WrigleyField 22

Okay, its nearing the 24 hour mark in a few hours. Any opinions on what the Browns would be looking for at this pick? Possibilities: Kareem Jackson , CB, Alabama Jahvid Best, RB, California Dominique Franks, CB, Oklahoma Jonathan Dwyer , RB, Georgia Tech Eric Norwood, OLB, South Carolina

I think Favre is coming back for 1 more year. Then I think the Vikes make a big splash again at QB. Why not go the Packers route and let him sit for a year or two? Why wait until Favre is gone and then throw a rookie in the fire? Agreed.

Well I originally thought this would be a WR pick, but they've actually done some work shoring up WR, so I think they'll wait, especially with the talent pool, better value later. So the Ravens are going to add some youth to the DL. Ravens select Carlos Dunlap, DE, Florida http://image3.examiner.com/images/blog/EXID27365/images/Carlos-Dunlap.jpg

Olsen has to be at least as athletic as Ricky Proehl, who saw some level of success under Martz in St. Louis. Olsen- WR. Problem solved.

I haven't had a lot of time to research this pick, but I would agree with raw to go OL. I'll take his word and go with Pouncey. So Steelers select Maurkice Pouncey http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2009/0401/ncf_i_pouncey_200.jpg

I think it's nearly a certainty that Olsen is gone. There's no way the Bears would keep Manumaleuna, Clark, and Olsen. When Clark wasn't released despite the roster bonus that spelled the end for Olsen.If that is indeed the case, it sucks how old we will have made the position in just a couple moves, especially since Kellen Davis likely doesn't have a future since he wasn't that good to begin with and also is a receiving type of TE.

Well in the situation, it is the best solution, but I never wanted Martz so I'm kind of pissed about it. Most other OC's would be able to/ want to use Olsen. As long as we get fair value for him though, it is what it is and I'll be okay with it. Oh and we need a WR at least as good as Olsen to replace him, so we better do that.

Is it? Maybe for a running back with a lot of carries on the odometer. 30 should still be right in the prime of many guys careers. For other sports. Football prime is 26-30 for 80% of the league. Maybe even younger than that. I'm really not so sure that's true for non-running backs without significant injury histories. I'm not saying most players are at the absolute apex of their careers at 30 but most guys that are perennial pro bowlers or on a Hall of Fame trajectory have dominant years after 30. Reggie White and Bruce Smith, for example, were dominant until their mid 30s. Strahan too. But those type of guys make up a pretty small majority of players. No telling if you'll get a guy past his prime, or the small percentage that stays dominant.

Is it? Maybe for a running back with a lot of carries on the odometer. 30 should still be right in the prime of many guys careers. For other sports. Football prime is 26-30 for 80% of the league. Maybe even younger than that.

I don't know what to think because I've never been so down on the Bears and I don't know if spending like crazy makes it better or worse.

Why hopefully? Hopefully Martz fixes this inept offense, which just happens to include a disappointing TE, and stays for a while. Okay, hopefully was the wrong word choice. Of course I hope it works out well. I just expect it to be bad, I just worry it will be below average, but not bad enough that he sticks around for way too long.

Okay lets just call Olsen a possession receiver and not get rid of a good young tight end for a OC who hopefully will be gone in a season or two.

Bulls cut Chris Richard instead of Jerome James. Why? We saved enough money today between the two deals to easily afford Richard. I mean he's not a good basketball player, but that is more than Jerome James.

Here's what I said about the free agent situation at RealGM So I don't know if any of you guys ever have bought a home or like me, watch HGTV. But for home buyers, there is the choice between the fixer upper and the move in ready homes. The move in ready homes offer instant satisfaction, but less room for improvement. The move in readys can charm you with potential, but often the changes that need to be made are overwhelming. When looking at the players in Free Agency, the Bulls are the most "move in ready". Yea we lack the potential to bring along a second max free agent, but with all the teams ready to blow a wad of money, the odds of ANY team landing two top players was pretty slim. And that ignores the fact that we are the only 2010 with an All Star already on the roster. Yea, technically someone who is joining Miami has Wade, but the Heat also have to get Wade to stay as well. We have all of our first round picks. We actually picked up a future pick. We have a defensive rebounding center. We have a good third option. We have one of the best rising stars in the league. We have a former All defensive player on the perimeter to defend the other teams stars. Other teams that are players have some of these things, but we have the most of these things. Sure you might need to freshen up the paint (some shooters) and get some furniture (rebounding big men), but those are relatively cheap fixes and can be done easily. So 2010 Free Agents, bypass the fixer-uppers that are bound to cause you pain and heart-ache. Join the inefficient move in ready home and have a nice smooth transition into your new home.

