WrigleyField 22
-
Posts
19,041 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
16
Content Type
Profiles
Joomla Posts 1
Chicago Cubs Videos
Chicago Cubs Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
2026 Chicago Cubs Top Prospects Ranking
News
2023 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
Guides & Resources
2024 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
The Chicago Cubs Players Project
2025 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker
2026 Chicago Cubs Draft Tracker: Picks & Bonuses
Blogs
Events
Forums
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by WrigleyField 22
-
Offseason Rumors
WrigleyField 22 replied to Clem Fandango's topic in MLB Draft, International Signings, Amateur Baseball
All the chatter lately (mostly from the Mooney piece) has been about a bridge deal with Fox locally (WFLD 32) for the WGN games, and then going RSN with Fox after the CSN deal is up. Fox is making a big push to expand Fox Sports. Right I understand all that. To be clear, when I say RSN related, it's with the understanding that there is a bridge until 2019. Still, feels like there could be something else entirely if I wanna read into his blog post too much. -
Offseason Rumors
WrigleyField 22 replied to Clem Fandango's topic in MLB Draft, International Signings, Amateur Baseball
Maybe I'm reading too much into the first few lines of Brett's post but I don't think this is going to be cable RSN if it's related to Cubs broadcasting. Just focusing on the technology dies quickly bit, it seems the whole Mega-Cable contracts are already viewed as hitting a bubble and certainly by 2019, and the Cubs can't get out if the CSN commitment. So if not a RSN like FOX... What? -
They should probably do both.
-
I have no idea how the contracts are structured, but there are probably just enough day games to satisfy the allotment that were shown on WGN Yea I guess so. I suppose CSN probably isn't going to fight getting more night than day games, so it would probably work out okay.
-
So in that case would a Cubs game in Chicago supercede national programming for FOX? I realize baseball is mostly played at a time of the year when prime time t.v. really isn't scheduled, but if they was a big national t.v. program, I can't imagine them not airing it just for the Cubs.
-
I don't know man, lots of pro athletes seem to get injured from their dogs. Dogs hate pro athletes. What about air bud? Self loathing
-
I don't know man, lots of pro athletes seem to get injured from their dogs. Dogs hate pro athletes.
-
Trades?
-
We should have known from the start that having Tucker install Lovies D was a bad idea. Is he a bad D coordinator regardless? Very likely. But it kind of left some lingering doubt when piled with the injuries. From a risk/reward perspective I don't think we're chancing too much by giving him another year. If there was an outstanding candidate out there I may feel differently. I'm intrigued if the plan is a "hybrid" scheme. I think we'll mainly see a primarily one gap scheme. I don't think we'll see much if any true two gap 3-4 schemes, but try and move guys around as much as possible. Any versatile defenders are probably getting a boost on our draft board.
-
Apparently he also dated some chick for five years, and based on her twitter he cheated on her when she left for the Peace Corps around the time he met this chick. These are the things I learn reading Sports Message boards.
-
Do you also drive a Honda?
-
I was reading a Gordon Hayward thread at RealGM and supposedly he likes to go to walk to the Olive Garden near MSG when he's in NY so apparently this is a "thing".
-
And the other draft site: first-pick.com Your score is: 3895 (Drafting Ability: B+, Player Quality A, Future Draft Picks: N/A) Your Picks: Round 1 Pick 14: Ra'Shede Hageman, DT, Minnesota (B-) Round 3 Pick 4 (CLE): Jackson Jeffcoat, DE, Texas (B+) Round 3 Pick 14: Dion Bailey, FS, Dion Bailey, FS, Southern California (A-) Round 3 Pick 15 (CLE): E.J. Gaines, CB, Missouri (A) Round 4 Pick 4 (CLE): Donte Moncrief, WR, Ole Miss (A) Round 4 Pick 14: Jeremiah Attaochu, OLB, Georgia Tech (A-) Round 5 Pick 14: Andre Williams, RB, Boston College (A) Round 6 Pick 7: Ryan Carrethers, DT, Arkansas State (A) Round 6 Pick 14: Tyler Larsen, C, Utah State (A) Tried to not take the obviously awesome trade down offers but I had to in Round 2 because I just hated the options at the time. I'd be okay with that draft, though.
-
My draft: Rd1 Ha'Sean Clinton-Dix - S - Alabama -I honestly don't love 1st round safeties, but seems like it'd be a safe pick. Honestly though, I see him going one pick before us Rd2 Timmy Jernigan - DT - Florida State -One thing that will definitely help our safeties is continuing to upgrade the front 7 Rd3 Donte Montcrief - WR - Ole Miss -Obviously WR isn't a need but this guy is in the Emery mold for WRs and could be a real good WR Rd4 Anthony Johnson - DT - LSU -Double up on DLine in the draft for sure. This is where the value seems like it starts to get wacky Rd5 De'Anthony Thomas - RB/WR - Oregon -Not an every down player, but in the return game and as a change of pace guy, is an intriguing prospect. I think his return abilities make him go by day two though. Rd6 Aaron Lynch - DE - USF -Once highly ranked, he still is an intriguing prospect and could be a piece to the pass rush puzzle Rd6 Victor Hampton - CB - South Carolina -Honestly don't really know much, but he was the highly rated on their big board and can't draft enough DBs. Anyone recall that site we all used last year? You could do all those ridiculous trade downs and just acquire like 20 picks?
