Chisoxfn

QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Oct 3, 2017 -> 10:30 AM) Ryan Bass‏Verified account @Ry_Bass Sounds a lot like Giancarlo Stanton will be traded. I know, I know. His contract sucks, we're rebuilding, blah blah blah... at the same time, I feel like this isn't something that can't be completely ruled out. Given how horrible the contract is, his trade value is much lower. It's too early to start trading prospects for proven talent, but this is the one and only opportunity we're going to have to acquire a power hitter like Stanton. If a trade were centered around Dunning and Adolfo, with the Sox receiving cash, of course, would you support it? This would make the Avi trade a lot easier, and he'd provide great protection for Abreu and Moncada. See,I just don't agree that his contract sucks. I think if you can get him without giving up your a-level contracts, you do it. He's going to ba very good player during the window we compete.

QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 3, 2017 -> 07:48 AM) Yeah I do think starters is the 6 for $68 deal of Abreu. I can't see the price going that high. We are still talking about a 17/18 year old kid here. Too much risk for a team to shell that much. I could see it going as high as 30-45M though.

I would think this doesn't happen and instead they lose future rights. Seems odd just to null and void a particular player's agreement. That said, as long as the player ultimately benefits (and gets more money...which in this case he presumably would), I could see it working. If he's a free agent (and unrestricted), I would think it is pretty unlikely Sox win the bidding, but I would be a proponent in taking the chance (given our current lack of payroll). Given his age, handing out mega bucks is pretty risky as well (lots can go wrong from 17 until you reach the big leagues). No denying his potential though.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 2, 2017 -> 04:59 PM) And there's my problem with that - this guy could, for whatever reason, have decided that he was doing the same thing. Standard white terrorist with easy to purchase weapons who wants a body count. Anyway, just makes it hard to draw the dividing line people want to draw. Much more grey than any easy answer - other than the commonality of a heavily armed guy. I don't think stronger gun control laws (as in who is able to buy vs. who isn't (from a mental illness perspective or even a more detailed background check)) were going to stop this person (at least based upon the current information out there). So if you were going to look at this scenario in a vacuum, based on current facts, it would appear that the only thing stopping it would be an inability for anyone to purchase these type of firearms. I'm not a gun owner though (have barely shot a gun in my life, other than some rifles at scout camp), however, I do respect people's rights to own/protect / etc. I really see no scenario (outside of the ability to defend oneself from thy own government) where people need the types of firearms being used in these type of instances.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 2, 2017 -> 03:57 PM) Would you describe the 9/11 hijackers or the Paris attackers as mentally ill? (nonsarcastic question). Have to think about that for a bit. Somewhere in there, I think they have been brainwashed/rationalized their behavior for a greater cause as part of a "holy war". So it falls into a "gray" area as to what you define as "war". Like I said, need to think a bit about it, however, in general, I tend to separate acts against soldiers vs. innocent people (and I'm not referring to innocent bystanders).

QUOTE (Wanne @ Oct 2, 2017 -> 03:21 PM) Good point about Fox. I'm not sure where it's all coming from. I even saw a story this morning that this has been a Pace mandate to not play him (which baffles me). But they honestly could not keep trotting out Mike Glennon and all his ineptness. They were losing fans...and quite frankly I think they were losing the locker room somewhat if they decided to keep trotting him out there. Players were getting PO'd. I'm not going to pretend to know what's best either...but when you see rookies like Watson have the success they've had so far...it almost forced the Bears hand with this. As for your first sentence...I wish the Bears would have felt that same way with Cutler and actually built him a solid OL...and stabilized that OC circus they had going on. They did't do too good with that investment IMO. I know this is different somewhat...but still. In terms of the lockeroom, I do agree that it is a key point that ultimately matters. You can't just treat Trubisky with total "kid" gloves because there are other implications it has on the lockeroom, especially given that, by almost all accounts, Fox has had pretty strong control over the lockeroom. I think the fact that the team laid a complete egg on Thursday against the Packers, had a lot to do with Glennon (who was awful and I'm not one to just totally throw a player over the bus) but also I think magnifying it was the fact that the team had zero confidence in the QB (nor did the coaching staff...hence why we played it safe in that 4th quarter and ran the clock down quickly (vs. risking injury). Players are not inhuman and they knew they had no chance to come back. We as fans knew it, and they knew it too. To go back out and make any statement towards Glennon would have been crazy and if Trubisky has proven to be the clear cut best player, the Bears had to at some point turn to him. At the very least, if he wasn't ready, they would have had to turn to Sanchez, but I don't think that would have actually worked since by all accounts he's been much worse than any of the other QB's (going back to preseason). Either way, at this point I hope Trubisky is able to grow and show us what we want and then some in this first year. I also hope he stays healthy and shows "progress".

