WrigleyField 22

Well their expected win % puts them at a .464 win percentage vs their actual .438. Bears expected W-L is .743 vs actual of .625 where are you getting those? Self calculated. PF^2.37 / (PF^2.37 + PA^2.37)

I'd imagine that they'd have to go well above and beyond other offers to get either of them. Hm, but the Bulls are 14M(!) over the salary floor and haven't sold a 2nd round pick in almost 18 months. Where is that dough coming from?

Well their expected win % puts them at a .464 win percentage vs their actual .438. Bears expected W-L is .743 vs actual of .625

Only if you were still clinging to 2015.

Yeah. Bortles had 1.3 TD:INT ratio and a 3.2% INT rate his first two years. Trubisky right now is at 1.7:1 and 2.3% That's a pretty big difference. Not throwing picks is something Trubisky is pretty decent at for a young QB. I think they keep stats somewhere of number of dangerous passes. I'd like to see how that compares because it seems like Mitch has been lucky with throwing interceptable balls that werent caught. It's possible that his INT rate could regress in a hurry. I read an article that the best future predictor of INT rate is simply completion percentage. So Mitch looks decent there at 64% despite two below average games in that metric.

If I understand the ratings right, they are only offensive and defensive ratings, and don't include special teams. And special teams have probably cost Bears two of their games. Interestingly, Dvoa, which does have ST ratings has bears 5th overall (30th ranked ST). Along with 1st in D and 11th in O. Aikman has Bears 1st in D and 10th in O. Overall, Aikman and DVOA seem much closer to being aligned on O than D (at least using week 8 of 2018 as a comparison).

Negotiations over number 34 with Lester.

Stats lie Agreed. They don't even take into account the absolute weapon he's been running the ball on 3rd downs. Of course you probably could put together 7 game stretch of Cutler's career that exceed that too. So while it's encouraging, consistency and longevity will be the key.

Even if he's done for this season, they don't have anyone to fill in for him nor money/picks to replace him. thats my thinking. They have limited picks and already other needs. I'd think there is a reworking of contract if hes done for this season.5m by cutting him. If you could shave 2m re-working it, that's probably a push.

Last snap as a Bear? My guess is no. Not serious to be a season ender or he'd still be back even if so?

Last snap as a Bear?

Well that was a good drive. I know Trubisky has struggled today, but they're gonna put up 24+ in crummy conditions.

Plus Rocco Baldelli is a pretty great baseball manager name.

I'm not sure how heavily an in person workout should be for college players with plenty of tape... It's not like they had no info on Lauri. Could they have better prepped for a Butler trade? Yes I guess they could, but it also worked out... So meh. Re: the cap space thing, they're created chances and failed to execute, yea. So the process is actively being carried out, but I would agree they need to execute on it. I won't personally get too down on this failure based on how few Max guys changed teams on the open market. History of the odds tell you that you shouldn't expect to. This first round market you keep harping on is very dead the past few years. Don't know what else to say, other than they have added a first round pick in a deadline deal where there have been almost no others the past two years. Still agree on the second round thing. Still, given all the critiques, if you're happy with the general results I think you should focus less on the process. This is the line of thinking I'm struggling to grasp from you. You could use the space last year or this year, but not both (well they kind of did because it was basically a repeat of the Mirotic deal... But I digress) You could hold onto Asik this year as a trade chip or add another scrap heap lotto ticket (Shaq) , but not both (ditto Lopez). There are still limitations and non moves have to be looked at against moves they do make. They can't literally do them all. Sure the 6ers had like 25 guys cycle thru their roster some years, but most of those stints were not meaningful either. Be upset that they sold Bell and instead used that roster spot on Felder, for instance (or retaining Zioser or whoever you want to plug in). That would be a good take. But they aren't not doing stuff, they just sometimes do bad stuff. If it flops be mad. If it hits, be happy. Every time they throw a second round pick in a trade, assume it's because they don't properly value 2nd round picks. Every time they include a first round pick, assume that's the price it took. History tells us these things are both probably true. Take the good with the bad. Every time a Canaan or Felder or whatever doesn't work out remember they once found a contributor from a Brazil pro league (bad subsequent contract withstanding), and have long been active internationally. Next time they get close to the luxury tax and run with a 13 man roster or whatever (as they did a couple times during the Rose window) , be mad. But at least be honest about what's going on when that happens again (but it isn't laziness). Also, it's not a Sixers/Hinkle rebuild and that isn't a bad thing.

