Cards to reduce payroll over the winter?

[stitchface]

This a complete mischaracterization. Signing the players you describe is not high-risk because you aren't spending significant resources to obtain them. They are high-reward low risk signings. That's a good thing. You have a potentially high return on a small loss risk. The other signings, Bynum, Mabry etc are not high risk either. They are just bad moves. A high risk move would be signing a big name pitcher to a long term expensive contract (keeping in mind that expensive has to be in the context of your available resources).

 

To me, the correct Cubs approach at this point needs to be to develop pitchers and pay for hitters. They must shell out for the Lee's and Ramirez's and Soriano's because they cannot develop these players on their own. Furthermore, hitters have far smaller risk of injury than pitchers and have far more predictable results.

 

The idea of signing pitching, pitching and more pitchings is not sound. No matter how many people say it, this game is not about pitching and defense alone. You can't win 0-0.

[CubColtPacer]

petition to ban rolleyes plz

Worked well there, I thought.

 

Talking to a couple of guys who are around Gm's everyday, they tell me that to be successful, you have to take risk's. Risk's as in signing players like Dempster, Miller, Carpenter, etc. Guys who are coming off arm injuries, are a risk. I dont know what is so around to understand. A good example of this, is Kerry Wood. Some GM is going to take a RISK on him. No gurantee he will stay healthy, but there is always that chance he will stay healthy. That is considered a risk.

 

Nobody said you can't take a risk. What was wrong was your claim that the best GMs are the ones that take the most risks. Every team takes a certain amount of risk. More risks does not equal greater success. If it did, it would be pretty easy to fix your team, just take more risks.

 

Successful GMs build a significant amount of predictable production, and spice it up with some risks. But they don't put the hopes of the team on the shoulders of the most risky players.

 

Yup, it's like picking the NCAA tournament in a way. Picking all the number 1 seeds to go far (just signing sure things) will make you decent, but rarely if ever the best. Going through and picking some upsets or risks that have a decent chance of working (Carpenter or players like that) are what can make you the best. If you take too big of risks, like 2 16's beating a 1, and your entire bracket/team is based on that, then you might win and be a genius one out of every 100 years (if that), but most of the time you're just thought of as terrible.

[cheapseats]

petition to ban rolleyes plz

Worked well there, I thought.

 

I don't agree at all with the opinion either, but rolleyes as a response is stupid and immature, some might even interpret it worse than that. This is just part of the campaign though. Rolleyes doesn't do anything except aggravate people, hence my desire to see him eliminated.

 

:roll:

 

:twisted:

 

Before we get rid of rolleyes, we should know what we're replacing him with. Many think we could do no worse than rolleyes, but there are many just as bad or worse.

[Catman61]

If I'm a St Louis resident, the new stadium definitely pisses me off. I don't understand how the new stadium can create much more (if any) revenue. There are quite a few less seats in the new stadium.

 

And this would "piss you off" for what reason?

 

Fewer seats but more seats with higher prices. In Busch II, 60% of the seats were in the upper deck or terrace level, in Busch III 60% of the seats are on the FIELD level. Lowest price on field level is $35+, highest price in old terrace level was IIRC about $22. In addition, from 2001-2004 the Cardinals averaged about 37,284/game so not that many games you will run out of capacity AND this stadium is set up much better to handle SRO so they can handle more than the official 46,881 capacity.

 

Consequently, the locals bought up a bunch of the season tickets. That's bad enough for the team's revenues, but it hurts the city, too. With the locals buying up the season tickets, there are thousands less out of towners roaming the streets of SL, buying up hotel rooms, eating the food, buying the gate way arch souveniers, etc, etc, etc.

Sorry, I'm not buying that. For starters, the PSL program had more requests than the amount of tickets set aaside. Season ticket holders in 2005 had 1st crack at PSL as well as season tickets, probably a good chance the out towners kept their season tickets. Further the "locals" who supposedly snatched up those tickets, just what do you think they were going to do with those tickets if they hadn't been season ticket holders before??? Can we say eBay, StubHub etc? So unless you have some stats to support those "thousands less" I am skeptical. Not to mention with gas prices and concerns about the economy some out of towners may have cut back some rather than being blocked out.