QUOTE (greg775 @ Oct 2, 2017 -> 01:32 PM) Is that true? I'm asking medical professionals. We are assuming because the act of killing is horrific you have to be mentally ill. There are bombers in war who kill thousands. Not trying to argue. I just think we are going to see more and more of this and I'm thinking in not all instances will the gunman be mentally ill. He might be pissed at the world, at the man (in his case the casino he sued for two years?) and as a complete selfish asshole he could take hundreds of people with him as he leaves the cruel world. I'll stop now as I know NOTHING about mental illness. I'm just wondering if some people are capable of s*** like this without being insane. I mean there are a lot of gang members who kill just for the sake of it. They are not considered insane, just ruthless. Were all those guys in the mob insane by the definition of insane? Oh well, my mind is al over the place as you all know these senseless mass murders make me get very angry, like at the Colorado asshole who killed so many in a theatre. Best wishes to all in Vegas. In my opinion, depends on how you define it. You can have "mental illnesses" that create long-term issues, or you can (in my opinion), have events in your life that perhaps cause a drastic shift to your mental health which in my opinion could make you mentally ill. I separate conflicts of war from other scenarios because in that case, you are not being unique (presuming you are performing your act consistent with how a soldier should perform it). To just randomly murder other people is not a sane act and anyone that does such a thing clearly has a mental inbalance (at that point in time). A whole seperate question as to whether it should / could have been identified earlier and actions prevented. Lots of things unknown as it relates to this particular perpetrator.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Oct 2, 2017 -> 01:09 PM) Two issues: Gun control, mental health. ... a.) Well, I don't really want to know more about this guy but I'd kind of like to know why he did it. From what I read I don't think he was mentally ill, he was just an asshole. He was gambling heavily, probably drinking heavily? There's a chance this 64 year old wasn't insane, just wanted to leave the earth in a splash, a blaze of glory so to speak. Shooting a gun from a window, he didn't have to actually see the blood and carnage. he could just kill, then kill himself. He may have just wanted to die and do it in a public way. Or maybe he hated people late in life. He had some beef with a casino I read. He may have just been an asshole. I seriously doubt he was mentally ill. b.) Gun control. I wouldn't give up. There is no reason 64 year old guys should have those kind of guns. I know it's our freedom to arm ourselves, but if we don't solve this issue non partisan (ha, good luck there) and keep assault rifles, etc., out of the hands of people, this indeed will be the new normal. I'm surprised we don't see hand grenades in these attacks as well. It's going to happen at a sporting event as well as concerts like this and it's very sad, tramatizing and heartbreaking. I realize I'm dreaming about keeping these guns off the streets, but if there ever was a cause to not give up the fight on, it's this. But it CANT be solved cause of partisan politics. I'd still try, though. Technically at some point to do what he did, he had to be mentally ill. Seperate from that is whether he actually showed those signs elsewhere.

Horrible. What is wrong with these people. I'm going to be in Vegas Thurs-Saturday. Going to be eery. Prayers out to everyone impacted by this horrific tragedy.

I'm excited everyone has decided that Trubisky is ready to get regular season action and will remind myself to be patient with the process, especially recognizing how terrible our wideouts are, etc.

