tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17823321.post8517163007550376839..comments2008-02-19T16:59:36.470-06:00Fornellihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10815399575993032693noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17823321.post-91499872824926880212008-02-19T10:01:49.906-06:002008-02-19T10:01:49.906-06:00

Moss is a terrible idea -- doesn't ANYONE remember Oakland? Moss is at his happiest when he gets 10 balls thrown his way per game and when he's on a good team with a good QB. We currently have none of those things.<BR/><BR/>Besides -- I have to believe the Pats move to resign Moss. As much as the "Dreamboat is the only valuable player" policy annoys me, Moss DID just set the bar.

Gepettohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04682088598285219586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17823321.post-28771601877031715892008-02-19T09:46:35.390-06:002008-02-19T09:46:35.390-06:00

Moss is a good idea, but I will note that Bradley, when healthy, doesn't stink. He's a fine 3rd receiver. Also, you have to think that Olsen can fit the Jason Witten mold of TE next year.

El Angelohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14145024095815950963noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17823321.post-63356700479130123012008-02-19T07:02:19.297-06:002008-02-19T07:02:19.297-06:00

The Cubs would be insane to go after Nathan at this point. How can you reason going after a closer when we have 3 guys in the bullpen that can already close, and we have massive holes at short-stop and center-field?<BR/><BR/>Yes, it would be awesome to have Nathan. But, I'd rather have a stronger defensive middle than have a closer who only pitches in a 3rd of the games. Closer is an

JayBandithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08712359281641660335noreply@blogger.com