 

 

The folks I talked to in St Louis (in June) weren't all that happy about it. Their fear was that the first time the cardinals have a "bad" year, the bandwagoners would jump ship and they wouldn't be able to give away tickets.

Then they are stupid. You are talking about a franchise that drawn 3+M 7of the last 8 seasons (the one season under 3.0M was 2.91M less than 90,000 short of 3.0M) and hasn't drawn under 2M in a 162 game season since 1981. Besides which, just how would any of that affect these green persimmon sucking worrywarts?

[soccer10k]

petition to ban rolleyes plz

Worked well there, I thought.

 

Talking to a couple of guys who are around Gm's everyday, they tell me that to be successful, you have to take risk's. Risk's as in signing players like Dempster, Miller, Carpenter, etc. Guys who are coming off arm injuries, are a risk. I dont know what is so around to understand. A good example of this, is Kerry Wood. Some GM is going to take a RISK on him. No gurantee he will stay healthy, but there is always that chance he will stay healthy. That is considered a risk.

Those risks are not the problem. It's the Rusch's, the Bynum's, the Neifi's and the Macias's that are the risks that should not EVER be taken.

 

Signing those players isn't called taking a risk. It's called stupidity.

[soccer10k]

petition to ban rolleyes plz

Worked well there, I thought.

 

I don't agree at all with the opinion either, but rolleyes as a response is stupid and immature, some might even interpret it worse than that. This is just part of the campaign though. Rolleyes doesn't do anything except aggravate people, hence my desire to see him eliminated.

 

I like to use the rolleyes to show sarcasm in my post and I don't think that aggravates people. But I agree with you in the way the other poster used them.

[goonys evil twin]

petition to ban rolleyes plz

Worked well there, I thought.

 

I don't agree at all with the opinion either, but rolleyes as a response is stupid and immature, some might even interpret it worse than that. This is just part of the campaign though. Rolleyes doesn't do anything except aggravate people, hence my desire to see him eliminated.

 

I like to use the rolleyes to show sarcasm in my post and I don't think that aggravates people. But I agree with you in the way the other poster used them.

 

Brilliant post. :roll:

[soccer10k]

petition to ban rolleyes plz

Worked well there, I thought.

 

I don't agree at all with the opinion either, but rolleyes as a response is stupid and immature, some might even interpret it worse than that. This is just part of the campaign though. Rolleyes doesn't do anything except aggravate people, hence my desire to see him eliminated.

 

I like to use the rolleyes to show sarcasm in my post and I don't think that aggravates people. But I agree with you in the way the other poster used them.

 

Brilliant post. :roll:

 

I do what I can.

[Andy]

This a complete mischaracterization. Signing the players you describe is not high-risk because you aren't spending significant resources to obtain them. They are high-reward low risk signings. That's a good thing. You have a potentially high return on a small loss risk. The other signings, Bynum, Mabry etc are not high risk either. They are just bad moves. A high risk move would be signing a big name pitcher to a long term expensive contract (keeping in mind that expensive has to be in the context of your available resources).

Ok, but Neifi was not signed to be a "low risk". Him and Fat Glendon were signed to a combined 6.5 million a year I believe, and if you dumped those worthless pieces of crap, you could have gotten a half-decent player this offseason (6.5 mill is more than we paid Jones).

[stitchface]

This a complete mischaracterization. Signing the players you describe is not high-risk because you aren't spending significant resources to obtain them. They are high-reward low risk signings. That's a good thing. You have a potentially high return on a small loss risk. The other signings, Bynum, Mabry etc are not high risk either. They are just bad moves. A high risk move would be signing a big name pitcher to a long term expensive contract (keeping in mind that expensive has to be in the context of your available resources).

Ok, but Neifi was not signed to be a "low risk". Him and Fat Glendon were signed to a combined 6.5 million a year I believe, and if you dumped those worthless pieces of crap, you could have gotten a half-decent player this offseason (6.5 mill is more than we paid Jones).

 

I'm just saying that isn't risk - its just wasting resources.