Chisoxfn

Closing this catch all. Separate threads should be created for different stories, etc. This has become far too much of a catch-all.

QUOTE (Jake @ Nov 3, 2014 -> 11:19 AM) It would be way too soon to can Emery, IMO. You can't evaluate GMs this quickly. I'd also say this is rather quick to pull the plug on a head coach, too. You put yourself in a position where suddenly you have to fire another coach immediately if he goes sub-.500 . . . shortly thereafter, you're the Raiders. Or something. If you make the move to hire some unproven guy, sure, but if you are going for an organizational change and your current coach has completely lost the lockeroom, then you do it. This is not the Raiders, unless you have a history of doing this. This is full fledge, being outcoached, losing the lockeroom, etc. Sometimes you are best served by cutting the cord sooner.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 3, 2014 -> 11:12 AM) Well, for what it's worth, I was on the Chip Kelly and then the Bruce Arians train. And I also remember your posts about McCown and franchising Jay. I think the reality is, Trestman was none of our first choices and we all thought the other candidates were smarter hires. Not saying we all poo pooed the Trestman hire. We hoped, like fans did, that his offensive mind would work here. I'm not questioning Trestman's smarts or anything, I just think as a HC he is in way over his head. I also could say some nice things about Emery, most notably that by and large he has done a good job targeting areas of need and being aggressive when need be. In fact, depending on what his young DT's do, I might keep him based purely on this last years draft class (which was huge because he tanked outside of Alshon in his first draft). However, he has also really had a hard time evaluating our existing personell and has had some free agent misses, which would lead me to believe he's best suited at what he's done best a long time (college scouting).

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 3, 2014 -> 11:10 AM) Well, Andy Reid is doing the same thing with KC as Harbaugh did with SF (in regards to Smith). Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say Harbaugh isn't a good football coach. But those signs you wrote of a few posts ago...I just think I am seeing them with Harbaugh too. I could also argue the situation in SF is more that the coach wants more control, more power, and more credit and the front office instead wants the credit too (or more of it). I think a lot of what is going on in SF has been intentional leaks by their front office and ownership to stir the pot and make it easier for them to get rid of Harbaugh. The players, while I guarantee a few are upset (that will be the case in many locker rooms), have also been out there in their support of Harbaugh. Also, Reid is an excellent coach. I'd rather have him then Harbaugh (I was so pissed we didn't hire him in the first place). He is an elite QB coach and mind and also knows how to run a team and adjust his play calling to his personell (offensively).

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Nov 3, 2014 -> 11:07 AM) This is a really empty statement. That team did not go to the playoffs, and that team lost a lot of the defense leading into the next season. Trestman should be judged on his own record, which is mediocre to poor, not judged against Lovies final record. Lets not forget how Lovie went to the playoffs only once after he went to the Superbowl. I understand but Trestman inherited what was viewed by most pundits as a potential playoff team. That Bears team was 10-6 and didn't make the playoffs due to Cutlers injury (largely). I think that context is important because we reportedly (and I still have never heard anything that has stated otherwise) had our pick of any of the coaches from that class. I agree defense struggled more and while I'll blame injuries and personell for some of it, I also have heard too many people say our schemes are weak under Tucker. In football, more than any other sport, coaching matters. Funny thing is I like the coaches Trestman brought in this year and the coaches that stink were the ones that Emery brought in (Tucker & DeCamillis).

