ptatc

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Feb 28, 2017 -> 01:22 PM) They weren't trying to win 2 years ago, they made that abundantly clear. And 2 years ago Jeffery was coming off of his two best seasons as a pro back to back, they would have gotten more than a future third round pick True but if they were planning on winning in the near future, the following year or so, why would they trade him coming off his best years? I don't think they planned on being this bad for this long. They thought they would be in contention very quickly which is why they hired the older but experienced coach not a young rebuilding coach. Edit: In hindsight it would have been the best move but they didn't think it would go this way.

QUOTE (shipps @ Feb 28, 2017 -> 08:25 AM) There have been many Bear fans (especially on here) calling for a resign or plan with Alshon for the past two years. With the thought that they better not just let him walk for nothing. Two years later low and behold they are letting him walk for nothing. As a GM and coach you dont have the luxury to wait and see how things work out with every player before you make big decisions. You have to be proactive in a lot of dealings or else you can get burned. Now if the Bears tried to sign him with a fair deal in the past and he just doesn't want to be a Bear then that's a different story. I guess I look at it a little differently. Teams change so much from year to year and the big shift in records as well. The need to take every year that they have a chance at it and try to win. Fans may look ahead but with the way the Bears have switched coaches in recent years they really can't just throw seasons away. Injuries and FA make the teams much more volatile than baseball. I get what you're saying but would a future 3rd round pick (speaking from the perspective of 2 years ago) be worth trading him when they were trying to win?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 28, 2017 -> 11:00 AM) Still, if Davidson excites anyone, where is the Leury Garcia love? He's not a power hitter, but can play a lot more postions, is a heck of a lot faster than Davidson and his age and AAA OPS is the same? Chicks dig the long ball.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Feb 27, 2017 -> 02:43 PM) your entire premise revolves around right now, this week. The bears have had two years to get to this point and frankly, they dropped the ball if he walks. There will be a team that meets his demands, there always is. This is true. i'm talking what they can do right now. 2 years ago Fox wasn't fed up with his lack of playing. That took a year or two. In hindsight, they should have traded him 2 years ago. however, I don't think anyone thought it would get to this point.

QUOTE (shipps @ Feb 27, 2017 -> 02:13 PM) Alshon isnt going to be on this team because Fox decided he didnt like his attitude right? He wasn't too fond of his soft tissue injury approach. Pretty much. And the rest of the league knows this.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Feb 27, 2017 -> 12:26 PM) No,it's not relevant at all. He is gonna get paid his money, if you aren't willing to pay him what he wants, you trade him and move on, last year in this current offseason. There is no "costs too much to sign him". You don't let him walk for nothing. Teams like the Bears do this bulls*** and it bites them in the ass, teams like the Patriots don't do this. Yes there is. Teams may not want him if he is expensive. Now they can try to trade him "as is" but why would they when the Bears may not offer him a deal. They can just wait until he is a FA and try to sign him for a cheaper deal than the Bears would sign him for. He doesn't want to be here and would make the Bears pay far too much to try to keep him. Other teams know this and will wait it out. Why trade for him when he will be signed for just money and no draft picks.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Feb 27, 2017 -> 10:06 AM) What you think about Alshons health, production, ped suspension, etc is really irrelevant. The bears losing assets with no compensation is not good at all for a rebuilding team. It's very relevant. If it costs too much to sign him, it makes it difficult to trade him. If his contract demands were too high, nobody will trade for him, considering how often he is off the field. He may do this on purpose. Make his contract prohibitive for him to stay here because he really didn't seem to want to stay.

QUOTE (bmags @ Feb 27, 2017 -> 09:18 AM) Yeah, and every time Alshon was healthy and in a game it was like "whoa he is so much better". I am really surprised, but am also going to blame rams for their idiotic Tavon Austin signing. Here is the primary issue, I think. It doesn't happen often enough.

QUOTE (Knuckles @ Feb 26, 2017 -> 07:57 AM) Rentaria with his best ptac impersonation I know my anatomy a little better than that.

QUOTE (lasttriptotulsa @ Feb 24, 2017 -> 12:12 PM) He was really only good, never great for a few seasons. After the knee injury in '92 he lost his speed and range and was pretty useless. I thought he actually came back better after the knee injury. He really worked at it and looked like a better player.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Feb 24, 2017 -> 11:37 AM) But on those teams, was he a top 2 or 3 guy? Not really. He doesnt have the stats or really the contribution IMO to have his jersey retired. On top of that, the way he left was bulls***. I agree with the part about leaving. Having a number retired by a team is more than just stats. He was a good player on the team for 13 years so I think it's a consideration. Having his contributions has a manager as well I think puts him over the top and he should have his number retired. However, I'm not sure if there is still too much bad blood.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Feb 24, 2017 -> 11:12 AM) I also dont think he was that great of a player....On those teams, he was mid-tier IMO. No but he was a good player for 13 years with one team so he deserves consideration. He didn't hit much but was a good SS for years.

QUOTE (Sox-35th @ Feb 24, 2017 -> 07:15 AM) As a player? Nah. But you can say "World Series Champion Manager" and everyone will understand retiring his number. Anyone who plays 13 years with the team gets automatic consideration. Add to that the ROY and the personality. I think he would get strong consideration as a player.

