LT2_3

I thought the metaphor of McMahon riding off into the sunset was out of place. It sounds like he retired after leaving the Bears instead of getting traded to San Diego and finishing his career as a backup in GB. I also thought naming Cutler "Jay Cutsizzle" seemed out of place as well - like about 6 years out of place. Other than those 2 things it's pretty solid even though it doesn't tell anyone anything new that's been paying attention since the trade.

I can't wait for a rundown on what was seen and heard. Boy I wish someone had a twitter account that was going.....

You're hitting on a key distinction. I would say that tainted vitamins should get a player a pass. What's the difference? Vitamins don't mess with someone's metabolism to create an abnormal result. The question really boils down to what is the league really responsible for here anyway? Is it the league's job to test every product on the market and deem it good or bad? No. Then what is it's responsibility? There is obviously an "approved" list of supplements. There must be for Starcaps to have been declared not on it. So why would players ever take anything not on the approved list? That's what has me baffled. I've read where players said they called the hotline and claimed "I did everything I was supposed to. What more could I do?" My answer to that is "Ummmm how about only taking things on the approved list?" As for the hotline issue, it comes down to who knew what and when. So if one guy at the top knew something but didn't tell anyone, do you really expect the guy getting paid to answer a phone knew what was going on? The guy on the phone probably was read the list of ingredients and those were all ok. So again, it comes down to what the league is responsible for anyway. Is the league responsible to tell players about stuff not on their approved list? If you say yes, then how far do they have to take it? Do they need to form a research department and implement a better communication infrastructure to keep players better informed about stuff not on their approved list? How much would THAT cost? Who pays for it? This kinda reminds of an experience I had working in the IT field. Employees were told not to surf for porn on their work computers. There was no policy against it if they were doing it from their home on a laptop so they couldn't neccesarily get fired for it, but they were discouraged against it all the same. Well one guy did it anyway and got his computer so full of spyware amd adware that it was virtually unusable. Because of that, he missed a key deadline and got fired. He tried to blame the IT department because they hadn't kept his computer working right and hadn't told him WHY he shouldn't surf for porn. I was tasked with documenting his surfing habits and my boss wanted to know if the IT department was going to be reimbursed for the time it took to prove that this guy was a doofus. I think the point translates: Who should pay for it when people don't do things the way should? I do agree that it makes the league look bad. But so what? A little PR hit is really no big deal. It's not like people are going to stop watching the games over it. My bottom line on the issue is that players shouldn't be using stuff that isn't league approved. I guess some think that the league should act like a Nanny state and the players have no responsibility for taking things not on the approved list.

Color me obtuse, but if these players need to take weight-loss supplements to make game weight while with the team, doesn't it follow that they might struggle to keep excess weight off when left to their own devices for a month?

I don't like that analogy. What they did is use unregulated diet supplements not something regulated by the FDA like Advil. I remember when those hydroxy-cut ads started on TV. I thought they sounded like somethng cool to try and drop a few pounds. Then my better sense kicked in and I thought "That sounds too easy." Now it's been recalled because it causes kidney damage. The bottom line on this is that it's risky to take ANYTHING to lose weight. If you can't do it by eating less and getting exercise, then there is a price to pay for whatever you take. That's totally not what happened. The league sent out a notice saying that Starcaps specifically was not approved by the league. If I tell you not to drive fast on wet roads with cliffs on one side, do I need to tell you why too? Also, bumentanide isn't neccesarily harmful either. It's a banned substance because it can be used as a masking agent.

At least, for the past few years, teams and agents have had a pretty good idea what the salary cap will be for at least the next 3 years. There is just so much up in the air. The landscape is going to change and nobody knows how it will change. For instance, without a salary cap a team could write a contract that pays the player $2 mil per year for 10 years AFTER they retire and that could be the first $20 mil guaranteed on a new contract. If there might be no cap, any agent worth his salt will tell players to sign short contracts - and Cutler still has 3 years to go. Make it a throwing shoulder injury and you have a point. But on the other hand, Cutler really has no leverage. It depends on the circumstances. Usually the player is getting traded because they are in a dispute over their compensation. In that case, the team negotiates a new contract before the trade is made. Sometimes a team wants to rework the player's current deal to add a few years and reduce the early cap hit by replacing salary with a proratable bonus. Cutler is a very unique case because he wasn't being a pain over money. The thing is that right now the cap doesn't mean anything. It's all about actual capital outlay. Even if there is a cap next year at about $133 million, the Bears will again have ridiculous amounts of cap space. The cap has been growing so fast so quickly since the last CBA, that there is really no reason to conserve cap space anymore. There simply aren't players available across the league that are worth the money. If there is still a cap, there is no reason to think that it will go down significantly. I don't have everything handy, but Angelo has front loaded most of the big deals that he's written in recent years. That means that the guys currently under contract are going to have decreasing cap hits in future years. So without adding more FA or extending current guys, our cap space this year will be even more next year. I hear what you're saying, but until the NFLPA and the league sit down to start negotiations and people get a better sense of what each side is proposing, there is really no point in talking yet. They should have some idea closer to the start of the season. I think the owners are having meetings soon. Maybe we'll learn more soon after that.

Yes. It's traditionally in between week 8 and week 9 recently. It used to be much later though. I have no idea if they will extend that this year due to the special circumstances due to the uncapped year. It is true that teams generally try not to have players worrying about their contract during the season, but this year is definitely a different case. As for giving Cutler a new deal, I think we need to remember that he still has THREE years left on his current deal. I don't think he's expecting a new deal this year. Players too are mindful of the upcoming CBA negotiations. If a player takes a market deal now, who's to say what a market deal will be 2 or 3 years from now? With everything up in the air, he could do himself a disservice by making a deal before he knows what the landscape looks like.

