Jump to content
The Cubs face Tarik Skubal, now a Dodger. Join our game thread! ×
North Side Baseball

WrigleyField 22

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    19,036

  • 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

  1. WrigleyField 22
    This is said so passively as if we don't have data about the actual players we're referencing. It's a 8+ at minimum on the crazy scale. If you are trading Fields you'd better be 100% certain that Fields is not the guy and that the guy you draft is the guy. You are basically staking your career to that decision. I like GMs that aren't afraid to take some risks but that is way too much of a gamble based on what we've seen from Fields so far. I mean I don't even care if it's a GM. Pretend every owner is Jerry Jones and Mike Brown and can't be fired. I'd call Jerry and Mike crazy if they did it. And they're certainly crazy so they might consider something like that at some point.
  2. WrigleyField 22
    You also lose out on all the other things you can do with the #1 pick so, now it's just another plus to Fields already being the better prospect.
  3. WrigleyField 22
    Unless he's Fields or...? You just argued fields had less uncertainty. Now you're implying he has equal or more? Less.
  4. WrigleyField 22
    Because you should be more uncertain of the prospects. When you're hoping for an elite outcome, uncertainty is a feature not a bug Unless he's Fields or...?
  5. WrigleyField 22
    Okay now run the same process on all of the NCAA prospects. It would be crazy, flat out. So if the data says they're all equally uncertain, why is it crazy? Because you should be more uncertain of the prospects.
  6. WrigleyField 22
    This is said so passively as if we don't have data about the actual players we're referencing. It's a 8+ at minimum on the crazy scale. To what data are you referring? Because I can come up with a lot of data that makes me uncomfortable committing fully to Justin fields as our QB long term Okay now run the same process on all of the NCAA prospects. It would be crazy, flat out.
  7. WrigleyField 22
    3. It would be a ballsy but reasonable thing to do. It's fundamentally a scouting decision at the toughest position in sports to scout This is said so passively as if we don't have data about the actual players we're referencing. It's a 8+ at minimum on the crazy scale.
  8. WrigleyField 22
    Pritzger is already on record saying he won't cough up any money for a stadium. Of course, no one has greased his wheels yet, so it's still too early to say it won't happen. And the Bears said they aren't asking for it "for the stadium" TBD, though I do luckily think Bears have uphill battle.
  9. WrigleyField 22
    I think they'll eventually get some funding but I'm guessing its going to be a bit of a battle before anything happens. Hope so! To clarify, that they battle for a pittance.
  10. WrigleyField 22
    TLDR: give us government funding!
  11. WrigleyField 22
    Only 18 years away from the child that will bring Bulls back to relevance *praying hands emoji*
  12. WrigleyField 22
    Tim, put the PFF mock draft site away.
  13. WrigleyField 22
    Commanders? They're probably the combo of closest to playoffs in 2022 with the most cap space (without restructures) But any team, even the Saints can figure out the cap hit part of it all.
  14. WrigleyField 22
    The only guys signing for more than 2 years are like the top 50 guys. Most of the NFL is on 1 or 2 year deals other than guys on rookie deals and star players. I think the expectation that the Bears sign a bunch of top 50 guys, despite the money they have, is a stretch. They could certainly be a bit more agressive than that in terms of years. But they don't necessafipy need to be. Just from a cash planning perspective you're likely pretty close to what they need to do, as is. Just by way of reference though, the top FA spending team least year, the Jags has a distribution among their top 8 signings (all making > $5M per) 4 years : 1 3 years : 5 2 years : 0 1 years : 2 May be a bit more than 50 that get 3+ year deals in FA,.
  15. WrigleyField 22
    Well my free game sim was clearly too easy. I took Bournemouth all the way to winning a combined 12/15 Champions/FA/Premier titles in a 5 year span and having a billion dollar operating cash budget lol. Then it totally lost that entire sim - nowhere to be found. So well see if I picked up enough generic tactics for a more realistic sim environment on FM 23
  16. WrigleyField 22
    Yea at the very least after a few years will be interesting if there's even any shortening of extras. Both teams are getting an equal advance. Intuitively it feels like it would just increase the odds of 1:1 innings instead of 0:0 innings. Although maybe random variance should get the total extras down with 0:1 innings being kind of randomly distributed at a more frequent rate. If time is really the concern, just come up with contrived tie breakers after 12 that dont require gameplay - who really cares at that point, if we're admitting the only real goal is to not let games drag on.
  17. WrigleyField 22
    Even if you were wanting to go gimmicky to shorten games I feel like you could come up with something more compelling than starting a runner on 2nd. Doesn't really add much in the way of strategic value/drama.
  18. WrigleyField 22
    I'm guessing every team approached him with basically an offer to guarantee his remaining money but spread it over 23 and 24 and then reduce his 25 salary. So he can take his chance in a totally open market. Maybe not 3/120, but I can see 3/100. So all in all a pretty good extension he negotiated last year. Was pit in a situation to either make bank or dictate his future, with the guarantee date and no trade clause.
  19. WrigleyField 22
    Yea and there are questions on Carters consistency too. If he's the guy, I kind of want to see him just be a terror on a relatively low snap count and make big impact when he's in. Obviously in time you want him to also be a 80%+ snap count guy too. But if as a rookie he was a 50% weapon that might maximize his value and allow coaches to focus on him being consistent.
  20. WrigleyField 22
    Yeah, I didn't think that through until the depth chart. LOL. They do have 3 other guys on futures deals or guys that were added in the Week 18 tank effort that could fill a spot. I think I'd still want more than a futures guy. Maybe J Jones is an overpay, but Dre'Mont played about 80% of the snaps last year for Denver. So it could very well be a 20% snap backup role - definitely a significant role and not like Mike LB or CB where your backup only plays in injury. Once you get outside of the top 30 of DL the snap count % falls below 75% of snaps. So for the average team, most of your line is probably a bunch of guys in the 30-60% snap range and maybe 1 or 2 guys above that. Gaines was getting 90%+ of Rams snaps before getting injured and ending year at about 80% of snaps. So I guess you could aim for all of Gaines, Jones, and Carter to get 67% of snaps, and basically run a 3 man rotation across those spots, with Carter and Gaines spending some of their time at 3T.... But would be very thin. (Snap count data) https://www.fantasypros.com/nfl/reports/snap-counts/dl.php?show=perc
  21. WrigleyField 22
    Definitely with your 3T backup being a UDFA right now, I'd say, might as well not cut Justin Jones. Or find another bit FA player. But I don't see that spot as "just" a depth role. It's a spot they're gonna rotate bodies through - he could see 40% of D snaps.
  22. WrigleyField 22
    Nice job raw. And all new names I think from my mock. So gives a lot of variety against that plan. Not sure I agree with the logic about Seumalo since his light tread has been injury driven. Age and history of injuries has me worried there. Think I'd rather throw that allocation at a OT and if Dillard is still a guy who can swing inside and out you could take a depth approach at LG. Definitely don't think you need to cut any of the guys you did to make the signings realistic. So I'm still of the mind, those guys come back competing for jobs and are July cuts. Unless you're trying to "do right" by a guy and releasing him early while the FA market is hot, there's little other reason to process those cuts early.
  23. WrigleyField 22
    Objectively a good choice by Fields here, but hilarious nonetheless
  24. WrigleyField 22
  25. WrigleyField 22
    horsefeathers it. Go full chaos mode.
×
×
  • Create New...