Dick Allen

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Mar 8, 2012 -> 11:17 AM) One disturbing trend I've noticed is the increase in Derrick Rose isolation plays to end quarters and games. The Bulls are at their best when they move the ball in these situations. Derrick has hit some ridiculous shots as time expires the last few games. That shot last night was awesome. I still can't believe it went in... however, most of the 24 seconds he spent waiting for the clock to wind down, I was hoping something would develop. When Delfino pinched in to help Jennings on Rose, Deng was unforgivably wide-open. Yes, Rose hit it. Yes, it was awesome, but man, when you have 24 seconds, that should not be the shot you take. Anyway, just a rant. Just a COMPLAINT about Derrick Rose. Back to our regularly scheduled drool fest. When you're playing for the last shot, you usually sacrifice a little bit in order for the opponent not to get a chance to tie or win. The shot was fine. They could have worked it around and found a lay up with 10 seconds left, and then might have lost.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 8, 2012 -> 10:19 AM) I can't believe that you are taking that seriously. Owners and players say that crap all of the time, and 99% of the time it is a lie. If it weren't true, Manning would still be there, end of story. I know that. I just don't know why owners and players continue to say its not about the money. They obviously believe the public is stupid. I really don't know why he had to add that when everyone knows its about a $28 million check he was about to have to write.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Mar 8, 2012 -> 10:12 AM) Except that the Colts are going to spend 100% of their cap space on players, regardless of whether or not it is on Peyton. In fact, if it's a money decision, you keep Peyton because while your team's expenditures are going to be the same either way, your team's revenues are going to be higher if Peyton is still around. Its about allocating resources. If Manning were making $2 million, he'd still be a Colt. Its not a coincidence he's released a day or 2 before they have to pay him $28 million. They don't think having Manning on the roster is worth the money they would have to pay. The reason Manning isn't a Colt is because of the amount of money he would have had to have been paid. That is a money decision.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 8, 2012 -> 09:42 AM) It's not just about it being $28 million either...it's about the cap space...it's that his contract is front-loaded and effectively destroys their cap space, so assuming they kept Wayne, they wouldn't be able to add anything other than the draft to get better. (Oh, and Freeney also has something ridiculous like a $15 million number while we're at it). The Colts could have traded down to try to stockpile picks, but everyone knows that "picks" can take 2-3 years to pan out, and by then Peyton might well be pushing retirement. If they kept him, they'd be going into next season with a weaker and older version of the team that was what, 10-6 two seasons ago, or they'd have a bunch of stockpiled draft picks from whoever moved up to get Luck (and they probably coudln't get fair value for that QB anyway). Cap space is still money. Irsay said it had nothing to do with money. That's a lie.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Mar 8, 2012 -> 09:31 AM) It is about the money to the extent that it relates to the salary cap, but beyond that it really isn't about the money. Irsay forces Peyton back to the Colts by paying him the $28M, which nobody in their right mind thinks he should do. Once that decision is made, Peyton has no good reason to come back to the Colts voluntarily at any price, because he only has 3-4 years left and the Colts are 2-3 years away from contending. If not for a $28 million roster bonus, he would not have been released. Its all about the benjamins. I'm not saying releasing him wasn't the correct move, I believe it was, but it was about money. I hope he can come back and play at his previous level, except if he's playing the Bears. How he handles everything makes me a bigger fan every time.

QUOTE (Jenksy Cat @ Mar 7, 2012 -> 04:43 PM) And I'm sure that's 100% the truth just like when every athlete says "it's not about the money". Its ALWAYS about the money, especially when that money is 28 million dollars to a guy with 15 neck surgeries in 2 years. I agree. I don't know how stupid Irsay thinks people are, but to say this has nothing to do with money is a joke. It has everything to do with money. No one would blame him for cutting Manning knowing he would have to pay him so much for basically a question mark. But if he wants to tell everyone its not about the money, how can anyone ever believe anything he ever says again?