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 3, 2014 -> 11:02 AM) I was one of those who asked "What is the difference between what Cutler would produce and what McCown would produce in this system, and is that really greater than what that difference will cost in terms of signing Cutler long term?" I honestly was willing to look at other alternatives, but given the situation we were in, and the way Cutler had been playing when healthy, I wasn't particularly upset when they gave him the extension. I agree there was a minority of others who held this view, however, it was just that - a minority. Had we let Cutler walk and resigned McCown, all hell would have broken loose. It's easy to imagine it not, given the 8 games we have played thus far this year, but the fact is it would have. Despite his flaws, Cutler is still EASILY the best quarterback we have ever had long-term. Is that a high threshold? Not particularly, but that history is exactly what made extending Cutler more of a necessity in most peoples' minds. As to Harbaugh, let's be realistic here...he didn't turn water into wine, did he? The Niners were coming off a decade of absolutely sucking, which resulted in some opportunities to reshape their roster through free agency and the draft. Not taking away from the roster Harbaugh helped build, but perennial Super Bowl contender? Well, I'm not quite ready to concede that. I don't disagree with many of those points, however, we are paying a QB the type of money that they need to be difference makers and Cutler now has a long enough track record that it would appear statistically he has proven that he is not a difference maker. I think Harbaugh deserves a lot of the credit. Bad teams have stayed bad, what changes is good execution. Is it all Harbaugh, no, front office deserves credit but Harbaugh was a large part of completing shifting the culture. He also probably made a mistake in picking Smith over Kap. PS: I don't think Bears would be better with McCown but if we franchised, we would at least be able to look at this year and say, okay, lets shift our focus, find a young QB or go after a game manager who can be above average (but cost effectively) and get the most talent out of our skill positions and work on having a strong defense, etc. As we currently stand, we are going to have a hard time having sustained success with Cutler and his cap hit (unless he starts to play at an elite level and make players better cause we are going to be unable to really do a lot more to upgrade the defense). Bottom line, I'd rather be in this position knowing we could choose to move on from Jay and not have extra expensive vs. the current scenario. Again, I'm not denying statistically he has been our best QB and most talented QB in my lifetime, however, we are paying him to be better then that and he hasn't. I am not saying this season is all his fault, far from it. I think our coaches, front office and players deserve plenty of the blame. We have played poorly in all three phases and that has been both due to poor play and poor coaching / fundamentals to bad personell decisions. Blame is all across the board.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 3, 2014 -> 10:34 AM) It's easy to criticize this move today. However, this move was not particularly questioned when it was made. The alternative was to franchise him and shift towards developing the next quarterback, but given our relative success with that over the years (as well as the general difficulty that is thought to entail throughout the League), I'm not sure that move wouldn't have been met with far worse backlash (at the time, as well as today). Downside to franchising was you would have had a high cap hit this year which would have prevented us to make other roster moves. However, that difference ended up being pretty minimal given how Jay's current deal was structured. If Jay produces, he's probably still getting paid a similarly large number in future years and you extend him (no questions asked..maybe you end up paying a little more, but reality is no matter what you are talking expensive). Upside was that if Jay couldn't succeed, you walk away after year 1 and can actually move towards finding a franchise QB (not saying you'd hit, but you could at least move in that direction). This would ensure you could spend minimal on QB during early years and try to upgrade the rest of the roster with the additional savings. Team has much more flexibility moving forward. When you put that on paper, hard to see major negatives of the franchise in reality.

Think about this again... Harbaugh is 40-15 as a head coach in this league with a .727 winning percentage, having made the playoffs in each of his first 3 full season (including 1 superbowl appearance) and inherited a 6-10 team with a so-called bust in Alex Smith. Trestman is 11-13 with no postseason appearances and inherited a 10 win team.

Shack, in Re: to your point on McDonald. I have not followed the case exclusively but I believe Harbaugh has always been consistent that he won't penalize a player until charges actually are brought. He has been extremely consistent in this stance and that treatment is very consistent with what any of us would like and in theory would be entitled to. I also thought I saw a blurb (again, no idea what the detail of facts were) that chargers are not actually going to be made (not sure if it is due to lack of evidence or what). If I was going to point to issues in this league, it wouldn't be with the Harbaugh stances, which are both very consistent and well grounded, but with the stance of some of these other teams (see Carolina and Minnesota).

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 3, 2014 -> 10:34 AM) It's easy to criticize this move today. However, this move was not particularly questioned when it was made. The alternative was to franchise him and shift towards developing the next quarterback, but given our relative success with that over the years (as well as the general difficulty that is thought to entail throughout the League), I'm not sure that move wouldn't have been met with far worse backlash (at the time, as well as today). I think a lot of the bigger media had questioned the move when it was made. The reality was an alternative option was there, which was to franchise the QB. In fact, a lot of people said why give Cutler that much money when you had McCown produce just as well and have you seen enough out of Jay to think that he is different than the pre-trestman Jay. I am not saying everyone thought that, but there were plenty that did. If I recall, the view of Cutler signing for so much money was not thought of as a good idea by all, not even a vast majority of national pundits. In terms of Harbaugh, this Niners team has had injuries to a ton of stars and most everyone would have expected a slow start given. Harbaugh inherited an awful team and turned them almost immediately into a perennial super bowl contender. He has had success with two different QB's. And when you refer to Reid, I believe I was adamant that he was option 1 through 10 for the Bears to hire. I wanted Reid more then anyone and was very clear about how great of a coach I thought he was. Was he ready to leave Philly, sure, but was he still elite, absolutely and while KC isn't great, he's done a heck of a lot for a team that isn't exactly loaded with talent and a lot of that has to do with strong coaching across the board. I just have a very hard time defending what the Bears have done. I think a lot of the warnings signs were already there. Whether we chose to see them or not, it wasn't like warnings signs weren't there and stuff came totally unexpected. I am an optimist by nature and I have been more negative about certain instances of this football team in the last two years then in any year with Lovie Smith. And I'm not saying we would be better / worse with Lovie, etc. Not getting into that, just looking at the current facts and we went from a roster generally perceived as being one to contend (and viewed as the top destination) to potentially having a not so good roster, with a QB whose cap hit far exceeds his value.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Nov 3, 2014 -> 10:04 AM) The nation as a whole leans Democratic so the Democrats have an advantage in Presidential elections. Many individual districts, especially in Kansas, lean Republican so being anti-Obama works there. Candidates in Chicago and New York are not running anti-Obama campaigns. Depends on how you cut the data. In some instances, you could say the nation, in terms of states and geographic regions, leans heavily republican with select areas on the coasts which are highly populated lean democratic.

QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 3, 2014 -> 10:01 AM) I'm not sure a GM should get two cracks at an HC, especially when they fired a coach after a 10-6 campaign. And when your biggest move was giving a QB like Jay this much money. If Jay doesn't pan out and we stink, Emery has to go down with the ship as well. Fair or not, he has made some pretty big personell mistakes in his time.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 3, 2014 -> 09:57 AM) I hope it isn't "the Emery experiment," and more so "the Trestman experiment." I think Emery tried to hire the next Belichick instead of the next John Harbaugh or Mike Tomlin or Mike McCarthy. I don't really see how Emery was more so the next Belichick vs. the other guys you mentioned? Belicheck, prior to taking the Pats job, was extremely well thought of and had turned down previous coaching offers from what I recall. By the way, I wish we could have any of those coaches on that list you put out. I'd rank McCarthy last on that list of 3 guys though. You will point out the Steelers inconsistencies but in general, I like Tomlin as a leader and I like the physicality in which his teams play (and his record is still pretty good, including success in the postseason). He's also had to deal with the turning of the roster, etc, and it appears the players like playing for him, but at the same time, he doesn't put up with excuses, etc.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 3, 2014 -> 08:49 AM) Considering that we've heard SF has tuned Harbaugh out, why do we want to bring him here again? Easy. From whta I've heard, the front office doesn't like him. The players, while a few might not like him, seem to produce for him. Players don't like Belliceck a lot either but he wins and they put up with it. Harbaugh's biggest issue is the disconnect between him and the front office. Harbaugh has an excellent track record in the pros and college. Trestman has the track record of a guy that could never be a head coach. Just saying what the rest of the league thought for 10+ years and one organization took a chance and it appears such decision was a bad one. I've said from the beginning my concerns with him were on leading the organization and the more and more that comes out here it appears that is absolutely the case. I hope we see them come out and smash the Packers but I have zero optimism right now (and I'm an optimist).

I just want to say, through three games, this Bulls team has been the most fun team to watch since the Jordan era. They are just fun to watch. Lots of new faces to see what they will bring, plus the steady stream of familiar faces as well. This team has a ton of talent and I will anxiously watch to see how it all plays out. Jimmy looked fantastic and quick in his first game back. For whatever reason, probably injuries, he looked slower last year. When he plays aggressive, he is going to get a lot of free throws for us and his jumper looked much more consistent. Again, small sample size but add in his value on defense and I loved seeing that. I hope he plays himself into a max contract!!!

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Nov 3, 2014 -> 07:33 AM) I would like that, I just dont think Emery would be able to cede the control that Harbaugh would want. you just dont want Harbaugh in Ann Arbor (should it be green? ) Emery should be fired then.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Nov 3, 2014 -> 06:37 AM) LaCanfora reporting that Trestmans job security is tenuous, and players have tuned the coaching staff out, as well as a lot of in-fighting. Well, 2014-2015 was fun like a root canal Remember the guy complaining about Trestman this preseason. Oh yeah, that was me.

I like the idea of Santos. No point for Sox to get him, but with him more healthy, I'll take my chances on a league min and some Coop.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Oct 30, 2014 -> 07:00 PM) The Cavs aren't looking very good... This is a Knicks team playing in a back to back and they just got blown out by the Bulls. They have a lot of new pieces. It will take them some time until they are consistently excellent. They will likely have some bad games mixed in with some average games, mixed in with some games where you see what their total potential. Plus, LBJ doesn't have many games like he did last night.

