WrigleyField 22

Re: Emery's draft; there are a few things I didn't like. McClellin was a late riser- which worries me and Hardin a big injury risk. Neither of those things is entirely bad- at some point you'll do those things. Too early to say if there's any trends that are cause for worry. I'm fine giving him credit for the draft- even though he didn't have time to hire his scouts and implement his system. But its too soon to draw conclusions about his style, especially when anything you can read about his history and process should make you feel comfortable. This year should help confirm some things about what his drafts will look like. Although at the end of the day results do matter and one year isn't enough time to draw conclusions. He does have pressure to hit early with the composite of our roster though. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Smart. He wasn't even worth 2M last year, so even that offer was a gamble he'd rebound. $4M is too much and I don't see him getting that elsewhere. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The exit fee thing kind if makes sense if SLU or Dayton turned down the Big East. Doesn't really make sense from Big Easts view though. Does it matter to them that much? Although I think if Creighton doesn't go in this wave, the MVC could have tried to raise the fee. Its possible the Big East looked at it this way, essentially negotiating with the conferences rather than teams. If they think the A-10s exit structure wont change, but the MVCs could it makes sense to do it now. The other thing though is if they ontend to go to 12, why even wait? Scheduling? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They might have to wait longer than that. 10 teams is ideal for basketball (18 games, true home and home with everyone). Yeah, I hope the new Big East sticks with 10. They won't, of course. SLU and Dayton are probably going to the Big East in '14-'15. I wonder why they preferred Creighton over SLU for the 10 team league. Creighton's been much better over the past forever and is the best program in their state compared to SLU FWIW, I've read fans from a SLU forum say the President of Creighton is on the board at Marquette and Marquette pushed for Creighton. (Not sure how true that is). But obviously Creighton does have a better resume even if it was in the MVC and even if they've mostly just made the tournament and not won much recently. SLU was also a much better fit from a media standpoint, so its hard to totally understand the decision even when you look at history of success. No arguing SLUs recent history is pretty awful though. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Some of those guys will command more than the $2M we were offering Lach. From that list Brad Jones is the most interesting, but probably too expensive, even if we cleared some cap. The best option given our cap figure I think would be Durant. Lions don't seem to be interested in bringing him back and doesn't look like he has much interest. FWIW, PFF had him rated at -.1 last year. Urlacher was -11, Roach wad -2.5. Jones was +9 and has both inside and outside experience. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They might have to wait longer than that. 10 teams is ideal for basketball (18 games, true home and home with everyone). Yea, but everything out there has basically said that's what they are headed towards. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I guess I'm not entirely suprised Urlacher won't be back, but a little suprised it was resolved this soon. I wonder if he will sign elsewhere soon. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Booo for SLU having to wait two years for expansion to 12 teams. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A lot of suburban areas could still be pretty inconvenient. That 6 million is pretty spread out though. You're not gonna make all 6 million of those happy. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nobody's really arguing that, it's against the people who are saying hey Rosemont isn't such a bad idea!! Or maybe Skokie!! It's about time the suburbs got their fair share! I would love a new stadium, so I honestly don't think a brand new stadium in Rosemont is a bad idea, per se. It's not my ideal idea, but if that ended up happening, I would definitely be excited about getting a brand new park, which we couldn't do in the city. As someone who hasn't lived in Chicago since I was too young to pay attention to such things, I'm genuinely curious as to whether there would be a non-Wrigley option other than the suburbs. I don't think it's anyone's burning desire to see the Cubs move to the burbs, but if idle threats are going to be made, I don't see where else could be possibly be mentioned. The best idea I ever heard was the Cabrini Green idea thats been discussed here before and we're about 10 years late and it was literally just an idea and nothing ever discussed, which means there was probably some reason it wouldn't have been viable. I'd say about half the city would be indistinguishable or worse from Rosemont from a convenience and ammenities perspective (other than airplane traffic). Once you eliminated places that aren't feasible space wise, your list is probably empty, maybe some city owned space like Washington Park or something (even that sucks actually), and the city has no leverage to kill Wrigleyville's economy to prop up an unsure bet in another area of the city. And even if the city does it, they probably bend you over and you don't own the stadium and its a lot like the Bears/CPD relationship. The only real threat is to move out of the city. The only feasible city space is Wrigley and everyone should see that. Thus the question thats been posed, which is essentially "If not Wrigley, where?" Should come with lowered expectations. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nobody's really arguing that, it's against the people who are saying hey Rosemont isn't such a bad idea!! Or maybe Skokie!! It's about time the suburbs got their fair share! I would love a new stadium, so I honestly don't think a brand new stadium in Rosemont is a bad idea, per se. It's not my ideal idea, but if that ended up happening, I would definitely be excited about getting a brand new park, which we couldn't do in the city. As someone who hasn't lived in Chicago since I was too young to pay attention to such things, I'm genuinely curious as to whether there would be a non-Wrigley option other than the suburbs. I don't think it's anyone's burning desire to see the Cubs move to the burbs, but if idle threats are going to be made, I don't see where else could be possibly be mentioned. The best idea I ever heard was the Cabrini Green idea thats been discussed here before and we're about 10 years late and it was literally just an idea and nothing ever discussed, which means there was probably some reason it wouldn't have been viable. I'd say about half the city would be indistinguishable or worse from Rosemont from a convenience and ammenities perspective (other than airplane traffic). Once you eliminated places that aren't feasible space wise, your list is probably empty, maybe some city owned space like Washington Park or something, and the city has no leverage to kill Wrigleyville's economy to prop up an unsure bet in another area of the city. And even if the city does it, they probably bend you over and you don't own the stadium and its a lot like the Bears/CPD relationship. The only real threat is to move out of the city. The only feasible city space is Wrigley and everyone should see that. Thus the question thats been posed, which is essentially "If not Wrigley, where?" Should come with lowered expectations. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Okay but no one would expects the Cubs would voluntarily leave the city. No smart person would argue for a stadium outside the city as preferable, but that's really not what is being talked about. Given the alternate reality where the abity to stay at Wrigley were at risk, where in the city would you plop a stadium? The space just doesn't exist. Luckily we have no reason to believe the ability to stay at Wrigley is at risk, but hypothetically Rosemont isn't hard enough to get to to drive away enough a significant segment of fans. And really is Wrigley even that convenient? Its pretty far north and not near the expressway. From an accesibility standpoint Comiskey is just as good as Wrigley and struggles. They're just less of a draw, even though its just as easy to get to their games. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well it is a suburban stadium afterall. Even as a suburb that borders the city thats what you get. If the Cubs couldn't stay at Wrigley (which won't happen anyways) they could do worse, like Schaumburg or something. Comparing it to Wrigley or freaking Yankee stadium is dumb. It is not dumb at all. Yankee Stadium is in an outlying borough. It is nowhere near a business center of any kind and fairly isolated, similar to this proposed location. The comparison is made however, because baseball is an everyday sport that relies on people going to the stadium from work. In cities where public transit (trains, not freaking buses or shuttles from parking lots) is vital for commuters you need your stadiums within easy access of the city's main transit options. The Blue line is the worst line in Chicago. It takes forever to get from O'Hare to downtown, let alone to simply transfer to another line. And a mile plus walk from a station to a stadium is absurd. Citi Field, which blows, has subway tracks across the street and transit trains is the same spot. Well most stadiums with awesome transit outdate the transit systems that service it. So expecting to drop a stafium by super convenient transit is silly. Also bringing up Wrigley or Yankee stadium sort of implies the transit is only decent, when they are in fact good. It doesn't need to equal Wrigley to be decent. They're totally different levels. If I claimed Darwin Barney was a decent middle infielder would you bring up Starlin Castro to refute my point? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As someone who once tried to take public transit to a DePaul game, I agree public transportation to the game would be terrible. It would be a lot easier for driving to the game though. All State is further its closest metra stop and outside of walking distance from the blue line. This proposed location is adjacent to a metra and in the high range of walking distance (1.3 miles according to google maps). And if you rule out walking, just look at a map to see how much more convenient shuttle service would be compared to All State. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well it is a suburban stadium afterall. Even as a suburb that borders the city thats what you get. If the Cubs couldn't stay at Wrigley (which won't happen anyways) they could do worse, like Schaumburg or something. Comparing it to Wrigley or freaking Yankee stadium is dumb. Of course you're gonna downgrade. I mention the buses as CTA and Pace already service the general area so it doesn't take much to add or modify routes that maximizes the transit via bus. Two trains and easily available bus Infrastructure is a lot better than most stadiums have. So yes, it is decent public transit. Regarding the blue line in relation to there, its about a mile. And it doesn't suck. It runs 24 hours, services the loop and a major international airport, and runs back out to the near west suburbs. Honestly the worst part about a hypothetical Rosemont is the airplanes. And thats probably a big enough negative to veto it, without going into anything else, like slightly less accomodating transit (which is somewhat offset some by a major highway and increased parking) The good news is Rosemont is at best a leveraging tool, so we don't have to worry too much about our additional travel time. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

