madlithuanian Posted February 23, 2010 Report Share Posted February 23, 2010 http://www.csnchicago.com/02/19/10/Phillip...&feedID=626 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TerraTor Posted February 23, 2010 Report Share Posted February 23, 2010 http://www.csnchicago.com/02/19/10/Phillip...&feedID=626 Eh its ok, theres no washed up players available wed get anyway. Plus, there arent any studs available in areas of desperate need like DE, FS, WR... only second raters like Julius Peppers, Antrelle Rolle, TO, Brandon Marshall, Vincent Jackson team better do something with these guys... I will renounce my fandome Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mongo3451 Posted February 23, 2010 Report Share Posted February 23, 2010 Eh its ok, theres no washed up players available wed get anyway. Plus, there arent any studs available in areas of desperate need like DE, FS, WR... only second raters like Julius Peppers, Antrelle Rolle, TO, Brandon Marshall, Vincent Jackson team better do something with these guys... I will renounce my fandome Start renouncing. When they decided to keep Lovie they gave up being competetive. Reason: Money. Why would you think they would spend freely on free agents? The franchise may be in limbo until we have a new CBA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted February 23, 2010 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2010 Agreed. (But the renouncing part...) This team is in Purgatory until further notice. Start renouncing. When they decided to keep Lovie they gave up being competetive. Reason: Money. Why would you think they would spend freely on free agents? The franchise may be in limbo until we have a new CBA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChileBear Posted February 23, 2010 Report Share Posted February 23, 2010 Start renouncing. When they decided to keep Lovie they gave up being competetive. Reason: Money. Why would you think they would spend freely on free agents? The franchise may be in limbo until we have a new CBA. IMdO, I agree totally. The moves smack to me of complete $ related. The McKaskey's are getting ready for a lockout in 2011. Letting Lovie bring in his guys--again--for the staff and looking to limit spending for this season. I don't see any FA out there that could help us without breaking the bank. They're hoping to build from within and maybe, just maybe, sqeeze into the playoffs. Then they'll ride out 2011 and see what happens with a new CBA after everyone has seen the disaster of a lockout. I guess, from the owner's standpoint, that's a long term plan that is in thier best interest, but it sure as heck makes me feel screwed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted February 23, 2010 Report Share Posted February 23, 2010 One thing I am anxious to see is what sort of money will be spent by other teams. Per most reports I have read, we are far from alone among teams watching their money w/ the CBA issues. I read some other teams held off on making coaching and staffing moves for the same reasons as we. Further, many other teams are questionable to spend big in FA. There is also that rule that limits last years playoff teams from making big splashes in FA. Something about not being able to sign a FA until you lose one, and then only a FA of similar tier as the one you lost. Not exactly sure how all that works, but the point is, it is yet another FA limitation. Everyone assumes Danny Snyder will spend big, and maybe he will. But even w/o the cap in place, i am curious to see how many owners go "hog wild" in terms of spending. If the number of owners willing to spend mega bucks is limited, then it may not be as expensive to sign some players as we may think. A player like Peppers likely hits his payday, but others may be more reasonably had than you would otherwise think. IMdO, I agree totally. The moves smack to me of complete $ related. The McKaskey's are getting ready for a lockout in 2011. Letting Lovie bring in his guys--again--for the staff and looking to limit spending for this season. I don't see any FA out there that could help us without breaking the bank. They're hoping to build from within and maybe, just maybe, sqeeze into the playoffs. Then they'll ride out 2011 and see what happens with a new CBA after everyone has seen the disaster of a lockout. I guess, from the owner's standpoint, that's a long term plan that is in thier best interest, but it sure as heck makes me feel screwed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted February 23, 2010 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2010 I just fear this sets the table for another excuse for another bad season. "Well, we couldn't get the FA's we wanted, but did OK despite that and the quality of the teams we played. Smith did a another good job taking candid photos of the ownership family in compromising positions, so we'll see his and JA's contracts out...and in fact are thinking about re-upping them." One thing I am anxious to see is what sort of money will be spent by other teams. Per most reports I have read, we are far from alone among teams watching their money w/ the CBA issues. I read some other teams held off on making coaching and staffing moves for the same reasons as we. Further, many other teams are questionable to spend big in FA. There is also that rule that limits last years playoff teams from making big splashes in FA. Something about not being able to sign a FA until you lose one, and then only a FA of similar tier as the one you lost. Not exactly sure how all that works, but the point is, it is yet another FA limitation. Everyone assumes Danny Snyder will spend big, and maybe he will. But even w/o the cap in place, i am curious to see how many owners go "hog