ptatc

I wasn't implying they were sharing the position just that was the plying time they would receive in general. However, since frequently on passing downs one LB may come out of the game, it is possible that it may work that way.

My guess is that Mack plays mostly just obvious passing downs whereas Smith plays mostly on 1st and 2nd downs.

The predictable conservative offense was part of the reason the Bears defense looked good though. Fox made sure the offense didn't put the defense in a bad position very often. With a more wide open offense, the defense will be put in a worse position more often with the turnovers from an inexperienced QB. This is why they played the close games so often, the game plan dictated it. Not that I don't disagree with the game plan with the wide receivers they has available. Pace really put Fox in a bad position.

This is where I'm leaning as well.

No doubt. Each team, each situation is unique. You can't apply the general ideas to all situations. The Jimenez situation is rare, where a player is performing at such a high level and has been outspoken at the handling of the situation. The team situation also plays a role.

This would need be a consideration as well.

Ok. In this situation, I would have a problem with the Super 2 deadline as should the player. I've stated all along that the next service time deadline after he is deemed ready is justifiable. He is obviously ready now so the next deadline would be April 15th one whichever one that is. To skip over that one and now wait another 30 days or whatever that would be, would piss me off. If he was still struggling, waiting the time in the minors at the beginning of the year is justiable. Again, I'm not arguing it's not a good business decision in the short term. Just that is it worth the chance of harming thebl0ng term business plan.

I agree. The new logo is much better in general, however for this concept it needs to be as obnoxious and blingy as possible.

Wow you are down to picking a very isolated topic in the whole discussion. Getting desperate. I did answer it, I think. In one of the posts I said that waiting a few weeks for that deadline is not the same as waiting the months at the end of the year.

Thats fine if you arent concerned about retaining your good players. Welcome to the Chicago Pirates.

There is a business side, doesn't mean the business decision doesn't piss people off. My boss just told me there is no room in the wonderful state budget to support any of our mandatory continuing education. This means i need to spend thousands of my own dollars to keep my job. Do I understand it, yes. Does it make me happy, no. Will it effect my future employment, good possibliity. Jimenez said what he should have said, however he wasn't forced to say anything. The fact that he did say something speaks volumes about his views.

Of course it's speculation, your point is speculation as well. My point is, was it worth it for the Sox to do this. In light of the article that Jimenez endorsed and the comments by his reps, they are taking a chance.

However, in each case the players took the offered deal, possibly limiting their income because of the good will the Sox showed. None of this has happened with Jimenez.

I'm not arguing that. My argument is was it worth it to possibly anger his group to the point that when he reaches FA and his prime he won't sign with the Sox unless they significantly offer more money than anyone else. There is no doubt it is the correct business decision now, since they didn't call him up in August. It is also the correct business decision vision to keep him down until the next service deadline in April.

The Sox brought Sale up the year he was drafted. The Sox have Quintana and Eaton the chances to succeed. They showed a great deal of good will and opportunities for those players. So far, the Sox have told Jimenez that we are only concerned with limiting your income. You are a business commodity to us.

I think your term of ludicrous is way off. These are unique circumstances where we don't know how it is going to go. Harper was brought up as what a 19 year old? He also is not going to sign with Washington this winter and they know it. The only other player to feel strongly enough about the way he was treated to file a grievance or discuss it was Bryant and even he did sign an extension to buy out his arb year but not his FA years. I'm not saying that once they didn't call him up in August that they shouldn't keep him down now. I think they should keep him down until the next service time deadline. The reps I'm sure wouldn't have too many issues with that. It usually only a few weeks or so. However in this case where he was so obviously ready earlier in the year it's a much longer period of time.

You don't know if it doesn't work. The only other case where a grievance has been filed or threatened to be filed is Bryant and he has taken very specific stances on how the rules need to change to the point that he wants to be the player rep to have more influence. All sides know the score as you say but the fact that the Sox offered to buy out his arb years and they declined speaks more to my point than yours. We have evidence that they are not going make it easy for the Sox in future contracts. Of course the Sox are playing by the rules and the reps can blame the union. The Sox have done absolutely nothing wrong by the rules. However, that doesn't mean they aren't ticked off that the Sox treated him this way and it's going to cost the Sox significantly when the time comes.

Sure take the discussion to ad absurdum when confronted with differing opinions.

I'm not sure Avi will have a full time role next year. Eloy will 've up at some point and the C.F. will also be RH. That leaves the RF as the only possibility for a LH. Renters seems to like the matchup the with LH and RH. Right now the only possible other LH are Narvaez, Moncada and Sanchez. I'm sure they'll look to upgrade Sanchez at 3B and Castillo will be the primary catcher. So Moncada and DH are the only consistent LH.

We may. He may discuss it if he is that passionate about it or they are usually rumors about what each team offers. If he signs somewhere for less money than the Cubs offer, the union may use it as an example for the CBA negotiations to try to get the owners to change the rule. But you're right that we may not know for sure, but I have a feeling it will come out.

I think 8-8 at best and Trubiskey will struggle in the first year of the system.

I think the Cubs will need to pay him significanly more than other teams for him to say. It's just my opinion but his being outspoken about how the CBA must change and the players will fight in this next negotiations, makes it sound like he is holding a grudge and he takes it personally.

Exactly. Just a gut feeling that the Cubs will need to offer significantly more than others to get it done.

Now we know why Jose Ruiz isn't there.

He has no choice on the impact on the contract negotiations until he reaches free agency. That is when you will know if it will make a difference.