QUOTE (ptatc @ Mar 6, 2012 -> 09:54 PM) Can you diminish the wild card. It's not really an accomplishment. If you get in the playoffs as a non-division winner, it really doesn't matter. But its a one game playoff to advance. That should put you at a huge disadvantage if you win the game, plus the one game is a gamble. All the WC ever gave up was homefield. Now if you're in but can still win the division, do you take your chances with the WC and set your rotation, which will be screwed up anyway due to the one game, or do you try to win the division? If you're going to have a wildcard, having 2 with a one game play in, IMO is a better solution. Plus it will keep even more interested in September.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Mar 6, 2012 -> 09:54 PM) Can you diminish the wild card. It's not really an accomplishment. If you get in the playoffs as a non-division winner, it really doesn't matter. But its a one game playoff to advance. That should put you at a huge disadvantage if you win the game, plus the one game is a gamble. If you're going to have a wildcard, having 2 with a one game play in, IMO is a better solution. Plus it will keep even more interested in September.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 2, 2012 -> 04:30 PM) What it really diminishes is the wild card. Exactly. At first I thought this thing was crazy, but I really like it for the very reason you provided. Make winning the divison worth more home field advantage, plus it gets more teams involved at the end of the year.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Mar 5, 2012 -> 06:35 PM) Tampa did it last year. That was a pretty sweet roster for $41 million last year.

Has any team ever dropped $30 million from their payroll in one offseason and made the playoffs?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 5, 2012 -> 08:08 AM) Here's reality for the Bears though...they're in a position where, IMO, they're so thoroughly undermanned at WR that "A guy not living up to his contract" is still an acceptable situation, because that guy could still come off as a substantial upgrade. They might well have to make a guy nearly the highest paid WR in the league, and they're not going to get Larry Fitzgerald out of this FA period...but they just have to give Cutler a weapon on the outside. Even if he only gives them 60-ish catches next year, they have to open up the outside. I would rather they use a couple high picks on receivers and spend big money on their lines.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 5, 2012 -> 07:54 AM) But there's a lot of things that can mean. It can mean that when a team gets a high performing WR, they only let them hit the FA market if they have character issues. It could mean that most teams who sign a high performing WR are signing them in a situation where they don't have strong QB play and that costs the WR his numbers. It could mean that they hold them until they hit the FA market at age 32, and thus the WR doesn't get somehwere new until he's starting to go downhill. Of course, and its one reason I hope the Bears don't sign Colson. He's going to be paid money based on what he did in the Saints' system playing half his games on turf indoors with Drew Brees throwing him the ball. Thinking he'll put up similar numbers playing on the Soldier Field turf in a different system would be crazy. I think he's probably better than anyone the Bears have, but for what they will have to pay him, stay away. He's one guy who is almost guaranteed not going to live up to the contract he gets.

QUOTE (knightni @ Mar 4, 2012 -> 07:01 PM) Free agent O-Linemen are money wasters, You get one of two good seasons, then they get too old and expensive. John Tait, etc. Check out the historical performances of FA receivers. They are exceptions if they aren't busts.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Feb 27, 2012 -> 11:49 AM) What good is saving money on parking if you are forced to just spend the same money plus some at a bar/restaurant? First off, if you're going to buy food and beverage at the game, getting it in one of these establishments is cheaper. If you just want to park, you could go in and buy a $2 coke and there's your savings right there. People are strange. $25 to park a car, paying an extra $10 to sit downstairs, all craziness. Then its, $8 beers? Let's get drunk. I'm just giving people some information, I'm sure some already had. I have never paid for parking at White Sox games, and I would bet I'm in the 99th percentile of Soxtalk members regarding the number of White Sox games attended.

Go to Shinnick's or any other bar or restaurant in the area and you can park on the street for free. Just ask them for a parking pass, or you can go to Schallers park in their lot and eat and drink before the game and save a few bucks in addition to the parking fee.

Its pretty easy to park for free around USCF.

I would never want to be a server, and there are some out there who should be in another line of work. I must say though that I really haven't had really poor service in a long time. Maybe I'm just lucky. I usually tip between 20-25%. If the service was bad I'd make it 15% and put it on a credit card so they have to report it. If the service was so bad it wouldn't warrant that, I'd have walked out well before it would be time to pay the bill. The one thing that is really irking me now is tip jars popping up at restaurants where there is no "service". Places like Jimmy John's and Subway. They are almost everywhere.

QUOTE (YASNY @ Feb 24, 2012 -> 11:47 AM) We got Bonilla from the Pirates and then traded back to the Pirates after one season. I always believed there was a behind the scenes deal made there that allowed us to pick up Bobby Bo in the first place. It wasn't even one season. DeLeon had a nice arm.