wild" in terms of spending. If the number of owners willing to spend mega bucks is limited, then it may not be as expensive to sign some players as we may think. A player like Peppers likely hits his payday, but others may be more reasonably had than you would otherwise think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted February 23, 2010 Report Share Posted February 23, 2010 Honestly, I think we are beyond the "excuses" area. I truly believe that, if it were not for the CBA issues, ownership would have already made a move. In hindsight, I wonder if they don't today regret not making the move after all that has happened since. Regardless, I think we are past excuses. Next year, I think a decision is made w/ CBA and record being the issues. Injuries, finishing a bad year on a high note, whatever, won't matter. If the team wins, Lovie sticks. Period. I do not think they re-sign him, even if he has a good year. I think they will make him prove himself a 2nd season after. If he loses, then it will likely come down to the CBA. If a new deal is in place, or the owners have high expectation for a deal to get done, then I think Lovie in gone. If we lose next year, and no deal is in place or expected, then Lovie likely is kept as there is little reason to hire a new coach so he can sit and watch tv from home too. I just fear this sets the table for another excuse for another bad season. "Well, we couldn't get the FA's we wanted, but did OK despite that and the quality of the teams we played. Smith did a another good job taking candid photos of the ownership family in compromising positions, so we'll see his and JA's contracts out...and in fact are thinking about re-upping them." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted February 23, 2010 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2010 I wish I felt that way. I just don't. I have virtually zero faith that ownership has any clue whatsoever. BEAR DOWN anagram for BAD OWNER Honestly, I think we are beyond the "excuses" area. I truly believe that, if it were not for the CBA issues, ownership would have already made a move. In hindsight, I wonder if they don't today regret not making the move after all that has happened since. Regardless, I think we are past excuses. Next year, I think a decision is made w/ CBA and record being the issues. Injuries, finishing a bad year on a high note, whatever, won't matter. If the team wins, Lovie sticks. Period. I do not think they re-sign him, even if he has a good year. I think they will make him prove himself a 2nd season after. If he loses, then it will likely come down to the CBA. If a new deal is in place, or the owners have high expectation for a deal to get done, then I think Lovie in gone. If we lose next year, and no deal is in place or expected, then Lovie likely is kept as there is little reason to hire a new coach so he can sit and watch tv from home too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChileBear Posted February 23, 2010 Report Share Posted February 23, 2010 Honestly, I think we are beyond the "excuses" area. I truly believe that, if it were not for the CBA issues, ownership would have already made a move. In hindsight, I wonder if they don't today regret not making the move after all that has happened since. Regardless, I think we are past excuses. Next year, I think a decision is made w/ CBA and record being the issues. Injuries, finishing a bad year on a high note, whatever, won't matter. If the team wins, Lovie sticks. Period. I do not think they re-sign him, even if he has a good year. I think they will make him prove himself a 2nd season after. If he loses, then it will likely come down to the CBA. If a new deal is in place, or the owners have high expectation for a deal to get done, then I think Lovie in gone. If we lose next year, and no deal is in place or expected, then Lovie likely is kept as there is little reason to hire a new coach so he can sit and watch tv from home too. For sure. The absence of a CBA is going to determine how ownership does business. If there is a lockout, then nobody on the staff is going to be replaced. They'll just sit pat and wait it out. From ownership's standpoint, that is probably the smartest way to go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted February 23, 2010 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2010 Don't give them that much credit Chile! For sure. The absence of a CBA is going to determine how ownership does business. If there is a lockout, then nobody on the staff is going to be replaced. They'll just sit pat and wait it out. From ownership's standpoint, that is probably the smartest way to go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balta1701-A Posted February 24, 2010 Report Share Posted February 24, 2010 There is also that rule that limits last years playoff teams from making big splashes in FA. Something about not being able to sign a FA until you lose one, and then only a FA of similar tier as the one you lost. Not exactly sure how all that works, but the point is, it is yet another FA limitation. Here's a summary of what the teams in the Final Eight are limited to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted February 24, 2010 Report Share Posted February 24, 2010 Thanks for the link. The limitation is even greater for those teams in the final four. I basically knew/know the details, but didn't want to bog down w/ the details. The overall purpose was more simply that players may not find the riches in FA many expected w/ the uncapped year, and even some of the better ones may not find the massive bidding war they would expect. Here's a summary of what the teams in the Final Eight are limited to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.