David

My answer would be way radical and probably has a million holes in it. Also, I'm literally making this up as I type it. Have like a $1M base salary for all big leaguers. Every player's pay each season is based on some agreed upon measure of value from the previous season's performance (like some standardized version of WAR with a win valuation scaled based on how much money the league is making). If a team doesn't want to pay full price for the past season's performance, the player is opted into restricted free agency and the open market can determine his value, regardless of how much service time he has. Current team can either agree to pay what another team offered or let him go to that team. I don't really know how you solve the problem that some organizations make way more money than others, though. I hate the idea of a salary cap for a multitude of reasons. Like I said, I'm sure there's a lot wrong with this and a ton I'm not accounting for. And coming up with a statistical measure of performance that everyone could agree on would be a disastrous undertaking, unfortunately. Oh, and pay minor leaguers something reasonable and provide them quality food and housing and all that. This is such a minimal investment that would have no downside for organizations. I just hate how the current system is literally set up to pay crappy old guys the most money for years into their crappy oldness.

I think Kaplan blocked me for calling him out for saying people were making excuses for Castro when he had some mental lapse right after coming off the bereavement list when a relative and a few of his friends died in a car accident. I mean, yeah, in hindsight, Castro did seem to have a tendency for that sort of thing but that might've been one time to cut him some slack.

[tweet] [/tweet] the tweet being referenced... [tweet] [/tweet]

Is Mitch going to manage to break any Bears single season passing records despite missing the two games? I know era/rules are a significant factor here, but when is the last time they had a (mostly) full time starter finish a season with a 90+ passer rating? edit - that was a dumb question bc i'm pretty sure cutler did it with gase. if i had to guess, before that it might go all the way back to kramer's big year in 95 (was it?)

[tweet] [/tweet]

i had to double check what year it was bc of how weird it seems to be promoting this over a year ahead of time but hell yeah i cant wait for this

[tweet] [/tweet]

someone less lazy than me figure out if there's a reasonable stat line mitch can put up to get to a 100 passer rating on the season

horsefeathers I didn't refresh the thread before I posted

Not as much as he needs to not get hurt by the same team that hurt him earlier this year, in a game that likely means nothing for either team. Oh and Mitch just broke a team record for completion percentage in a game today, with a YPA of nearly 10. It’s guaranteed to mean something for Minnesota, at least at kickoff And for the Bears they will still be alive for the bye at kickoff Raw doesn't want us trying for the bye after we didn't tie for it today

Never ceases to amaze me how people can think stuff like the Cubs pocketing more money instead of spending it on players is ACTUALLY quite good and will lead to more wins

You tell bad jokes.

[tweet] [/tweet]

Not that it matters but, I don't know if Mitch will ever be good nationally, he's bad because the Bears overpaid to get him and that's always going to be the opinion. This is really weird. First, having a rating in the 90s ranks him 19th in the league. So if you around going to act as thought Mitchell hasn't been getting recognition for being good, at least use something that actually shows he's in the top half of the league. Also, if he actually does continue to improve nobody is going to give AF about how much they gave up and he will be considered to be good nationally (whatever that means).a He's got a long way to go though. he's top 5 in the league in QBR, which has its flaws as a predictive stat, but accounts for his running and isn't bad at describing what actually happened. [tweet] [/tweet]

Oh come on. He has an uphill climb because the beginning of his career hasn't been all that great. there is that, but i think the move got so much ridicule that the national guys have taken a narrative and run with it. the coverage of that draft ("ryan pace just got himself fired") was ridiculous and it was obvious at the time. hilarious to look back at now... trubisky, cohen, jackson...shaheen can still be a thing, too. i mean, the expectations for a first year qb playing in the situation he played in last year shouldn't have been so high nor was his performance so bad that he should have been looked at all that negatively, imo.

It's a combination of him being really good and the way the game has changed. I mean Mitch has a rating in the 90s and nobody thinks he's any damn good nationally. Not that it matters but, I don't know if Mitch will ever be good nationally, he's bad because the Bears overpaid to get him and that's always going to be the opinion. nah, not if he's actually good and has a good career. that's silly. but he does seem to have an uphill climb due to that.

It's a combination of him being really good and the way the game has changed. I mean Mitch has a rating in the 90s and nobody thinks he's any damn good nationally.

We did, but that SB was very winnable, especially after the Hester TD to open the game. Yeah, blame the defense all you want but the offense did absolutely nothing all game. They did have a TD drive in the 1st quarter that was I believe 100% running plays, and a FG drive that was all of 14 yards long, but there was basically no offense the entire rest of the game for the Bears. wasn't the actual TD on that drive a pass to moose? of course, i could just look this up

i'm mildly annoyed at lots of people (mostly people older than most of us) acting like this is the first time the bears have been good since the 80s. one example [tweet] [/tweet]

I was at that game, it was like 3 degrees out. Soldier Field was crazy that night and thought Rex was going to lead them for a decade of dominance

lol remember how freaking excited 90% of us were when we heard rex was taking first string practice reps late in 2005? then he came out in at halftime of that cold atlanta game and immediately completed like a 20 yard pass to moose (this was after orton played one of the worst halves of football i've ever seen), and scored a touchdown off an INT + fumble if i remember correctly. i was horsefeathering amped and didn't care at all about the pick lol.

I convinced myself at the time that Rex was going to get better. But then I always did that with Cutler too. So that's probably on me. I had a Rex Grossman jersey. Me too It's still in the back of a closet somewhere

I really want to say I'd hit them in the pockets or whatever, but truth is, even if I say I wouldn't buy any merchandise (which I probably won't), if we sign Harper, I am probably buying all kinds of horsefeathers. No longer going to be a STH, but I probably still will attend some games next year, too. So, yeah, totally a hypocrite when it comes down to it.

yeah, rex's thing was the good rex/bad rex thing where he had as many 100 qb rating games as peyton manning (or something like that) either at or among the league leaders...but obviously when he was bad, he was really bad...especially in the last game against green bay when afterwards he basically was like "horsefeathers it, it's new year's eve"

Yep, incredibly talented team that suffered from a lack of offensive coaching and a QB that couldn't develop. Yea and that Indy team wasn't that great by usual SB winner standards either. if two of the four best players on that defense hadn't been hurt, i believe we win that superbowl.