QUOTE (Dizzy Sox @ Feb 23, 2012 -> 06:24 PM) They got Jose Deleon for Bobby Bonilla who was eventually flipped for One Dog. Bobby Bo was, in his prime, one of the most feared hitters in his day, while LJ was a leadoff guy who didn't walk, had a noodle arm, and always seemed to make boneheaded mistakes on the bases. I don't see how can say we got our money's worth, even if Bonilla was a relatively cheap pickup via Rule 5. One Dog, boneheaded mistakes? Don't think so. He was a good CF despite not being able to throw and was a big part of the Sox success from 1990-1994. Many of Bonilla's big seasons where when the Sox were so awful, they wouldn't have won anything anyway. After 91 he became extremely expensive. As was stated, keeping him might have meant no Robin Ventura or Jack McDowell or Alex Fernandez or Frank Thomas.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 23, 2012 -> 08:17 PM) Wow refs, when the ball hits the backboard and a guy blocks it, its a goal tend. Terrible terrible call. In the NBA its a goaltend, not necessarily in the NCAA. Go Hawks.

QUOTE (The Ginger Kid @ Feb 23, 2012 -> 12:44 PM) Was that his best move? He also picked up Ivan Calderon for basically nothing. Hawk wasn't nearly the disaster everyone thought. The team he had with Burns never pitching again, and Seaver not being what he was, was doomed.

QUOTE (StatManDu @ Feb 23, 2012 -> 11:30 AM) Today, Bobby Bonilla celebrates his 49th birthday. I often wonder what the White Sox of the 1990s would have been like if the White Sox had kept Bonilla, Harold Baines, Doug Drabek and Bob Wickman. Played strictly by the book, this means Jose DeLeon, Lance Johnson, Sammy Sosa, Wilson Alvarez, Scott Fletcher, Roy Smalley, Steve Sax and George Bell would not have been members of the White Sox. These were players all acquired by the Sox for either Baines, Bonilla or Drabek. The most glaring absence from the aforementioned list would have been Lance Johnson, who is one of the most underrated players in franchise history, and Wilson Alvarez. Fletcher's absence would have made Joey Cora a regular quicker. Bell gave the Sox one good year and Sosa was erratic at best. This is not to say Himes could have gotten Johnson from the Cards for Floyd Bannister or Richard Dotson or Dave LaPoint and/or prospects. But, let's play it straight up: That lineup, without Johnson, would have been Raines LF, ???? in CF, Bonilla RF, 3B Ventura, SS Guillen, 2B Cora, 1B Thomas, C Fisk/Karkovice, DH Baines, SPs (at one time or another): McDowell, Drabek, Fernandez, Hibbard, Bere, Perez, Hough, Sanderson; Pen (at one time or another): Hernandez, Radinsky, McCaskill, Wickman, DeLeon (acquired in 1993), Assenmacher, Pall; Bench: Grebeck, Newson, LaValliere, Pasqua, Paco Martin, Bo Jackson, Huff Even with a below average CF, there is really no pitching around anyone in that lineup. Needles to say, I think, that roster would have netted the franchise more than the one AL West title it won during the 1990s. Don't forget Keith Foulke, Bobby Howry and Mike Caruso. They came from SF in the Alvarez trade. I think the Sox got their money's worth for Bobby Bonilla especially considering he was a rule 5 pick up by none other than Hawk Harrelson. They also got Neal Cotts in the Foulke/Koch trade.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Feb 22, 2012 -> 05:00 PM) 1.) The story I read had Cooper going to Kenny way earlier than the Oz thing blew up. I thought Cooper came across very creepy in that story I read, kind of like the snitch character in the Longest Yard. 2.) I don't know. I get mad when my favorites get criticized in a way I see that is unfair. I've stood up for others who have drawn the wrath on here, like Dye, Wise, CQ, Garland, Pierre, Jenks. 3.) The Oz-KW thing wasn't going to work any longer obviously. I happen to blame KW as much or more than Oz though. Cooper was in the last year of his contract, something your boy Ozzie wouldn't ever get to and Ozzie is openly negotiating with the Marlins. What is Cooper supposed to do? I agree KW needs to go, but I blame him and Ozzie about 50/50

I don't know why the uproar over the poor grade. Its basically a mid term grade anyway. The one that matters is the one at the end of the season, but the Sox had a bad team last year. Lost their most dependable starter. Traded away perhaps their second best run producer and a cost controlled closer and got back a guy with a 10 ERA in AAA and a guy who has 22 IP above A ball. It could work out brilliantly, but at this point, if the goal is to improve, you really can't say any offseason moves clearly improved the team, most moves were clearly driven by budget not talent, although I do agree, the KW/Ozzie dynamic being gone should help some. If that deserves a C at this point, I wish you were grading me throughout my school days.