Jake Peavy remains interested in joining Cubs

[Backtobanks]

Peter Gammons said today that the Cubs are expected to go after Peavy once Ricketts and the ownership situation is solved in May. They are expected to be able to increase their payroll.

 

1) Since it seems Ricketts will definitely be the owner why cant he give the go ahead to increase payroll right now?

 

2) If the Cubs can suddenly go after Peavy in May would you expect them to try to swing a deal right away, wait for around the All Star break, or drag it out till the deadline?

 

I'm sure a good business man isn't going to increase payroll until the deal is finalized.

As for when the Cubs go after Peavy, I'm sure a lot will depend on other factors (Harden's health, Marshall's success, etc.). Waiting for the trade deadline could get complicated if the Padres get Peavy to agree to include other teams in his waiver of a NTC.

[mhuber92211]

may is when the team needs a solid 5th starter

[NCCubFan]

1) Since it seems Ricketts will definitely be the owner why cant he give the go ahead to increase payroll right now?

Because he will not DEFINITELY be the owner; he will PROBABLY be the owner. Until a deal is finalized and approved by MLB owners there's always the chance it could fall apart. It's not his team yet.

[Mephistopheles]

The sun will not DEFINITELY come up tomorrow, it will PROBABLY come up tomorrow.

[shnsajax]

Peter Gammons said today that the Cubs are expected to go after Peavy once Ricketts and the ownership situation is solved in May. They are expected to be able to increase their payroll.

 

1) Since it seems Ricketts will definitely be the owner why cant he give the go ahead to increase payroll right now?

 

2) If the Cubs can suddenly go after Peavy in May would you expect them to try to swing a deal right away, wait for around the All Star break, or drag it out till the deadline?

 

I'm sure a good business man isn't going to increase payroll until the deal is finalized.

As for when the Cubs go after Peavy, I'm sure a lot will depend on other factors (Harden's health, Marshall's success, etc.). Waiting for the trade deadline could get complicated if the Padres get Peavy to agree to include other teams in his waiver of a NTC.

 

If Marshall has success he will likely go to the Padres for Peavy. Hopefully he pitches real well and the Padres won't ask for 8 players this time around.

[Jehrico]

1) Since it seems Ricketts will definitely be the owner why cant he give the go ahead to increase payroll right now?

Because he will not DEFINITELY be the owner; he will PROBABLY be the owner. Until a deal is finalized and approved by MLB owners there's always the chance it could fall apart. It's not his team yet.

Also, what happens if they get Peavy, pick up his option year, then his arm falls off before the deal is done? The franchise would materially be worth less as a result, and Ricketts could back out. If the Ricketts deal falls apart, then even if he signed some sort of side deal approving it, it would have an adverse impact on the franchises value to a different owner in that event.

[Mephistopheles]

yeah that's completely wrong.

[NCCubFan]

The sun will not DEFINITELY come up tomorrow, it will PROBABLY come up tomorrow.

You're right. The end of the world could come tonight.

[Jehrico]

The sun will not DEFINITELY come up tomorrow, it will PROBABLY come up tomorrow.

You're right. The end of the world could come tonight.

Ricketts could die in a car crash tomorrow. Far more likely than the sun not coming up.

[Mephistopheles]

The sun will not DEFINITELY come up tomorrow, it will PROBABLY come up tomorrow.

You're right. The end of the world could come tonight.

Ricketts could die in a car crash tomorrow. Far more likely than the sun not coming up.

 

Well...the suns up here. It's eighty-five degrees outside right now. Ricketts could die in a car crash by the end of 2012, but is the sun more likely to stop coming up by then? The latter might be true...

[17 Seconds]

maybe it's best if you just stop talking

[photoguy9883]

maybe it's best if you just stop talking

 

No, no. Let him continue a petty argument with a Mod.

[Jehrico]

The sun will not DEFINITELY come up tomorrow, it will PROBABLY come up tomorrow.

You're right. The end of the world could come tonight.

Ricketts could die in a car crash tomorrow. Far more likely than the sun not coming up.

 

Well...the suns up here. It's eighty-five degrees outside right now. Ricketts could die in a car crash by the end of 2012, but is the sun more likely to stop coming up by then? The latter might be true...

I normally wait until I have a point to make before I post.

[Modzilla]

maybe it's best if you just stop talking

 

Maybe it's best if you let me decide who should stop talking. What'dya think ?

