WrigleyField 22

I mean they thought that when cities first tried multi sport venues until people hated them and they didn't meet expectations. I mean, literally a modern football venue is multi sport. Theyll throw a tiny basketball court at midcourt and host a Final 4! But an MLB and NFL team ain't sharing venues and the little bit of extra space requirement isn't exactly the issue. The biggest issue is both Comiskey and Soldier Field projects sucked so badly. Both of those, with ongoing upkeep, should have easily gone at least another 15-20 years if they had been done well.

Don't think there is any proposal for a shared arena.. Just shared financing deal.

I don't think most of these teams are signing day 1 FA QBs and holding out that they might goad Poles into a better deal. They're most likely moving on. Maybe NE and Minny could be in play (at least one of them likely drafts a QB though - maybe both do). Think the other suitors who were purposely the stronger ones have moved on.

While there's some similarities to last year obviously, a lot of the circumstances are different. We've gotten pretty used to Poles being pretty honest, and I actually do think he is, but if he wants to keep Fields and move off 1 maybe he's being purposely elusive or misleading now and treating it differently than last year where a great deal materialized early. The "CW good deal" is gonna be bigger than the Bryce deal, so there's no guarantee it would materialize on some timeline. Hopefully this is pointless and Poles is using pick #1 on QB, but if he's trading it, the real mismanagement isn't some combine quotes.

If that's his plan I think his comments mean practically nothing.

Seemed like it was the Sox side trying to create a latch on opportunity to a bigger project to help what would be a very unpopular public deal for Sox new home. But maybe it can get bundled and you could create some shared infrastructure/transit upgrades that (at least purportedly) benefit both.

That type of attitude is nearly pure platitude at this point. Any further interactions are basically formal job interviews. You're more likely to overreact to something small and meaningless than gain valuable new insights cuz you had a day long meeting.

They're totally trying to trade up for JJ. If they can't land him, or even if they can, Darnold is the type of Bridge investment they need. Denver... Who knows. Maybe also trying to trade up or Payton will bail out Saints and trade for Taysom Hill lol

Remember they have two seconds, so they can neglect two spots in FA 😂

The world was simpler when your whole city could burn down due to poor building codes and then you could build one of the best public parks in the nation on top of the rubble you filled into the harbor.

I think something akin to the One Central plan is more feasible than filling in the harbor. Which is to say, both have issues. That One Central plan is looking for 6.5B in subsidies and is apparently undergoing through a big proposal review which could kill it or clear the way. A transit hub was central to that plan, but my understanding was most transit folks felt the transit aspect was poorly thought out and didn't make sense. That said, that plan is to basically create space over the train with a transit hub, with connected pedestrian access over LSD. Originally it would be to current SF, but could be connected to South Lot, with revised transit deal (and loop in development 78 and maybe a revitalized Comiskey (soccer?).

There would of course be locker room issues with Fields/Caleb. Even the scant comparable history shows that for sure occurs (GB wasn't all sunshines and rainbows twice, nor was Aikman/Walsh. I'm not sure about KC or San Diego, but if you told me there was I wouldn't be shocked.) But (sample size alert) there also isn't any indication/case of such a shared dev approach delaying or failing a guy. And while some guys like Manning overcome awful rookie campaigns and some like Herbert or Stroud wow from the start, cases like David Carr have most agreeing you can definitely ruin a guy. If you have the option not to, that's probably a reasonable approach that should be in consideration. Options better than not in most cases. With Fields having aparently no market there isn't that much purported downside to holding. You destroy his value from a 5th to nothing? But if Williams would benefit from a red shirt year, that value is immeasurable. Or it's totally unnecessary and he could be Stroud day 1. I think you can definitely weigh the risk/reward upside against the risk/reward of rushing your next shot at a franchise QB and the meager day 3 trade comp. ETA - or even if a Williams is a Manning who works past rookie struggles, there's value in a higher floor 2024 and competing still - main point being there's a strong argument that rookie QB learning curves may be an unnecessary thing whereas they're sometimes viewed like necessary dev time)

I actually would be fine without being at top end of DE market. I think Bears could have done a lot of damage at premiums spots in wave 2 and built out both staters and depth. But there's probably like 10M of excess value what you could have sunk into S and RB and gotten decent production. Hope Byard is ageless and Swift stay healthy. But if Bears wanna spend like a team with real playoff aspirations, whatever. If they spend like a team still rebuilding, I don't like it.

Kind of a lot (including guarantees) imo. Poles hitting up lower valuation positions with strong mid-level money to start offseason...

They'll get a cut from the NFL that I'm sure they're counting in the $2B. Much of the rest could come in form of creative financing that won't require 1B+ up front

Congrats Sulley?

Heard he really was a former scout, but former is really the operative word there.

Yea nothing can be official til league year opens, but they could break it whenever. Last year's Carolina trade broke a week before league year opened.

Yea that guy is a fraud, but the betting line I think moved pretty strongly. So there may be real smoke, but that guy sure doesn't have it.

Encourages stronger tanking early?

This logic only works of you somehow were able to have your choice of the entire field. QB1 is still more successful than any other spot in the draft. 1st QB off board historical has the best chance to be best of their class. Next best is QB2. Then, and I know this is shocking, QB3. After 3 is basically falls apart. But even in years where a QB picked 1.1 isn't the best QB in his class, he's almost always has a pretty high floor - especially relative to your average QB 2-4.

Hes hedging and gonna back out of his pension deal with Sulley.

The players would get over losing Fields in 2025 instead of 2024. I actually don't see the major difference there. The difference is how Caleb handles either scenario, but any teammate reaction is same just a matter of timing.

But seriously I think that Lucas clip probably speaks to part of the problem with bringing in an outsider to bridge. That guy (say a Minshew or Brisset) will have no upper hand in terms of lockerroom respect or even offense familiarity. So both guys are competing for reps at a equal starting point and if the natural talent gap is clear it would get awkward and possibly unproductive. Better to just commit to the guy and give him all the reps than pay lip service to a very marginal vet who could flop just as easily. If you really needed a young QB to slow develop that would be one thing, but that shouldn't be Caleb.