Chisoxfn

One of my quotes (of many) since I was very adamant at how foolish it was to trade Tatis (at the time). They can't just sign a million of them. They have a limited pool and limited resources in these areas and a farm system that has lacked. What I'm saying is you can't write this guy off because he is so young that he's more likely to bust. Initial reports have been very encouraging and he's the type of kid who has the talent to emerge as one of the better prospects in the system with time. This could be an impact player. Yes, I said could, but when you are trading a guy who could be that for a guy who another team had to eat half his contract and is only slightly better (at his current clip) than your other options at the respective position (while actually still costing a decent amount of financial flexibility), I say that you shouldn't give up that type of piece for said player.

Separately...I tip my cap to two legends, Dirk and Wade, on outstanding careers (even if Wade's run with Bulls was sub-par).

Next on the news....Lakers give Jerry West blank check to lead the reorganization of their front office. Of course they'll have to outbit Ballmer, but the brightest executive in professional sports (Jerry West) is a free agent. Basketball savant. Too old to run day to day of being a president but still the exact mind any owner would want on payroll.

Lakers front office is a real train-wreck. Total dumpster fire. This has nothing to do with Bron. Unless it is because we are blaming Bron for the Lakers not being world champions this year. Magic never wanted to put in the work necessary to be a president, but always wanted the glory to go with it. This just wasn't what he signed up for and now that things are getting hard I think he just realizes that it isn't for him. They also have the worst GM in the game as well. Literally no front office in the game wants to work with Pelinka...Magic had to do all the negotiations given how much the rest of the league despises their current GM. They do have LBJ though so that still puts them in a favorable position.

I hope if Moncada proves himself that Sox are committed to giving him a long term extension. Man I wish all of these extensions were lining up with having Manny on roster but either way good to see Yoan starting red hot!

Taxes alone take half so add agent and spend and I’m going to guess a lot less.

I don’t think his family has life changing money.

He had one mediocre season out of three and was coming on at the end of the year. I feel this is absolutely stupid. This ranks right up there with the Robbie Gould release (and Barf replacement). If you were going to get nothing why not keep him. This is essentially a seventh round pick. Awful move. Worse when you consider the team acquiring him is a contender in the NFC. All that said...I get it and Nagy obviously didn’t want him.

He had something bugging him a few weeks back as well. I really hope everything is alright.

Alright Hawkeyes.

I hope the Bulls can identify role players and groom guys, but I think they've done a decent job when you look at Arc, Harrison, and Seldon. All of them have their limitations and none are starters, but they all have shown an ability to be solid role players / bench guys.

One reminder (albeit you'd have to ignore age) is a lot of NBA point guards took a few years before they actually transformed their games.

Just new name for the d league. And if bulls are relying on the guys in the d league emerging they are hosed.

So we are blaming O'Donnel for the Bears kickers missing their field goals?

Out of curiosity, why the fire Boylan thread now? Did something happen against the Kings? If not, hasn’t Boylan done a decent job the past month or so. Look at the development of Lauri and especially Lavine over second half of the season (As an example). Not saying Boylan is the second coming either (don’t think we have seen enough of a sample to conclude on that) but I’ve seen far worse coaches.

Now this I like. I said all along, with where the Bears were, I wanted them to wade in the weeds.

Yeah - Why take that risk now vs. a couple years from now stepping up the game and getting a few more years (where you are more confident in the risk profile). It would be another story if this was like a 10 year deal at $100M. This just seems too much, unless he is rounding up from like $75M and we are talking an 8 yr deal of $75M (and he's just grossly rounding that up to $100M). 8/75YR's I could probably get on board with. Albeit, going that long you are taking real risk (given just how little he's played at the big league level).

Crazy. These numbers seem very high for a player who has yet to play a major league game. There has to be more years to it than just this (to ultimately get to the 100M).

Lets just remind everyone that his first two years, I believe he was the 2nd most productive back in rushing yards in the NFL (or something like that) and his YAC was fantastic. He is limited and had a rough 3rd season in the league, but the dude was a beast his first two years with the Bears.

Does this mean we had a team offering us multiple 3rd round picks?

Yes - This.

I would have negotiated knowing I could get the space if needed. Basically agree to the deal with a wink wink nudge nudge from Mack.

My point is you don't create future cap issues for situational / role players. You just don't. If this was the Houston of 3 years ago, great, sign me up for robbing future cap space. We are robbing future cap space for situational type players. I don't like that one bad.

I just think in this type of free agency, they should have been on the sideline and went bargain shopping. They just weren't positioned to do anything different. And if they wanted to take a different approach than they needed to launch for an impact name. What they did was play in the middle and I don't think that was the best strategy given their position. I also firmly believe against mortgaging the future, especially in a game where injuries, etc can immediately shoot seasons down the tubes (at all to high of a frequency). Said another way, I'd rather maintain flexibility to be able to strike where appropriate vs. make a move like this to free up cap space on a few mediocre players (maybe make you slightly better but not worth the future flexibility lost). Strategically it is the way I operate. And on Houston...he hasn't been very good the past couple years (since his major deal), so I don't necessarily know that signing him would work much different than the Jared Allen signing. I could be wrong though and I certainly would hope if we did sign him and put him in a reps limit that maybe we get more "value" from him, but I don't view the opportunity cost of future cap space as being that worth it. At this point though, the Bears forced their hand prematurely by making a decision with Mack without a ready impact move. I'd personally want to make sure we have the cash/cap flexibility to pay people after we've hopefully paid Mitch (because he's earned the big paycheck). I don't want to built a team that is great for 2 years and then falls apart. I want the Bears to have a franchise for once that can hit great, but also maintain a long-term period of sustained success.

I think the Bears made a mistake creating all this cap space when there weren't any major difference makers to go for. I think the smart thing would have been to keep ammunition for a future point in the time. I do not believe in create cap nightmares. This just wasn't the year, given how they were positioned in cap space and with draft picks to do this. And if they do make a move, it needs to be more like the Rams with a guy on more 1-2 year type deals where you aren't really locking up too much long-term.