The last numbers I've seen is about $20 mil in cap space. I can't see Cutler or Boldin taking more than $8 mil in cap space this year with new contracts. Sure, they will be big money deals, but I would expect a large portion of both being pushed into the future. On a side note, the new CBA negotiations are key to any new, big deals. There will be a number of deadlines that will determine how teams plan for the future and the first will be the deadline to sign players to contracts that use up this year's cap space. If there is a new CBA in place that keeps a salary cap for future years by the deadline to use this year's cap space, then any new contract will have to abide by whatever new rules they implement and teams will have a better idea of how they can allocate their future cap. If there isn't a new agreement in place by then, teams will likely be a bit more conservative. Either way, the Bears are in position to do what ever they want to do. If they trade for Boldin, his deal is likely to average 8-9 mil per year, but will probably be a bit graduated in cap value.

We have Waaaaaayyyyyyy more cap space than we could possibly spend on new players.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say Cutler.

I stand corrected on Balogh. Although, Louis could in theory be a special teams player because he runs a 4.68 40.

No WR is different - because they can make the team as special teams players. And as for our current Gs, I'm guessing that you are assuming that Buenning isn't that good because he hasn't beat out Garza? Has he had much time to beat out Garza since we traded for him Sept 2 2008? Seriously - What are your thoughts on Buenning?

I'll answer this for you and all the "Draft OL" guys. There are a limited number of roster spots for OL both on the 53 man regular season roster and the 80 man training camp roster. Currently they already have: C Kreutz G/C Garza G/C Beekman G Reed (drafted) G Buenning (traded a draft pick for) T Balogh (drafted) T Omiyale T Pace T Williams T Shaffer Obviously the 2 guys that could conceivably be challenged are Reed and Balogh. Even if they ARE challenged in camp, there is only 1 53 man roster spot between them if we carry 9 OL on the 53. 8 is the normal number. As for the 80 man offseason / training camp roster, there are no extra spots for OL because they don't play special teams. The majority of spots go for S, LB, and WR because they play on kickoffs. I just wish you guys would recognize that stockpiling OL in the draft is a waste of draft picks because there just aren't the roster spots to allocate for them.

At 6"2" 330#? I'm pretty sure he's a guard and I find it funny that NFLN called him a TE and NFL.com called him a guard

Per Brad Biggs via Twitter "College scouting director Greg Gabriel on Oregon State safety Al Afalava: "We think he has the skill set to play free.""

I don't think we should refer to players as anything other than what they are currently scheduled to be for 2 reasons: 1. If there is no new CBA, that's how it's going to be 2. Even if there is a new CBA, there is absolutely no reason to think that things will be the same as they would have been had the owners not opted out of the current CBA. The timing of an agreement will be key I think. If there is a new agreement before the end of the 2009 season, then things may revert back to the way they were. If there is no new CBA before late Feb 2010 when RFA tags are applied, I fully expect those guys to stay RFA's that year because teams would be hosed on all their prior plans for that season.

It all depends on a new CBA. Without a new CBA for 2010, he's an RFA. I also think that if there is a new CBA, there may be some new mechanism included that allows teams to tag more guys one way or another at least for the 2010 season because teams have been planning on the extended RFA years without a new CBA.

That would be nice, but the fact that Idonije and Ogun are scheduled to be UFA's and Mark Anderson an RFA, makes DE a huge need.

The first 2 profiles I looked at for Moore projected him as a late 1st / early 2nd round pick.

And we just picked DJ Moore for our secondary

So you are openly saying that you think the Bears should draft for need instead of BPA at a position of need? As for needs, OG is not a need. In fact, we would have to release someone like Buenning (whom we gave up a draft pick for btw) to make room for a drafted OG. FS a need? Sure, but in the 3rd and 4th, who is worth any of these picks because they are BETTER than who we have? I think Angelo has done a fantastic job trading down and picking up extra picks while still getting players at positions of need of similar value. In the 2nd, we passed on Massaquoi to trade down for a 3rd and a high 4th. We took a DT/DE and a DE with good value and ALSO picked up a similar WR to Massaquoi in Iglesias at the 99 pick. I'm expecting that we pick up a safety later with similar skills to anyone we could have taken earlier. I'm happy with this draft considering we traded so much for Cutler and had no ammo to move up at all. Good job JA!!

I don't think this is still a possibility. Unless the trade is made this morning and Boldin gets on a plane to come take a physical, there simply isn't enough time to get the deal done before the pick. Hey AZ54 - Doesn't Boldin have some kind of degenerative hip issue?

I think one thing that makes our opponents winning percentage also deceiving is that there are no weightings for the fact that play all 4 teams from the conference championships last year. So where do we rank if 3-1 is added for the Cardinals, 2-1 for the Ravens, 3-0 for the Steelers, and 2-1 is added for the Eagles? What's the winning percentage then? So we go from 105-149-2 to 115-152-2 for a .430 winning percentage which bump us to 30th.

I haven't seen any of the Onion stuff since I think they take the humor further than my tastes, but here's the latest BANG vid and it happens to cover the Cutler trade. http://www.bangcartoon.com/2008/delivery.htm The accents are off, and they spend alot of effort setting up the fact that Chicagoians don't know what a QB looks like, but it's pretty funny. Especially the McDaniels bit.

If you restate that to rushing yards by RBs, they would have ranked around 29th.