CuseCubFan69

I was just thinking about Cotts....didn't Hendry say something about giving him a shot at being a starter?

Bruce mentioned in his article this morning that Rusch would likely be released (if you're counting him). Thanks soapy. I don't even know how many players the Cubs have on their roster but if it was 41 I suppose Rusch is the guy that's going to go. I hope he's (Rusch) doing better than he was at the end of the season.

The Bears said they will give Lovie a fair deal. That sounds like they are not going to pay the big bucks to keep him and they better hope he likes Chicago.

I think they have to do something about the 40 man roster. What is it up to now?

Did he actually say he's ok with the PH'ing/bench guy stuff?

How many are on the 40 man right now?

What's that going to look like? They're both lefties. I think if Lou does this right he can have a very productive OF and bench.

He's doing some cell phone promotion thing.

If that's the case I would be happy but we'll see how it works out. When healthy Floyd id good, when healthy(not much). I wonder if he worked out for the Cubs at all? I'm sure they went over his medical records pretty well.

So does the signing of Floyd round out the OF or does Hendry go after a supersub that plays the middle infield and CF? This also takes away a lot of AB's from Ward and possibly Murton. Has Floyd ever played first? Ward ever played 3rd?

Please don't say broken down in a Floyd thread! I hope he doesn't think he's going to get 500 AB's at the expense of big red. I'm pretty sure you can't take your walker to LF, so I think Murton's ABs are relatively safe. Probably not but I really don't understand why he signed with the Cubs since they don't have a DH, there must have been very little interest or he just wanted to play in Chicago.

If Murton, Floyd, Ward, Soriano and Jones are all on the opening day roster. I have to think they'll go with another infielder there. Theriot can't be the only backup. Looking at that OF the Cubs don't really have a true CF'er. I hope Soriano and on occasion Jones can handle it.

Please don't say broken down in a Floyd thread! I hope he doesn't think he's going to get 500 AB's at the expense of big red.

Probably not a first rounder, but he might get you a 2nd rounder. I wonder if any team would be interested in Jones and Wale together. How old is Jones? I wouldn't trade much for a backup RB as they are probably the easiest thing to find. Well, he's a starter. How did the carries by each Bear RB breakdown? Thomas Jones had 296 carries for 1210 yards in the regular season. Cedric Benson had 157 carries for 647 yards in the regular season. There's a steep drop off after that. In the postseason, TJ has 40 carries, while Ced has 36, so it's much more even, but TJ has a 4.7ypc while Ced only has 2.9. Thanks. I think the Bears could replace his production easy enough. He does seem to have stepped it up a bit in the playoffs but I have also seen some huge holes that the line has given him.

Probably not a first rounder, but he might get you a 2nd rounder. I wonder if any team would be interested in Jones and Wale together. How old is Jones? I wouldn't trade much for a backup RB as they are probably the easiest thing to find. Well, he's a starter. How did the carries by each Bear RB breakdown?

Pretty much every team goes through that funky 7 to 10 day stretch when they struggle. The key of course is to take advantage of that timeframe!

I wish the yong man well as I've always liked him. I hope he gets a shot to start someday just to see what he could do if he got a chance.

Neither was Adam Greenberg. All I saying, if the Cubs won't consider Soriano, or a platoon of Jones/Theriot in CF, Walker or Fuld would be BETTER option then going after Bernie Williams or Steve Finley. But Adam Greenberg was much further along than Fuld for sure, and imo, Walker too. Where is Greenberg now?

Probably not a first rounder, but he might get you a 2nd rounder. I wonder if any team would be interested in Jones and Wale together. How old is Jones? I wouldn't trade much for a backup RB as they are probably the easiest thing to find.

I think this may be correct (absent playoffs and maybe some local broadcasting stations), and would actually be preferable (at least to me) to the current set up of DirecTV being the only route to get it. I don't mind paying for Cubs games, what I'm mad about is being forced to switch carriers. Baseball can't get people to watch the World Series for free I don't see how they would go to a pay-per-view. Plus, IMO you lose fans, especially young fans doing this. If the games are at bars how are kids going to watch them? That's why I made the exception for playoffs and some local broadcasts. I don't think you'll ever see the WS go to pay per view, and I think you'll always probably be able to get most of your home town team's games for basically free, but I can see the potential for PPV on out of market games in both football and baseball. That's basically what the Extra-Innings was, but you payed "per season". I don't mind paying for it, I just think everyone should be able to buy it if they want. It is nice to be able to watch Cub games if you live in Syracuse all the time and not depend on WGN but it seems to me since they have received money for the dish/cable they have decreased Cub games big time on WGN and that bugs me. I don't blame them (MLB) for trying to get the most money for their business but I think this is going to bite them in the long run.

I think this may be correct (absent playoffs and maybe some local broadcasting stations), and would actually be preferable (at least to me) to the current set up of DirecTV being the only route to get it. I don't mind paying for Cubs games, what I'm mad about is being forced to switch carriers. Baseball can't get people to watch the World Series for free I don't see how they would go to a pay-per-view. Plus, IMO you lose fans, especially young fans doing this. If the games are at bars how are kids going to watch them?

Unfortunately, I'm not going to have time to check it out. If anyone can provide a quick synopsis, it would be much appreciated. I listened to it and didn't find it to be inside information at all. Basically summed up what fans thought and how it could pull fans away from watching in the future. Unless they talked further, I didn't find it to be anything worth noting. I think it wasn't earth shattering but just bringing this up and open for discussion will help IMO. I admit they didn't break this down but it got a lot of hits e-mail wise about how fans felt. They did talk about streamlining it from the net to your TV as one possible solution.

This is exactly what will happen eventually. Although, Pay-Per-View hasn't been what they hoped it would. Eventually, the Super Bowl will only be available by Pay-Per-View. One of my best clients has one of the best sports bars in San Diego County, and he expects that to happen very soon. This location also is the very first bar in the country to offer table top pay tv and video games. People can order food and beverages through their table top tv besides watching whatever sport they want or play any of the currently available bar video games. They can browse the internet as well. It's pretty crazy and will soon be available all over the country. If the Super Bowl goes pay per view, they can have it.

By the way BbB....try going on to ESPN and see if you can hear the Mike and Mike show that they did today. Greenberg had a lot to say about this topic and some of it may be of interest to you.

Because that's our Buddy! Something is up with this because he can't be that ignorant to really say this without having some reason.