QUOTE (Wanne @ Oct 1, 2017 -> 08:19 PM) Oh stop...nobody is attacking you. You just threw out all this stuff about "not in his best interest"...and then claimed you'd like to see him start. Which is it? You also claim it makes no difference what his teammates think. Of course it does! Other teams have no problem doing this (starting rookies). Trubisky is ready...he's been ready. Fox is just a stubborn ass...but that's neither here nor there. It Glennon's teammates have zero confidence in him...you don't think that's an issue? You claim my opinion is based on "not liking how Glennon is playing"....lol...ummmmm....I think 99% of Chicago feels the same way. It's based on the fact that Glennon absolutely stinks and they have to spoon feed him plays so he doesn't get killed back there and it completely limits what the offense can do. He's horrible! You put the best player out there. They've had how many months now to prepare Trubisky? And I don't care if you want to claim he was playing against 2nd or 3rd string D...he still made plays. Stop and think...he made plays play WITH 2nd and 3rd string O. He's ready. And yes...he'll still make rookie mistakes. But this team will be better with his rookie mistakes than Glennon's complete ineptness that handcuffs the entire team. I get your point of coddling him til "he's ready"...I just don't buy that form of preparedness....not with this scenario. Trubisky is head and shoulders more capable of running this offense that the Giraffe..... The Bears invested a lot in Trubisky and they need to make decisions which maximize that potential investment and put him in the best position to succeed and excel long-term. I'm not going to pretend to know what that answer is, but that is all that matters. And I think it is highly likely that the front office and coaching staff might disagree on the "when" answer, with Fox being more likely to want to turn to the rookie sooner vs. later. Additionally, Fox has actually succeeded with younger QB's in the past in his career. Your opinion of Fox as being some stubborn guy has more to do with how he handles the media (which is completely ignores them with non-answers and never throws players on the bus, etc.) vs. the reality of the situation.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Oct 1, 2017 -> 05:57 PM) Yes. Seriously, every player there knows what Trubiskey looks like in practice. They also know that starting him with anything less than full preparation is foolish. He didn't have problems with decision making in the preseason because A. the teams did not run true defenses, B. they didn't game plan for him and C. Half the time he did roll outs to trim his decision making to half the field. none of that will cut it in the regular season. He may start next game, that would be my choice but the coaching staff knows if he is ready or not. Do you truly think Fox is purposely playing the worse QB? His job is on the line. The only thing that would change this would be if PACE is ordering it. Fox and Pace could have different agendas. Fox might be to the point where he figures Trubisky is the only guy that can save his job. That said, while Pace might agree with that, if he thinks that playing him now reduces the long-term success rate of Trubisky being good, then I could see him stepping in (since he knows he'll be around longer). Heck, look at Cleveland...Kizer is sinking over there. Does anyone think he is learning from being that bad?

Random question, but what about this game makes everyone want to fire Fox? Is it the fact that Glennon sucks? Is it because people think the team quit (even though it was Glennon who singlehandedly totally blew with 4 bad turnovers)? Is it more that people are just pissed that Trubisky isn't there? Either way, I think it was pretty evident from the postgame, Fox is ready to go to Trubisky. Reality is he's probably been ready for a while but he can't play him without an organizational approval. I don't even know how to evaluate the defense or offense when you get that bad of play out of the QB. I didn't think he could be worse then he was last week, but he proved me wrong.

How was that bad snap on Glennon? Nevermind...saw highlight and realized it bounced off of his knee.

Hopefully whatever it is has a positive long-term outlook.

QUOTE (Dizzy Sox @ Sep 27, 2017 -> 11:33 AM) One of the most encouraging developments over the last two years has been the Sox finally putting a premium on players who can take a walk (or at least have some track record of controlling the strike zone). Just off the top of my head...Collins, Call, Fischer, Burger, Sheets, Gonzalez, Yurchak, plus as a previous poster wrote maybe you can include Robert...that's a dramatic shift from the Jared Mitchell/Trayce Thompson/Tim Anderson athlete-first, ballplayer second model that reigned since the mid-to-late 2000s. Obviously not all of these players will find it as easy to control the zone as they did in amateur ball, but the simple fact that the ability to take a walk is now apparently valued by the club...eventually you have to think that will pay off. I have to think this is linked to Hahn establishing himself over Kenny '5:1 K/BB ratio' Williams (in an era of reduced strikeouts no less!) Regardless, it's a very welcome development and I'm hoping we'll see the fruits of that at the big league level as these players mature and, presumably, controlling the zone is stressed for everyone in the Sox minor league chain. Technically, Jared Mitchell and Trayce Thompson had good understandings of the strike zone and had pretty solid walk rates. They were athlete first players who had longer swings and other issues, but they knew the strike zone well (especially for players at their respected levels).

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 27, 2017 -> 08:27 AM) I have said it a million times and will say it until all get aboard the train... These guys being successful is much more important the difference between the #3 and #5 picks in this draft. If we had gone into next season with Moncada and Giolito both having repeats of their call ups last year, if Anderson had continued his April-July through the rest of the season, if Yolmer had hit like Carlos Sanchez, and Avi hit like pre-17 Avi, etc... our rebuild would have been in huge trouble, and put the entire organizations future into doubt. It isn't JUST draft position. The most important thing is that these kids are turning into big leaguers once they get to Chicago. Cosigned x 1000.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Sep 26, 2017 -> 11:14 AM) I was thinking more in a blanket statement, given that risking player safety on the quality of play with 3-day practice weeks doesn't really bother them, as long as the ratings are there. But now that I thought it through, the only way it would work is if 2 teams had a bye in week 1, and as late as week 15. I'm not sure the players would be willing to accept that. The other way to do it would be an 18-week schedule with 2 bye weeks per team. However, I doubt the players accept that without the removal of at least one preseason game. And the owners will NOT give up the revenue from a preseason game. Hence, the profit margin, it all comes full circle. Extra week of regular season games should easily off-site lost revenues from any reduction in preseason games, imo (TV money for extra regular season far outweighs money related to preseason, imo).