QUOTE (ChiSoxFanMike @ Feb 23, 2017 -> 10:23 AM) I don't want to derail the thread any further but I don't think some of you guys realize how good Sale was. Buehrle had the advantage of being with the team for much longer, having playoff success here, and not being a hot head, but pound for pound I think Sale is way more talented than he ever was. These are usually the reasons for getting numbers retired by a team, not just how good they were. Should they retire Tom Seaver, Goose Gossage or Tommy Johns numbers? Usually the numbers are retired for importance to the team not necessarily the best players ala Baines and Konerko. Both of them were good players but not the best of all time.

QUOTE (BlackSox13 @ Feb 23, 2017 -> 11:01 AM) Yep, he's just 23 years old. Severino is different in that his defensive skills are ahead of his bat which to me is promising. Usually the defense lags behind the bat when it comes to catchers. I know Severino has no power but if he can hit for a decent average he will be a gem to have behind the plate and in the lineup. Come on Rizzo, give it up just once more. Officer Karkovice 2.0

QUOTE (Lip Man 1 @ Feb 22, 2017 -> 09:14 PM) The exhibition season hasn't even started yet and they have already had two guys go down. Mark Isn't that a good thing in a season where they are rebuilding? edit: As long as it's not one of the young rebuilding pieces that is.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 22, 2017 -> 08:14 AM) This exactly. The way the game has evolved, it is going to be a longer game. Bullpens are going to be heavily used, with the steroid era over and with sabermetrics in the mainstream, the typical hitter is going to become a bit more selective, therefore more pitches are going to be thrown. They, like was mentioned before, are going to have to do more, like limit catchers visits, a pitch clock would be nice to eliminate some downtime, but it is more the pace than the length of the game that is the problem. We have all been to 3 hour games that seemed like 6 hours, and 3 hour games that seemed like an hour and a half. Eliminating the lollygagging will make for a better experience for everyone. There is enough downtime in baseball even if it is played quickly. Manfred has mention a few times bout pace of play as he calls it. They want more action during the game as opposed to worrying about the actual game time. I agree. The less lollygagging the better. It's not an easy fix though.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 22, 2017 -> 06:13 AM) People are really complaining they don't get to see 4 balls thrown for an intentional walk because once every few years someone actually hits the ball? In the grand scheme it won't save much time, I think they said 35 seconds on average, but it isn't exactly eliminating a can't be missed situation. This has been the rule in HS and college for years. Not to mention it saves 4 throws on a pitchers arm. There's nothing wrong with the change. It doesn't help the time much but it really doesn't hurt the game either by ridding the game of a useless sequence.

QUOTE (Jake @ Feb 20, 2017 -> 07:18 AM) My AT in college always said MRI just stood for "More Radiographic Income." Said a lot of common injuries (e.g., torn ACL) are accurately diagnosed manually. That's the exact term i used in my classes. I like the AT already.

QUOTE (chitownsportsfan @ Feb 19, 2017 -> 11:03 PM) which is why they delay the MRI, as it won't show much of anything useful. Hopefully he feels better in a few days, that's a sure sign it's nothing much. If he doesn't , then he gets the imaging. If they are sure its a stress reaction as opposed to a stress fracture they may have already done some imaging or they may just be going by the length on symptoms. MR imaging rarely shows any thjng useful early on and in many cases aren't real useful in these situations until much later. They will look for bone marrow edema without issues in the cortical bone. Unfortunately MR imaging is very sensitive to edema and it can block out small issues like stress fractures. Bone scans are still better for something like this.

QUOTE (hi8is @ Feb 19, 2017 -> 08:44 PM) The resident Doctor is in! What would you suspect his timeline is until healthy and what are any potential restrictions / ramifications of this injury? Thanks ptatc, brother man with the master plan!! No more than three to four weeks on the outside, more likely in the one to two range. They will add support to his shoes and have him wear a less ridged shoe depanding on where it is. There are usually in the 2nd or 3rd metatarsals

QUOTE (Two-Gun Pete @ Feb 19, 2017 -> 03:37 PM) And straw man arguments are quite a thing as well. Literally no one made the argument as you are attempting to phrase it. Yes, Swisher was forced into roles that probably lessened his effectiveness as a player. Do you disagree? But no, NO ONE said that KW "never should have rid himself" of Swisher. KW stupidly sold low on Swisher after his worst season, instead of retaining him long enough to rebuild his value. And you were even supplied with an example of this in Robertson. DA, when you stay off the hyperbole & straw man arguments, you're a heck of a poster. You don't need to do that. Sometimes cutting your loses is better with certain players.

QUOTE (Knuckles @ Feb 19, 2017 -> 02:57 PM) What's a stress reaction? I usually react to stress by drinking. It's a precursor to a stress fracture. There is pain and significant tenderness on the bone similar to what you would think if as a bone bruise but there was no direct trauma. There is no "crack" in the bone.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 14, 2017 -> 02:59 PM) Once a surgery is done, and the extent of the damage and repair is known, I'd be OK with it. Before then, too many unknowns to sign off on that risk in a deal for a best remaining player. Once they determine if it's a UCL tear, it's pretty straight forward. The only other complication would be nerve damage but that is really obvious right away. Again I don't think the Cardinals would entertain the idea of trading him. However, he would be far and away the best player the Sox could obtain for Q.

QUOTE (hi8is @ Feb 14, 2017 -> 02:37 PM) I personally doubt that the cardinals would trade him. I know. He's too good of a prospect to put in a trade. I'm sure the Cardinals would turn down the trade proposal. But it would be tempting to ask.