claim that Purdue is historically the 2nd best team in the Big Ten with a straight face.

You can see where this is going. The Bulls throw all the eggs in Wade's basket, Bosh gets traded/signs somewhere before Wade does anything, and Wade eventually reups with Miami and it will never be clear if he had even considered Chicago at all.

Fizer - bust, bad draft pick Curry - part of the infamous Chandler/Curry HS gamble, I don't know if it was bad scouting, bad, cs coaching or if it was just that these are just risky picks that failed. Also one of the weakest drafts ever. But we gave up Brand in this draft so it's a net huge loss. Williams - Not really our fault, we told him not to ride a motorcycle Hinrich - Horrible luck. Bulls finished really strong that year and got the 7 pick. Before their pick: LeBron, Anthony, Wade, Bosh. After (best players): David West, Josh Howard. That's honestly it. Horrible luck there. Gordon - Was a fine pick, maybe not for number 3 but the draft was a little weak. Devin Harris, Al Jefferson, Iguodala, Josh Smith and Kevin Matin drafted after, but none of them is outrageously ahead of Gordon on talent, if at all. None Thomas - Yeah this was pretty bad. We drafted Aldridge to trade for him, but the thing is everyone thought we needed Aldridge and Thomas was a much bigger project. They said Aldridge's ceiling is lower than Thomas' but the risk is less and he fits a need. Was highly questionable at the time and looks even worse now even though Tyrus isn't as horrible as people seem to think. Some were horrible picks, some were horrible luck, some were in the middle. I don't think drafting consistently high in the draft isn't the lock people make it out to be.

I'd be for the move, but its an extremely high risk move. It might be more risky than Harden, or at least as. Without fail Sheets has missed time with injury every single year since 2004, and sometimes twice a year. And that list doesn't include 2008 where he was unable to make his last 2-3 starts in the Brewers playoff push as well as unable to play in the postseason. Again, I'm for the move because it's a really high reward. He's one of the top 5-10 pitchers in baseball when he's healthy, but he's not healthy all that much.

You make it sound the Hawks should be afraid. I'm sorry I can't get afraid of the Ducks, I simply can't. There is not a team in the West that the Hawks can't beat. And you could argue the Hawks could beat every team in the NHL. So you're statement, NUN, really should fall on deaf eyes. I don't disrepsect the Ducks, I, and I am pretty sure the Hawks players themselves will agree with what I am saying, just don't fear them. To NUN's credit, the playoffs are another animal than the regular season. Things get more physical, different styles of play are more effective than in the regular season. You can be a great regular season team and fall flat on your face in the playoffs. Most teams can translate well, and the Hawks team certainly answered questions about their playoff abilities last season when they went to the WCF. But all it takes is one bad matchups and a few bad breaks and the best team in the NHL is eliminated. Plus being the best team in the NHL, if that's what the Hawks are, is not always a black and white kinda thing. You can have the ability to beat just about every team or style in hockey, but there might be a team out there that can keep up with them and play them well. To that team, the Hawks aren't the best team in hockey. I'm speaking in hypotheticals here, but my point stands. I'm at the crossroads of wanted to say "lets not get to cocky here", and "screw it lets enjoy it while it lasts because our teams are never this awesome, lets act cocky". As for the Ducks, NUN has a reason to respect them, as the little 8 seed that could took out the number 1 seed Sharks, and took his Wings, the number 2 seed to 7 tough games. I believe that game 7 was tied until the last couple of minutes when the Wings finally put them away. And after that tough series, the Wings regrouped to take care of the Blackhawks with ease. So you never know. Let's just enjoy our team being really damn awesome and try not to look too hard at the playoffs, a lesson I learned from the 2008 Cubs season. I don't think I appreciated that year as much as I could have because all I focused on from May onwards was the playoffs, and look where that got me.

Not to put too much pressure on Jean Lenti Ponsetto, but this next coach selection will likely decide the fate of the DePaul athletic program. Their contract with the Big East ends with the 2014-2015 season and if they continue to be putrid, they will likely get kicked out and replaced, likely ending in the Atlantic 10 or Horizon League, likely costing the university millions in revenue and likely eliminating more sports from their already pretty thin athletic program budget. Kudos to her for finally standing up for the tradition of the program and ending this clown's reign. Now hopefully some alumni will pony up some money for a real coach because the money wasn't even there to buy him out last year even though she tried. When did they try to buy him out? I didn't read about that. They actually extended him last January until 2012. I'm pretty happy that this happened, but you are right, the program is at a crossroads. They claim that money isn't an object in finding a long term coach, and I hope that is true. DePaul basketball can succeed even with a small fan base, dilapidated facilities, and non existence in it's media market. The Big East is full of programs that deal with the exact same factors DePaul has (Marquette, Villanova, Providence, St. Johns, Seton Hall, even Georgetown). They need to figure out how they want to build their program, and once they do that, go out and find the best possible coach for that situation. Personally, if I had a choice, I would contact Brian Gregory from Dayton and see if he's interested in coming to DePaul. It's arguable that DePaul is a more prominent program than Dayton at this time, but there are advantages to the DePaul job. He's done a good job of recruiting his share of top prospects from the area (such as Chris Wright). Another name that keeps popping up that makes me laugh is none other than Dave Leito. I'm still pissed he left the program in shambles after some good years, and now he's out of a job and would probably consider DePaul again.