-
The Sac pick is as follows: 2014: Top 12 protected 2015: Top 10 2016: Top 10 2017: Top 10, if not conveyed, a 2017 second rounder (apparently 55-60 protected, but this doesn't make much sense to me, so we'll just say it would be a second rounder in the 31-40 range) Assuming the 2017 pick is top 10 protected, and it converts to a second round, how could SAC possibly be picking 55-60 in the second? What I've since learned is that their second rounder in that year was traded with 31-55 protection, so they can't technically trade the 56-60 pick, making the protection on that entirely a formality. No, they can pick there and not convey their 1st, though if that happens they'd lose both picks.
-
NFL coaching carousel/NFL Offseason thread
WrigleyField 22 replied to dew1679666265's topic in Other Sports
He's probably at least an average OL coach as long as you don't let him get too involved with personnel decisions. As much as he wasn't given a ton to work with in Chicago he really put his rep on the line for Webb and that obviously didn't work out. In fact as a 7th rounder he ended up surpassing expectations. But I'm struggling to figure out how much blame he gets for lack of developing young guys like Carimi or if Webb even could have done better with better development and more time to learn on the sidelines. Now I'm just rambling, but I'm really glad I'll never have to experience his OC work again. -
Both of who clearly got in based on awesome names that Jack Morris lacks.
-
I think there is only a certain portion of his salary, which is the 54 guarantee that can be continually rolled into a pro-rated signing bonus like that. Of course that wouldn't stop future re-negotiations in future years.
-
LOL if Lance Stephenson was our big answer
-
Deja Vu. Didn't realise you posted at RealGm too.
-
The Sac pick is as follows: 2014: Top 12 protected 2015: Top 10 2016: Top 10 2017: Top 10, if not conveyed, a 2017 second rounder (apparently 55-60 protected, but this doesn't make much sense to me, so we'll just say it would be a second rounder in the 31-40 range) Let me make sure I have this right, cause it seems like it shouldn't be the way I'm understanding it. If the Kings finish in the top 10 in the lottery every year up until 2017, the Bulls ONLY get a 2nd round pick? Or do they get the 2018 pick unrestricted along with the 2017 2nd round pick? Just the 2017 second. This was part of the Caspi/Hickson trade, so obviously Sacramento was hedging their bets so the didn't eventually give up a top ten pick for Hickson, which Cleveland obviously found as reasonable. Slightly OT, but I hate those drawn out pick protections for teams. Do you know for Sacramento, they've been unable to trade their pick and will remain so for the entire time that protection lasts? For JJ Hickson! What if an opportunity had come up to trade firsts for a star player. Granted you have teams like the Knicks on the other side who just give them away unprotected, but trading firsts is a tricky thing to do in this business until you get much closer to the draft in question.
-
The Sac pick is as follows: 2014: Top 12 protected 2015: Top 10 2016: Top 10 2017: Top 10, if not conveyed, a 2017 second rounder (apparently 55-60 protected, but this doesn't make much sense to me, so we'll just say it would be a second rounder in the 31-40 range)
-
For the right price I think they would be and probably everyone outside of Butler should be made available. Honestly thats laughable to include Butler as some untouchable. He has one cheap year left and then will likely be an overpaid wing player. I'd actually put him higher on the list of tradeable assets as he's probably one of the better bets to net us a draft pick who could give us 4 years of below market production. I do like Butler, but he's fair game with everyone not named Rose.
-
This is how I feel too. Wish the return was more meaningful. I think its extremely meaningful. There was almost no way for the Bulls to get under the luxury tax this year without making this move. Now this sort of resets the luxury tax clock a bit going forward. The Bulls will be able to go over the luxury tax in one of the next 2 seasons and not have to pay a steep penalty the rest of the way. My guess is that they stay under the threshold next year, bring Mirotic and anywhere from 1-3 draft picks and then build for a run in 2 years. If we don't get out of the luxury tax this year, we would have to stay under it the next 2 seasons because there is no way JR is paying the repeater penalty. Makes sense to go under in a year without Rose and the team going nowhere. I definitely agree with you, and I always try and view the decisions as though JR is my boss. That being said, the average fun just doesn't get all that and expects the team to just pay whatever. So I preface it with the not-meaningful. Definitely does make sense to avoid the tax now though.
-
FWIW, I ran a few figures and the Bulls tax would have been a about 12.1M and they save whatever the pro-rated portion of Deng's 14.275M salary for the remainder of the year, which puts them in that $20M range that's been quoted. They'll likely see a little bit more for being a non-tax team, roughly 3.2M. And they'll get about 2.5M from revenue sharing from the lux tax, but they would have received that either way, although it would have been almost $3M because they would have been getting their 1/30 portion of the tax bill back. For anyone confused, the league can split the tax in 50% from league purposes and up to 50% to non-tax teams. Based on precedence, its likely they max out the non-tax payment of 50% and the entire 50% for league purposes go into the revenue sharing. Neither is guaranteed though. The only guarantee is the 50% for leauge purposes, which technically can be used for a wide range of things.