What are the contract situations of those players? I don't think Alexander is an expiring....I think he's only been in the NBA for 2 seasons. Aren't rookie contracts 3 years guaranteed? First round contracts are 2 years guaranteed with two option years. They didn't pick up Alexander's option: http://www.shamsports.com/content/pages/data/salaries/bucks.jsp

I'll go Steelers, but would definitely be open to others joining up and creating a war room

Oh no...

Okay the answer was bugging me so here is the max salary right from the CBA documents:

Off the top of my head its: <=4 years experience: larger of 20% of the salary cap or 105% of previous salary >4, =<8, years experience: larger of 25% of salary cap or 105% of previous salary >8, =<10 years experience: larger of 30% of salary cap or 105% of previous salary >10 years experience: larger of 33% of salary cap or 105% of previous salary (Kind of a guess, but its something really similar to this) For pretty much any of the guys getting a max raise this year, that number is the 105% since the cap has dropped. So Lebron, Wade, and Bosh will actually make more than 30% of the salary cap. And that is for the first season of a new deal. After that, the player gets 10.5% of the first year salary as raises. If he signs with a new team, thus has no bird rights, its an 8% raise. Note that it isn't a compounding raise. To calculate the max raise you just take that percent of the first year, and that dollar value is the max raise (as opposed to increasing 10.5% each year) Google "Larry Coon", "NBA", "CBA" and use his FAQ website. He's pretty clear about any rules (although you can always check the actual CBA for best accuracy which you can also find online.

if the bulls can trade for free agent like stoudamire or bosh, then sign lebron or wade quickly in the offseason, they can use the bird rights of one of the other guys to go over the cap legally. this is all contingent upon being able to clear enough room to sign not only one max free agent but make signing two free agnets economically feasible, especially since reinsdorf hates the bulls and doesn't care if they do well or not. This is also highly contingent on the other teams agreeing to sign and trades in which they are willing to take back our resigned players.

The rectangular granite slabs... does it mean this: http://blog.aia.org/mt-static/plugins/Ajaxify/tinymce/jscripts/tiny_mce/plugins/imagemanager/images/favorite_architecture_images/wrigley_600_x_376.jpg Like to the left of the Marquee? If so, that sounds good. It had never even occurred to me. If that's not what it means, what are they talking about? Oh and I am alright with all of these things, even the advertising in the bleachers. I think it means Rickets wants to spend and will look for ways to increase revenue. Bring it on.

Heard a rumor of Thomas and James Johnson for Brendan Haywood, but I have no idea about how legit the source is.

I sympathize for Prior and have no hate for him, but we can give a minor league contract to any average baseball player in his early to mid twenties, and he has a better chance of helping the team than Prior. We could just keep giving him minor league contracts until he's like 40 as an apology though. I'd be okay with that.

I will say that if we decide to move Hinrich for expirings, one revolving around Hinrich for Allen is the best I've heard. I really hope that it is Jerome James and not Thomas, although you really need one of Thomas or Salmons because of luxury tax concerns. Possible deal: Hinrich, James, Thomas for Allen, Daniels, Shelden Williams (save $625,757) The rumored Salmons deal was Salmons for Reddick and Anthony Johnson, but Orlando would have to include a little more salary... not sure about that one....

Here's another thing to think about: We lose both Hinrich and Salmons. That both goes towards a max FA. The rest goes to another high priced FA with a contract of at least 4 years. Both of these are backloaded deals that increase the maximum 8% each year. Now this organization is notoriously cheap. Deng is getting class to his max raise of 10.5% each year. After next year Noah will require a sizable contract, probably at 10.5% raises, and the next year Rose will require a max contract with 10.5% rasies. And there is talk about a 2011 lockout that will result in significantly lower salaries going forward. Are we gonna pay for all of this? If not, where is that money going to come from. Not Rose or the MAX guy we get this season. Not Noah because center is a valuable position. Then you have Deng or the other FA that we sign, both of who are likely overpaid and difficult to move. Financially it makes more sense to allow Kirk to expire just as we extend Rose. I know fans don't want to consider finances, but the fact of the matter is that teams need to and they do. This particular organization also happens to be one of the stingiest around. It just doesn't seem to work.