I can't wait until Cardinals fans give him a long standing ovation on opening day and the media creams their pants over the "greatest fans in baseball"

Did you know that every NFL team has a Smith, Jones or Williams on their roster EXCEPT the Colts and Cardinals? I think I just made my Super Bowl pick.

Desperate attempt to get into the HOF. Or it could just help him transition into his hitting coach role by admitting things up front.

Good move. I love the fact that he will be in our organization in the event that changes are made to the coaching staff where he can fill in.

Anyways, getting back to the topic at hand, if his defense holds up Warner is guaranteed to not have to play a game outdoors until the Super Bowl if they can keep winning, assumming you consider Dallas a dome. 4 dome teams left in the NFC.

^^ One of the most fascinating careers in NFL history. To think the Bears could have had him at one point before he was rejuvenated in Arizona.

Aren't all playoff losses amongst the most demoralizing losses you could imagine? Give me an example of a playoff game that wouldn't fall into this category. Would you have rather the Packers not made a comeback? Not picking on you, just wondering, because I always think like that, and if asked that I would say like a 27-17 loss would be better because we'd just be beaten by a better team but at least were in the game and not blown out. But in reality, I'd be picking those moments of close calls that didn't go our way, which happen in every game to make me demoralized beyond belief about what could have been. losing on a fumble in ot after you just missed a wide open reciever for a td that would have ended the game (and after you came back from 21 down in the second half) is a bit different than losing like the eagles or patriots did this weekend, yea. True. I missed the play where he missed the receiver, I had to run an errand the last 5 minutes of the 4th and only heard the rest on the radio. Maybe if I saw how close it was I could understand better. he was wide open and all alone. all he had to do was hit him and it's game over. he overthrew him by about 5 feet That's rough. It happens all the time in football, but with the way Rodgers was playing it's hard to see him miss that throw.

Aren't all playoff losses amongst the most demoralizing losses you could imagine? Give me an example of a playoff game that wouldn't fall into this category. Would you have rather the Packers not made a comeback? Not picking on you, just wondering, because I always think like that, and if asked that I would say like a 27-17 loss would be better because we'd just be beaten by a better team but at least were in the game and not blown out. But in reality, I'd be picking those moments of close calls that didn't go our way, which happen in every game to make me demoralized beyond belief about what could have been. losing on a fumble in ot after you just missed a wide open reciever for a td that would have ended the game (and after you came back from 21 down in the second half) is a bit different than losing like the eagles or patriots did this weekend, yea. True. I missed the play where he missed the receiver, I had to run an errand the last 5 minutes of the 4th and only heard the rest on the radio. Maybe if I saw how close it was I could understand better.

Since I went 0-4 this weekend, I feel it my duty to make my picks early this week so that you can bet on the other teams. New Orleans 34 Arizona 31 Indianapolis 20 Baltimore 17 Dallas 30 Minnesota 24 San Diego 26 New York 13 BTW, I'm not as anti-Minnesota's chances as it seems. I just can't have all 4 home teams winning this week and I like the Dallas/Minny game to be that one. Minny in the dome is tough but so is Dallas over the last month.

Technically they lost to the Lightning Friday, they just completed it tonight.

That's the thing. Part of the Hawks offense is to throw it on the net and try to convert rebounds. They don't always stress waiting for a great look to shoot. So the Hawks will rack up a bunch of shots but not all of them are solid SOG, so games like this will happen occasionally.

Finally, at least they didn't shut us out.

Oh and speaking of demoralizing, how crappy must Bill Simmons weekend have been? Game 1: Jets (+2.5) vs. Bengals Simmons predicts: Bengals 20, Jets 6 (Bengals cover) Actual result: Jets 24, Bengals 14 (Jets cover) Difference in scores: 24 points Game 2: Eagles (+4.0) vs. Cowboys Simmons predicts: Cowboys 33, Eagles 31 (Eagles cover) Actual result: Cowboys 34, Eagles 14 (Cowboys cover) Difference in scores: 18 points Game 3: Ravens (+3.0) vs. Patriots Simmons predicts: Patriots 24, Ravens 16 (Patriots cover) Actual result: Ravens 33, Patriots 14 (Ravens cover) Difference in scores: 27 points Game 4: Packers (PK) vs. Cardinals (this was the line he gave...I believe it moved up before game) Simmons predicts: Packers 31, Cardinals 23 (Packers cover) Actual result: Cardinals 51, Packers 45 (Cardinals cover) Difference in scores: 14 points 0-4 against the spread 1-3 outright 85 points off in his predictions Hopefully he doesn't bet what he puts in his columns.

Aren't all playoff losses amongst the most demoralizing losses you could imagine? Give me an example of a playoff game that wouldn't fall into this category. Would you have rather the Packers not made a comeback? Not picking on you, just wondering, because I always think like that, and if asked that I would say like a 27-17 loss would be better because we'd just be beaten by a better team but at least were in the game and not blown out. But in reality, I'd be picking those moments of close calls that didn't go our way, which happen in every game to make me demoralized beyond belief about what could have been.