UMFan83

Honestly, it'd be nice to have a little money to spend this offseason, but I think we need to stop throwing money at our problems, especially when Jim Hendry doesn't make the right decisions when he's doing so. I think to get out of this mess Jim has left us in, we need to look in terms of multiple years. I would sign a filler FA or two (Cameron is fine I guess), see if we can get lucky and click, but have the focus be long term.

I would be with you, but after I saw the way the players reacted with relief after Bradley was suspended at the end of the year, I am pretty certain it would be better for the team to play next year without Bradley. For me the trouble with that is how much of that was truly directed at Bradley and how much was that just frustration over the crappy season and looking for someone to blame? Or how much of that was just based on the feelings at that moment due to a specific incident? Bradley made plenty of stupid comments/decisions, but I think it's reasonable to think that effectively starting fresh with a new season that it would be a much different situation. I think it would basically come down to how the 2010 season kicks off. If the team is winning and/or Bradley isn't ice cold again I highly doubt anyone on the team is going to have a problem with him. If the team was winning, or Bradley started off the season well, it would mask a lot. But overall I see Bradley as a cancer to this Cubs team. The core of the team seems to strongly dislike Bradley, and while it won't directly affect their play, it will have an effect on the 2010 season. I do see your viewpoint though. Even if Bradley was only a minor nuisance with occasional outbursts, I'd be willing to keep Bradley because there's no way we'll be a better team on paper after trading Bradley for whoever they get. But I think the bridge has been burned, and having Bradley back next year would be horrible for the Cubs. Baseball is an individual sport. Clubhouse cancer is just another excuse to point fingers. Maybe. And I'm not a huge fan of accounting for chemistry or intangibles to affect team performance, but after seeing the crap everyone had to go through with Bradley last season, I think it would be better to not have Bradley on next years team.

I would be with you, but after I saw the way the players reacted with relief after Bradley was suspended at the end of the year, I am pretty certain it would be better for the team to play next year without Bradley. For me the trouble with that is how much of that was truly directed at Bradley and how much was that just frustration over the crappy season and looking for someone to blame? Or how much of that was just based on the feelings at that moment due to a specific incident? Bradley made plenty of stupid comments/decisions, but I think it's reasonable to think that effectively starting fresh with a new season that it would be a much different situation. I think it would basically come down to how the 2010 season kicks off. If the team is winning and/or Bradley isn't ice cold again I highly doubt anyone on the team is going to have a problem with him. If the team was winning, or Bradley started off the season well, it would mask a lot. But overall I see Bradley as a cancer to this Cubs team. The core of the team seems to strongly dislike Bradley, and while it won't directly affect their play, it will have an effect on the 2010 season. I do see your viewpoint though. Even if Bradley was only a minor nuisance with occasional outbursts, I'd be willing to keep Bradley because there's no way we'll be a better team on paper after trading Bradley for whoever they get. But I think the bridge has been burned, and having Bradley back next year would be horrible for the Cubs.

Can we please get top news status on the Trib's sports site for the Blackhawks. Every game they win, and every game they are a small article with no picture on the right side of the page, while teams like the crappy Bears, or the pathetic Bulls, or the 100 miles away from Chicago Notre Dame get headline status. There is so many horrible teams playing in Chicago lately, and they all get priority over the only hope for Chicago sports.

I would be with you, but after I saw the way the players reacted with relief after Bradley was suspended at the end of the year, I am pretty certain it would be better for the team to play next year without Bradley.

The 3 star thing is pretty cool, but I wish the players selected wouldn't look so apathetic when they came out. Understandable since they just got done playing 65 minutes of hockey but still.

THAT WAS [expletive] AWESOME!!!! BUFF!!!!! Seriously that was just beautiful stick work. He speeds past the defenders, makes a couple of nifty moves to get the goalie off balanced, and then puts a wrister right into the perfect spot.

Sharp getting an open look on the wrong side of the ice. Grr

none that matter, unless you think nashville has a chance at catching us. It's a long season. The Hawks are an awesome team but they still gotta earn the points.

Eastern Conference points are irrelevant, though. I know, its just to point out the Hawks aren't playing their best. That said, when they aren't at their best they are still getting points which is great. In that stretch they are either going to be 3-2-1 or 2-2-2

Sam Rosen?

6 straight games the Hawks have given their opponent points.

There's point number 40

Really bad power play there. They weren't able to generate anything.

Does every NHL team have to play the trap religiously these days? This is turning into Riley's slowdown tactics of the 90's

The Hawks have really had trouble scoring lately with during 5-on-5 play. Starting to worry me a bit.

The Atlanta Hawks won too, over the Bulls by 35 points!

I've been trying not to read this thread too much...mostly because I just don't care. I don't care what the Cubs do this offseason, just start next year and lets be mediocre again, whatever. But the way this Bradley situation is eating up the entire offseason is downright hilarious. Hendry doesn't want to pay 85% of Milton's salary so he's gonna waste the whole offseason trying to find someone dumb enough to take him for less. Otherwise he has no money to spend except from the super secret middle relievers fund. Sorry Jim, when you suspend someone for the last 2 weeks of the season after a season of outbursts and disapointing play, and then make it well known that you can't begin the rest of your offseason until you unload this player, you are not going to have a lot of options.

LOL KC Johnson posted this on the Trib website after the 3rd quarter: Sounds like a promising team. In the past week one of our players got into a verbal altercation with the other team because they were dancing to celebrate their blowout, let a player TIE THEIR SHOES during the game (the fact that he even tried to tie his shoes says a lot), and have now bored another team so badly that they are showboating their way through the game. I'm trying to decide if the Bulls are worse than the Bears, and I think they are.

Can someone with ESPN insider post all or if not allowed snippets of Hollinger's article about how bad the Bulls have become? It's on the front page of ESPN.com

LOL...I was playing Madden. When I turned to Madden it was 41-31 Hawks. When I turned back it was 83-53. What a disaster of a team. I don't care who you are, or how many injuries you have, a team that gets blown out almost every night is not going to retain it's coach for very long.

More like 2010 - Oh crap we have no $#$%# money, I can't believe no one wants to give me something of value for Milton Bradley AND I still have to eat his whole contract.

Good luck Harden, thanks for not signing with the Cardinals or Brewers.

Cubs projected win total in 2010 just went up by 2. hawkins has been pretty badass over the past 85 or so innings. He seems to have a lot of trouble holding leads against the Cubs ever since he left.

Cubs projected win total in 2010 just went up by 2.