This is such a weird take from the guy who just wants them to "take more chances" which is basically just the strategy of eventually getting lucky. I bring up the 15 year history only to highlight their long standing history of trading for first round picks* when available which brings me to... Definitely they've passed on chances to use seconds (though they have collected them, they do give them back with annoying willingness). But for first round picks, you'll have to show your work on this one because there aren't an abundance of these types of trades to show me that they are suffering from inaction as much as no market (teams have tightened up that market big time). "constantly missing on max guys" is going to be a high bar for success. If we're modeling after successful teams, most did not get there via open market Max FAs, anyways. Although in the spirit of "taking shots", not sure if constantly freeing up space does count as a shot or not for you. They are trying something, even though as I stated their constant cap space has probably been a detriment to team building. The alternative is to never have max cap space in the first place because you lock up an abundance of non max players. It would be doing something, though not necessarily something productive towards getting top flight players, either. (or having a shot at one). Nah, if they passed on any move for Lopez that was a bad call, but most likely there just wasn't a market for him. Come Jan/Feb they should buy him out and grab some other bottom fodder to try out if no trade opportunity comes up. That's not what separates the winners from the losers. It's just what happens when the winners get the big difference makers and max out cap and other resources. Losers can/should do it too but they are still constrained by roster limits and can't just endlessly pursue those means either. Or if they do, they're just cycling through guys in a non meaningful manner. You keep saying this, but I think you need to show your work because there doesn't appear to be some active market they're ignoring to me. They've added lots of fodder, even hit on some dating back before the Butler trade when the Rose-window closed. Eventually lucking into a top 10 player is what matters. I actually think you like their core more than I do based on your initial comments, which makes this whole thing even more bizarre. I'm not all that thrilled with them, but you're so focused on some mythical process thing and that that is the failing rather than just a failing to acquire a top end talent... Well they might have acquired some top end talent according to you, but it doesn't count, they still suck at team building lol (including when they do what you want them to do and take a shot). For the record, as a general point, bypassing an opportunity is something we can measure them on as an active choice even if it doesn't lead to the type of "action" you want to see. For example, there were many rumors that had Butler for Rubio and the number 5 pick a year before they actually traded him. It was an active choice to do nothing. Not making a signing because you're using that spot for another development piece, or a trade chip, or a expiring contract for cap space are all active choices that lead to no action and can be judged as good or bad moves and all you wanna see is more action. Action=good is just a bad take. *A brief history of players shed for first round picks to highlight that GarPax would probably be completing more of these trades now, if available: Eddy Curry (and a pick swap), Tyrus Thomas, Thabo Sefalosha, James Johnson, Lou Deng (protected, ended up as seconds), Nikola Mirotic A history of second rounders wasted or given up for nothing is too exhaustive to list unfortunately.

You'll need to cite the first claim there. Signing the minimum guy was the move. Asik was the accompanying move to make it happen. What do you mean, the type of trade they did? The one where they added three pieces. That's three of their swings! Or would it have been preferable to turn Jimmy into one swing? Trading has hardly been a weakness of theirs. They're fine at it. Over their entire reign they're pretty good at turning guys into first rounders which I think is the type you would want, so if it's not happening now it's very unlikely it's due to lack of attention and effort (which is to say they "only" did it twice in 16 months - plus Dunn+Lavine) Total random speculation. I mean we actually have 15 years of data to indicate Pax values first rounders and frequently targets them in trades, but yea they must have just fallen asleep at the wheel and thrown it in for shits and grins? Bulls have been one of the best teams out their in creating cap space, that really has never been a concern.. In fact it's actually a weakness, but if you're worried about cap flexibility you shouldn't be. No you seem to have a very unrealistic expectation about how much can be done. Hate on the moves if you want. Be annoyed if Lopez is still here in March. But they've had plenty of activity two off-seasons into the full rebuild.

Most trade exceptions go unused because they're created all the time. They just literally used a portion of their available space! And still have plenty of time to use more. Also it's not about how I feel about the roster (I could make many complaints going back over the years). But rather this bizarre thing where you like a lot of the pieces they've added but are unhappy with how they've done it and incorrectly claimed it was dumb luck.

I don't think you're paying close enough attention because they've been pretty active off the scrap heap.

The Bulls problem isn't some weird lack of activity. There are like 5 guys left from the end of the 2017 season, two of which are still on rookie contracts. They've turned over the roster a ton, and you seemingly like a lot of the prices they added. Be mad at specific moves like selling the second rounder, but this weird "they haven't taken enough swings" is a bad take. Their current roster has 11 guys they've added with less than 4 years experience. They cycled through another 5 of said players last year.

That's still such an incredibly lazy and not true take lol

I'm also all for pining on the Bulls to be better, but can it at least be a successful GM like Ainge and not possibly the process that is just as likely to produce the next mid Aughts Blazers as it is produce a champion?

They can't count on what? Flipping Mirotoc for a possible lotto pick was a shot (as well as freeing up time for Porfis). Signing Jabari was a shot. The nearly endless bottom of roster guards they've signed the past couple years are shots. Signing some unheard of guy from a South American pro league is a shot. They've obviously failed in other ways like selling 2nd round picks... And also not buying 2nd round picks... Actually they've never valued second round picks going back all the way to the start of Pax's tenure, but also... Those are really low level shots that rarely pan out (Philly can attest). Theyve always valued first round picks fwiw though. Pax has a long history of moving on from pieces and turning them into first rounders. "The Process" is bunk. Building winning teams is about maximizing assets. Philly has been pretty average about maximizing assets truthfully.

Also I don't think the Bulls remotely have the pieces to be on a championship trajectory, but stating that you're actually intrigued by many of their pieces and then writing off it as dumb luck is an incredibly lazy hot take.

Why is it dumb luck just cuz they didn't do it like the Sixers did? Hell the Sixers had their share of luck too. The Sixers took way more shots. They took EVERY opportunity. Take more shots, you're gonna hit more. It's even MORE frustrating, because we CAN draft fairly well. The Sixers also didn't have an asset like Jimmy Butler to jump start a rebuild. A lot of people wrote it off, but the plan there was to take 3 shots at once. That all 3 may pay off isn't that different than sucking for 3 years for your first three shots.

Why is it dumb luck just cuz they didn't do it like the Sixers did? Hell the Sixers had their share of luck too. This is a particularly impressive complaint just a day after complaining that they made a move that allowed them to shuttle a guy onto the roster. Also Phillys roster shuttling did basically diddly. TJ McConnell is the one success from that strategy I guess?