Soul

What I got from AZ Phil was that Alfonso Soriano's defense in CF is going to make us miss Juan Pierre. Yeesh. And Cliff Floyd's probably should be DHing in the AL. I doubt very seriously that I'll be missing Pierre's noodle arm, regardless of how Soriano does. There's nothing worse than a CF that can barely reach the infield with his throws, IMO. Hopefully Soriano will improve. I just don't like Pierre, and never will. Hated that move from the beginning. Sending Prior to Iowa was the best thing for him, IMO. I'm sure he's pretty peeved about it. *GOOD* He could use a little anger in his life.

I just saw some of Angelo's comments on Comcast. He's saying some of the same things people here thought he might be saying. It's not just picking up the 6th pick, it's whether there's a player who will justify the pick -- and he mentioned the large monetary investment of the 6th overall pick, too. He did say he will get back to the Redskins in a timely manner. I think he's going to analyze a few players: Landry, Branch, Adams, Okoye probably top the list. If one of those is worth the investment in a #6 pick, he'll consider biting. I don't think he can do this deal counting on trading down for more picks. He's got to consider whether it's worth it as-is.

Briggs is free to negotiate and sign elsewhere. The compensation, according to league rules, is 2 1st rounders. If they're "waiting for Bears approval" then I assume they don't want to give up the 2 1st rounders.

It doesn't at all. Briggs totally went about this the wrong way, so we should return in kind. Who cares? I want to what is best for the Bears and having a vendetta with Briggs doesn't seem like that would be the best way. The point was, the Skins did this and wound up rewarded with 2 1st rounders. If we wait, it *could* result in a better deal than swapping 1st round picks, which is what some have suggested isn't good enough. I definitely don't want to just exercise a vendetta for no reason though. I think this is a pretty tough situation to be in, for both sides. First of all, the whole franchise rule is being subverted on a semi-regular basis by players, which is threatening to undermine the entire rule itself. So that puts the whole thing on shaky ground from the beginning. And because of that, it puts both player & GM in a bad position, trying to figure out how to best help themselves in the face of a set of rules that either can't be enforced or don't hold up.

The CW is the smoldering, ashen remains of UPN & the WB. It's basically a targeted network, hitting the 18 to 34 demographic almost exclusively. It's the same concept the old UPN & WB networks had: co-opt the local, independent station in the area (in Chicago's case, WGN makes the most sense), and air a prime-time lineup with your logo pasted in the lower right-hand corner. They call themselves a "network" but there's no news, no CW-sponsored sports. To me it's just a prime-time package syndicated to independent stations.

I'm buying champagne. 8-) You?

Willis might be gone if we were able to trade down, but Timmons might still be there later in the 1st round. Timmons would seem to be a Lovie kind of player, though he's still fairly raw.

Assuming she's a skillful ump, good for her. But if she sucks, I won't hesitate to boo her :wink:

I agree with Hill there are more questions because he's still young, but essentially you could ask this question on any team, of most any player who isn't a shoe-in to produce. How long should the Brewers give Prince Fielder if he stinks starting this season? How about the Mets -- what if Glavine is just too old now to be effective? How long should they wait to make that decision and go in another direction? With the Cubs, we can ask this question of a wide variety of our players, including Murton, Floyd, Theriot, Lilly, Marquis, Hill, Miller (really our entire staff outside Z).

I believe Morrissey was also on Chicago Tribune live last night. He's taking a real hard stand on Briggs. Someone else (I can't remember who) suggested we take the same stance the Redskins did with Gilbert. They franchised him once, he sat out, then they franchised him *again* and threatened to do it a 3rd time. Finally someone gave them the 2 1st rounders for him (was it Carolina??). There might be something to be said for holding out on a trade for this year, and just letting Briggs sit. I'm not saying that's what I would definitely do. But the Bears might want to consider it. Possible advantages: 1) Briggs eventually comes around (perhaps after playing his 6 games and realizing it hurts him more than it helps because all it did was get him franchised again). I believe Gilbert sat out the entire season, if we want to compare the two situations (not saying we *should* -- just throwing stuff out there). 2) A franchise-player trade appears, in which case we get 2 1st rounders straight up instead of swapping 1 for 1. Looks like Rosenhaus is willing and able to "assist" the Bears in seeking trades 8-) All the Bears need to is wait for him to work his "magic." 3) Sends a message to the rest of the team that players can't bully the Bears.

I hope you're quoting something assinine that the royals broadcasters said, cause that is the worst insult you could ever level on Theriot. I hate that guy (Eckstein). Seconded.

Angelo, he be a'scoffin'

I read that Pat Riley wants to change the draft lottery so that ALL the teams in the league get a shot at the #1 pick. This, of course, is completely nonsensical and belies the entire point of the lottery The concern appears to be teams deliberately throwing games at the end of the season. I don't understand why the current system doesn't already mitigate against this. Sure, it isn't perfect. But you conceivably throw a whole bunch of games and still not wind up with the top pick. Seems like opening up the lottery to every team would just make things worse. People would be quite angry if Phoenix, Detroit, and Dallas drafted first after competing for a title the year before.

Yes, he's still ranked pretty highly though.