there are no decent public transit amenities in the area. The Blue Line And apparently by a Metra Stop. I'd assume a halfway decent bus system, or would be if they moved there. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Its not a disgrace for the Cubs to move to the burbs, especially one so close with decent public transit ammenities, but they can certainly get more than just some free land. Gotta subsidize the cost more somehow to make it worthwhile. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I honestly haven't followed the beat writers closely enough to know. Is the consensus generally its all up to Rose now or is there any hint the organization is holding him back. Several months ago the runors were that Garpax were gonna hold him out. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sure there is. The Chicago Bulls are in the business of winnimg games. Derrick Rose is really good at helping win games. Then you add that Derrick will need time to work his way back up to his prior playing level so the end of the season like this is a pretty good opportunity. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Robbie Hummell Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Define "just had surgery on" because the actually healing process of the ACL is quite short. The ACL itself is physically as strong as it was before, if not more so, unless the surgery was done poorly or proper rest was not taken during the healing. If either of these are the case for Rose or Hummel they are/were doomed long before re-injury and no amount of time is going to undo that. The main part of recovery its teaching your body to use the new piece of ligament and building back strength. The mental aspect is another huge part. None of these things relate to re-injury of the ACL. There is some risk of other injuries due to over-compensating, but that isn't a reason to dismiss an athletes return in general. An ACL in almost all forms is a freak injury. It is entirely possible to suffer two freak injuries of the same nature in close proximity to each other. And for now I'll accept your Hummel and raise you an Adrian Peterson. You can come back with another example, but I'll just bring another successful comeback story in a forever pointless exercise of talking about athletes who aren't Derick Rose.

Well, he eventually has to move to the next level of his rehab process, yes. It just doesn't have to be now. Is it silly for him not to? Maybe. But unless there's some potential upside, why push him to do it right now? There's no reason to do so. I wasn't saying "literally game-changing" just for kicks; this is something that he needs to adjust to and potentially figure out how to be a different player than he was before (which impacts the players around him and how his coaches approach him). That's a HUGE reason for him to play sooner rather than later. And I'd flip around your post and say there's no reason for him not to play right now. There's absolutely no upside to him not playing whereas there's pretty huge reasons to get him back ASAP. There's not really a reason for him not to play either, you're right. I just don't understand why anyone would be so adamant one way or another. I'm not going to say they are the same exact thing btw, but doctors medically cleared Robbie Hummel when he came back to practice after a torn ACL and he retore it. That's not a reason not for Rose to play, but it goes to show you that doctors are wrong sometimes. Also, has any doctor actually ordered Rose to play NBA games? Or was he just cleared to play? Unless you can point to any evidence that Robbie Hummel's acl was not healed, then we have to assume its just a freak injury. It's like winning the lottery. Some [expletive] is bound to do it twice right in a row. Also if Rose's ACL isn't healed he's screwed, so he might as well play and get the re-injury over with so he can start rehabbing again.

Do we know for sure who's hands its in right now that he isn't playing? I honestly haven't been keeping up with articles a ton.

Why are you saying "if?" You're right, I should have said, "If Rose wasn't actually medically ready now, I'd be worried, but instead I'm just pissed."

I want Rose to be back exactly when the doctors say he is ready. Any decisions to speed it or slow it is useless meddling by people who aren't doctors and don't know what they are talking about. If Rose isn't actually medically ready now, I'm worried. That's not to say you don't watch his progression very closely, and possibly even limit playing time, but it's been months since there was anything wrong with his ACL (unless the surgery was botched). Why keep him out any longer?