[17 Seconds]

maybe it's best if you just stop talking

 

Maybe it's best if you let me decide who should stop talking. What'dya think ?

 

okay but make sure you take into account people who say the sun failing to come up in the next 3 years might be more likely than a guy dying in a car accident. thx

[Fred Hornkohl]

maybe it's best if you just stop talking

 

Maybe it's best if you let me decide who should stop talking. What'dya think ?

 

okay but make sure you take into account people who say the sun failing to come up in the next 3 years might be more likely than a guy dying in a car accident. thx

 

Look, Dex, you need to get a grip on this concept. It's not against the board rules to be stupid. It's not against the board rules to be wrong; although neither are encouraged. It most certainly is against the rules to go around telling other people to shut up. Now either you straighten up and fly right, or pay the consequences.

 

Thanx

[17 Seconds]

okay meph continue

[Hosak8]

maybe it's best if you just stop talking

 

Maybe it's best if you let me decide who should stop talking. What'dya think ?

 

okay but make sure you take into account people who say the sun failing to come up in the next 3 years might be more likely than a guy dying in a car accident. thx

 

Look, Dex, you need to get a grip on this concept. It's not against the board rules to be stupid. It's not against the board rules to be wrong; although neither are encouraged. It most certainly is against the rules to go around telling other people to shut up. Now either you straighten up and fly right, or pay the consequences.

 

Thanx

 

For the record, I've read the Forum Guidelines and do not see this rule explicitly stated anywhere. However, I do see a certain loudmouth in a Social topic throwing around plenty of names and expletives with no such warning. Why the inconsistency?

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Telling someone to shut up is attacking the person instead of the argument, like calling someone a loudmouth.

 

And not all discipline is made public. The vast majority is behind the scenes, actually.

[Hosak8]

Telling someone to shut up is attacking the person instead of the argument, like calling someone a loudmouth.

 

And not all discipline is made public. The vast majority is behind the scenes, actually.

 

Yet the posts including the personal attacks are left on the forum? Makes sense to me. Let's make public a threat to a guy who told someone to shut up. But, a post calling someone a "stupid expletive expletive" we will deal with in secret. That's inconsistent. Is that an attack to say that?

[17 Seconds]

i thought the "maybe you should just stop talking" was tongue in cheek more than anything. i'm pretty sure he didn't actually think the sun not coming up is more likely than ricketts dying.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Telling someone to shut up is attacking the person instead of the argument, like calling someone a loudmouth.

 

And not all discipline is made public. The vast majority is behind the scenes, actually.

 

Yet the posts including the personal attacks are left on the forum? Makes sense to me. Let's make public a threat to a guy who told someone to shut up. But, a post calling someone a "stupid expletive expletive" we will deal with in secret. That's inconsistent. Is that an attack to say that?

 

Most situations are unique when it comes to moderation. If you're upset with how a situation is handled, your best bet would be to privately ask a mod about it. Implying they are hypocrites and/or not doing a good enough job volunteering to help keep NSBB as good as it can be might be an avenue to avoid.

[Hosak8]

Telling someone to shut up is attacking the person instead of the argument, like calling someone a loudmouth.

 

And not all discipline is made public. The vast majority is behind the scenes, actually.

 

Yet the posts including the personal attacks are left on the forum? Makes sense to me. Let's make public a threat to a guy who told someone to shut up. But, a post calling someone a "stupid expletive expletive" we will deal with in secret. That's inconsistent. Is that an attack to say that?

 

Most situations are unique when it comes to moderation. If you're upset with how a situation is handled, your best bet would be to privately ask a mod about it. Implying they are hypocrites and/or not doing a good enough job volunteering to help keep NSBB as good as it can be might be an avenue to avoid.

 

I did not imply that anyone was a hypocrite. I explicitly stated that the moderation was inconsistent. There is a difference.

 

Perhaps instead of suggesting that meph consider not talking anymore, dex could have been snarky and written a smartass comment like Modzilla's? Apparently, that is okay. Or, does one's name have to be written in red to get away with that?

 

You know what? I'm done with it. It is what it is, and I'm just pissing into the wind. I'll move along.

[wekse]

i can't believe people still get upset when someone calls them a name on the internet, ON THE INTERNET!

 

get a grip, folks.

[Springfield_CUBBY]

With as quiet as NSBB has been lately, this thread is the most fun I've had . . . !! =D>