Redskins fans look to be talking themselves into liking the trade. It probably would be a decent deal for the Skins, since they don't seem to mind paying sick money for players they want, despite the lack of results it has produced.

Surely if he needs to pitch, the answer is Iowa.

That's the first quote I've seen from Angelo on the topic. I think Rosenhaus is doing a really good job of stirring this up... It's not a suprise. Rosenhaus is a master at these kinds of tactics.

Playing much better now. Skiles' tactic of giving extra rest late in the season seems to be really paying off. I loved the way Deng played last night. And Gordon's game-winner the night before. This is more like it. Now we've got some tougher games coming up. It will be a good test. My guess is the Bulls give the Cavs & Pistons all they can handle, because this Bulls team seems to play its best against the better teams.

That's not his choice. He can't force anything. The Bears have to choose to trade him. I'm a figurative guy. 8-) I didn't literally mean "force" it. Just cause enough pressure that the organization gives up and does a trade. Rosenhaus is also Ogunleye's agent. Is it really so hard to buy into the possibility that the same tactic is being employed here?

He's also griping about money. You don't cry about not getting paid and then turn down 7.4 million, about 900% more than he's earned in any other season. It's not like he's T.O. who had made millions when he threatened to sit out the season. He hasn't had a big payday, and there's no guarantee he'll get that payday after a season off. Briggs has 2 choices if the Bears don't trade him or re-sign him. Make 7.4M this year and become the highest paid LB next year or make nothing this year and take a chance of becoming the highest paid LB next year. I understand, but it's not $7.4million guaranteed. There's no signing bonus associated with it. No long-term security. That's got to be what he's most worried about. I think what Briggs would be hoping for by holding out is choice #3: hold out, cause enough stress on the situation to force a trade, then sign a long-term deal with a huge signing bonus with the new team. Just like Ogunleye did with us.

He wouldn't be trading the 6th pick overall for Briggs. He'd be trading that for Briggs and the 31st. He'd be trading one potential all pro player for an all pro player and a guy who is a little less likely to be all pro. My only problem with such a trade from a Bears perspective is, with 31 and 37, we know they already need O line help, secondary help, and offensive playmaker help. Now, trade Briggs with the 31 for that 6th, and all of a sudden you add one more need, without adding anymore draft picks. The guys who are obvious replacements for Briggs aren't worth anywhere near being a 6 pick, so if you take them, then you are essentially removing much of the value of that 6th pick in the first place. Angelo would almost have to trade down, to try and get 2 later 1st round picks. If you are giving up Briggs and your 1st, I think you have to end up with at least 2 picks when all is said and done. Because all of a sudden you have multiple needs and serious depth issues. Exactly. Which was my point in not liking the deal last night. And I think the odds of filling those needs at #6, is unlikely unless you overdraft. I see OL and with Briggs gone OLB as the biggest needs. And I think Willis and Levi Brown would be slight overdrafts at 6. If Briggs stays these are still our biggest needs. That's if you believe Briggs will sit out, which I refuse to believe. If Briggs does play, worst case, you get a LB next year or have a year to see what the guys already in camp can do. In order to believe Briggs will not sit out, you also need to believe he was just spouting BS when he said he would do anything in his power to not play for the Bears. I don't think I can go there. IMO, it's very likely Briggs would sit out if nothing is done. He seems like the kind of guy who means what he says.

Indeed. There may be several factors happening behind the scenes that we aren't aware of that signficantly alter the dynamic. Also -- I haven't heard an Angelo response to this yet. He might be scoffing at the whole thing :wink:

Briggs is already an impact player though. Why not just sign him to a longterm contract and then draft 2 good players at 31 and 37? They have the cap space, as they have been completely inactive in free agency and already had the space. Angelo refusing to talk longterm with Briggs is a big mistake. If you trade him, you not only have to take back quality, but you better get quantity, otherwise your no better off than you were going in. Yeah I agree with this assessment. With the incnrease in salary cap, why can't they get a deal done? Is it really that difficult? Anyways, if the Bears do do this deal, I personally would love Patrick Willis. I know people have said it before, but this guy is a stud. I believe Angelo has determined that he doesn't think Briggs is worth what he is asking for. So he franchised him. I don't think it's a case of Angelo simply not wanting to negotiate for no reason. It's that Briggs wants more than what Angelo thinks he is worth -- right or wrong.

Briggs hasn't been 3rd round value in years - that's a poor argument. Sure, I would take an added 3rd rounder from the Redskins, but I don't see them sweetening it. I'd definitely take this deal. So you think Briggs is worth the 16th overall (i.e. 1,000 draft points)? I agree, if that's the case. I'm just trying to put the whole "Briggs Arc" on a long-term, organizational scale. I mean, we got absolutely nothing for Colvin. But nobody cares because we replaced him with a better player. That was all Angelo -- and he's still here. That means something to me. If it doesn't to anyone else, that's fine.

Like I said, you're wrong. And we can only hope Angelo doesn't think like you. I'm not making assumptions I can't make. What I'm doing is not allowing frivolous meanginless information to cloud the issue. No, I'm not wrong. You're starting from a point of "this deal is bad." That's a false starting point. I'm simply pointing it out.