Time to delete a few of Balta's posts

QUOTE (shysocks @ Oct 30, 2014 -> 02:13 PM) One, you should rework your definition of rotten. From 2005 to 2014 the Sox bullpen ranked 2, 10, 12, 8, 8, 5, 9, 8, 11, and 14 in ERA in the AL. Typically middle of the pack, and that in a stat that puts a team playing in US Cellular Field at a disadvantage. Two, it's beside the point anyway, because from 2005-2007, the three years prior to their turnaround, the Rays bullpen ranked 13th, 12th, and 14th in the AL. The year before that they were 3rd. The year before that they were 8th. The year before that they were 13th. Bullpens are volatile. I know you aren't a stats guy but hear me out on this, it doesn't use any sabermetrics, just a little statistical jargon. From 1998 to 2012 I looked at each AL team's bullpen ERA. I picked those years because the Brewers switched in '98 and the AL had 14 teams the whole time, so it made things easier on me. I compared each bullpen's ERA to its ERA in the previous year and got the R-squared value, which basically tells us how predictable something is. If every team's bullpen finished with the same ERA every year (Yankees 4.25, A's 3.33, Sox 4.00, etc.), that number would be 1.0. Instead, it was .136. That means you can predict about 14% of a bullpen's performance by looking at the previous year; the rest is due to other factors. It means it is extremely difficult to predict how a team's bullpen will do based just on the previous season. I did the same test for starting ERA and got .319. With runs scored, it's .312. There are always teams that surprise in any avenue, like the Sox offense going from dead last to middling from 2013 to 2014, or the starters' ERA going from first to middling from 2005 to 2006. But with bullpens it really happens constantly. Bullpen turnover is also generally very high.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Oct 30, 2014 -> 12:09 PM) So what have we learned? A team with one good starting pitcher (Sale listening?) can win the World Series. But they did have a good bullpen, very good DEFENSE and some grinders who are willing to hit to the opposite field. How the hell are the Giants champions? What have we learned from KC? A team with great team speed, amazing defense, fantastic bullpen and average starting pitching can win the AL. As far as starters they had two good starters (Shields, Ventura), two hacks who are smart and know how to win games in the Central (Guthrie, Vargas) and one decent starter (Duffy). The bullpen is so good it's scary. The manager didn't exactly use the team speed in the WS as much as the playoffs. There were a lot of World Series oddities. How bout this one? Can you believe the two stiffs who started Game 7 of a WS? Guthrie vs. Hudson?? Seriously, that's like starting some of the No. 5 guys the Sox have been trotting out there, like Carroll. Baseball is one, crazy sport. Just a reminder, Tim Hudson, while old, has won 214 games in his career with an ERA of 3.45. He posted a 3.57 ERA this year.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Oct 30, 2014 -> 09:59 AM) Examples? Alex Smith?

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Oct 30, 2014 -> 09:32 AM) i still couldnt believe how early Thibs had Niko, McDermott and Snell out there at the same time. It is a misconception that Thibbs doesn't like rookies. He's gotten a ton out of young players. The big thing with Thibbs is he doesn't want rookies who don't understand defensive rotations and are black holes for our defense. That is his biggest thing. If you can play defense and allow our defense to work, you will get minutes and opportunities to further grow. Butler, Taj, Asik, etc, have all made significant impacts with the Bulls and it was driven by the fact that they were able to hang defensively. Taj was a flat stud. Great post moves, great boards, sick defense. Loved it. But I also love Taj.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 30, 2014 -> 09:44 AM) It isn't that they looked bad, it is that on opening night they didn't even make an effort to run the offense for a single half of basketball and a new head coach. That is bad. But not uncommon, especially for an offense as difficult as the triangle. Phil and his disciples have talked about multiple times how difficult it is to get everyone to play. It is also much harder to stick with anything when you are getting throttled. It should also be noted that no one other then Phil has ever been able to have any sort of success out of the triangle. Also of note, the Knicks blowout happened when there was no Amare or Anthony on the court (when we created the initially seperation which obviously continued) and thus the Knicks had zero post options to run the triangle through, which is a larger part of their problem currently (but that is known as Phil and Fisher's job is going to be develop the few young guys they have plus Melo, continue to work the cap down and create flexibility and start with the next steps in the upcoming years by acquiring more talent). Not saying it will work out but I'd be a lot more worried if I were a Knicks fan and this was 20 or 25 games into the season and you were abandoning the triangle vs. the first game of the season.