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Sep 26, 2017 -> 10:56 AM) Yes, when teams got their bye week would be a huge issue. I get it for Thanksgiving, but every damn week? These guys need some recovery time. The games aren't going to be of the finest quality. Both the Bears and GB went to OT, and on top of that, GB had the late game, another 3 hours less to recover. With the injury problem going on, the league absolutely needs to extend the season a week (while not adding any additional games played), it adds an additional week of regular season TV games. It creates the ability to provide 2 bye weeks for players, allowing for player safety and you could largely argue it also creates an increase in overall revenues that would enable the league to reduce the preseason by 1-2 games (since regular season TV revenues should easily outweigh preseason revenues). Extra rest should enhance the overall quality of play. Just too many injuries going on now, which dilutes the quality of game and in reality can widely impact whether your best teams are in the playoffs or not. Just seems like a no-brainer, albeit, there are so many contenious points between players/owners that it will take a while to happen.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Sep 26, 2017 -> 10:56 AM) Yes, when teams got their bye week would be a huge issue. I get it for Thanksgiving, but every damn week? These guys need some recovery time. The games aren't going to be of the finest quality. Both the Bears and GB went to OT, and on top of that, GB had the late game, another 3 hours less to recover. Week 1 you can easily have it...then you skip weeks 2, 3 and 4 and then week 5 start. To do this right, you should start teams bye weeks at week 4 (vs. week 3). This would minimize how many TNF games you need to reduce (in reality, all you are losing is 3 games in this proposal, but enhancing the quality of play). You could make it almost seamless if you extend the season one week, increase teams bye-weeks to 2 total. You increase overall revenue (by adding a week to the season), create more bye weeks to enable plenty of opportunities for TNF. In general, it should be a win-win-win...albeit it has to be collectively bargained.

Gonna be tough...hopefully Hawkeyes can quickly rebound on the road against the Spartans. Man tough loss but great game.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Sep 25, 2017 -> 11:17 AM) So I had my Echo on and listened to Hampton and OB after the game. I am really starting to believe they want the Bears to lose for the complaining. They have made their beds and now if they win, they are still pissed off. A caller mentioned that he had seen their entire careers and they had played on some real lousy teams, and they just tried to humiliate the guy. Its funny for a while. They definitely are catering to the Superfan type of person. Ditka, sausage, Bears.... But from how they ripped everyone from Fox on down, you would have thought they lost 50-0 yesterday. We all know Cooper made one of the dumbest plays in history, but OB, that isn't Fox's fault. It isn't his position coach's fault. I get it, you think they suck, but it isn't their fault. Yeah, Fox tried to make a laugh out of it a bit at his press conference. What good does having an anuerism over it at that stage do? Cooper, despite the awful play, also played some fantastic corner yesterday and has been good all year. I think I saw where 10 balls were thrown his way and only 1 catch with a few deflections. In general, our DB's have been much better then I expected (especially Fuller, who has legitimately been good). And the Bears have played some talented wideouts these first three weeks. The biggest thing was yesterday the defense got its hands on more balls than I can remember since the Lovie era. That should lead to more turnovers. Offense needs a QB, but we all know that, and until it gets it, the running game will have weeks where they just can't move (no matter how talented everyone is because there are just too many men in the box and a QB who just can't threaten downfield).

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Sep 25, 2017 -> 08:16 AM) So $39 million for 1 year of an over the hill Dwayne Wade. Nice move GarPax. He played you again. Buying him out now was the right move. He clearly didn't want to be part of a rebuilding team and Bulls front office had to know this was something they'd be dealing with when they decided to move Butler.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Sep 24, 2017 -> 01:51 PM) I don’t know if it is directly correlated but this O Line opened some gaping holes with Kyle Long back in it There were a couple highlights where Long was just flat out destroying people and he was really getting upfield. Was really impressed. Olines take time to gel and there have been a lot of injuries / people out. Hopefully they are going to start getting healthy and starting gelling cause that online has some talent.

QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 24, 2017 -> 01:49 PM) After Thurs. I will be very disappointed if longer. Very soon. Loved the win and the defense, online, and backfield, but man Glennon is bad. Not that we didn't know that, but I hope Trubisky is ready cause his time is extremely near. I wouldn't be shocked if we went to him this week even (Glennon was that bad). But alas, this is less about Glennon at this point and more about when they are ready to turn to Trubisky. Too bad the Packers came back.