The Future Rotation thread

[Lefty]

Given the new period of inflation we're seeing, I don't think $25 million a year is out of order.

 

Pro sports is whistling past the graveyard if you are right. We are fighting a depression, and MLB is immune?

[Sammy Sofa]

Well, yeah; we're talking about 1% money here.

[Lefty]

Well, yeah; we're talking about 1% money here.

 

I know it's politically fashionable to let someone else pay for everything, but is an industry that prices out its users (i.e., the fans) really sustainable? Salaries went down in the early 1930s. It is hard to imagine, but absent hyperinflation it will happen again.

[Guest]

Sports are sucking up all the TV advertising money that used to go to primetime TV before the internet and DVRs. You might see ticket prices ebb and flow depending on the economy, but the connection to player salaries is a loose one.

[jersey cubs fan]

Well, yeah; we're talking about 1% money here.

 

I know it's politically fashionable to let someone else pay for everything, but is an industry that prices out its users (i.e., the fans) really sustainable? Salaries went down in the early 1930s. It is hard to imagine, but absent hyperinflation it will happen again.

 

The vast majority of fans watch their team on TV, which is really inexpensive to do and the source of most of the revenue.

[weis21]

Well, yeah; we're talking about 1% money here.

 

I know it's politically fashionable to let someone else pay for everything, but is an industry that prices out its users (i.e., the fans) really sustainable? Salaries went down in the early 1930s. It is hard to imagine, but absent hyperinflation it will happen again.

 

The vast majority of fans watch their team on TV, which is really inexpensive to do and the source of most of the revenue.

Completely random thought: I wonder how the MLB.tv revenue is handled? It's popular and expanding (XBox, PS3, Blu-Ray, etc) - is there a portion that goes directly to team's revenues? Is it evenly distributed?

 

This may be a completely ridiculous question, I just have no idea how any of those things could or may work.

 

ETA: Since they are essentially just "re-broadcasting" a TV provider's feed, do they monitor this and pay them accordingly? I wonder if it is a pre-determined flat fee or if it varies by the number of game views?

[jersey cubs fan]

I believe those revenues are spread evenly among all teams

[Lefty]

Well, yeah; we're talking about 1% money here.

 

I know it's politically fashionable to let someone else pay for everything, but is an industry that prices out its users (i.e., the fans) really sustainable? Salaries went down in the early 1930s. It is hard to imagine, but absent hyperinflation it will happen again.

 

The vast majority of fans watch their team on TV, which is really inexpensive to do and the source of most of the revenue.

 

Can we imagine that TV contracts will not be so flush in a Depression?

[jersey cubs fan]

Well, yeah; we're talking about 1% money here.

 

I know it's politically fashionable to let someone else pay for everything, but is an industry that prices out its users (i.e., the fans) really sustainable? Salaries went down in the early 1930s. It is hard to imagine, but absent hyperinflation it will happen again.

 

The vast majority of fans watch their team on TV, which is really inexpensive to do and the source of most of the revenue.

 

Can we imagine that TV contracts will not be so flush in a Depression?

 

Maybe, hear me out here, but maybe, we aren't actually in a depression.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Well, yeah; we're talking about 1% money here.

 

I know it's politically fashionable to let someone else pay for everything, but is an industry that prices out its users (i.e., the fans) really sustainable? Salaries went down in the early 1930s. It is hard to imagine, but absent hyperinflation it will happen again.

 

The vast majority of fans watch their team on TV, which is really inexpensive to do and the source of most of the revenue.

 

Can we imagine that TV contracts will not be so flush in a Depression?

 

Maybe, hear me out here, but maybe, we aren't actually in a depression.

 

We're Cubs fans. We're always in a depression.

[Sammy Sofa]

Well, yeah; we're talking about 1% money here.

 

I know it's politically fashionable to let someone else pay for everything, but is an industry that prices out its users (i.e., the fans) really sustainable? Salaries went down in the early 1930s. It is hard to imagine, but absent hyperinflation it will happen again.

 

I'm not sure what salaries in the 30's have to do with anything; the owners were paying the players [expletive].

[Fro]

At some point you're going to be able to buy channels ala carte and that's when the TV rights fee gravy train is going to come to an end.

 

Right now, everyone with cable/satellite is forced to pay for sports channels that they might not want. I think ESPN is $4-5 on your cable bill alone.

[Magnetic Curses]

At some point you're going to be able to buy channels ala carte and that's when the TV rights fee gravy train is going to come to an end.

 

Right now, everyone with cable/satellite is forced to pay for sports channels that they might not want. I think ESPN is $4-5 on your cable bill alone.

 

i don't see cable networks doing that ever. espn is so expensive because of demand, espn knows that people want it and cable providers know that they can't get by without it. same goes for every other cable network with a popular channel.

[Lefty]

Well, yeah; we're talking about 1% money here.

 

I know it's politically fashionable to let someone else pay for everything, but is an industry that prices out its users (i.e., the fans) really sustainable? Salaries went down in the early 1930s. It is hard to imagine, but absent hyperinflation it will happen again.

 

The vast majority of fans watch their team on TV, which is really inexpensive to do and the source of most of the revenue.

 

Can we imagine that TV contracts will not be so flush in a Depression?

 

Maybe, hear me out here, but maybe, we aren't actually in a depression.

 

You are correct. My argument rests on an assumption.

[erik316wttn]

Choi, Hill, Montanez, Kelton.

 

Oh wait, that was our "future infield."

[Sammy Sofa]

Relevant.

[davell]

So the only definites are Shark and Wood. Garza's a question mark, but it seems likely we'll either have him or get his replacement in a trade. I wouldn't mind giving Ervin Santana a shot. Joe Saunders seems like a Maholm type pickup, but I guess I could see a team giving him a longer deal than the one or two years at the most that I would. Atlanta is going to need a 3B or an OFer next year, so I'd love to find a way to still get Delgado from them. They've got the pitching depth to trade from, so he's still extremely high on my wish list. Another team that has pitchibg and will be loiking to move some for offense is Oakland. They have Parker, Milone, Blackley, Griffin, Ross, Anderson, Straily, and Gray. I'd love to find a way to get Brett Anderson from them.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Yeah, when I made this thread, I assumed things would be a lot clearer after the deadline.

 

I still think Garza is gone this offseason. I think the Cubs have already made up their mind they don't see him as a long-term piece and intended to trade him this deadline before his brief injury ruined it.

 

I'll assume we get one Delgado-style guy ready to step into the rotation immediately. That leaves us with Samardzija/Wood/Garzatrade/Volstad next year, and really you'd love to bump at least Volstad.

[davell]

I'd love to see 2 youngsters in the rotation, with Shark and Wood. One from a Garza deal, and one from the glut in Atlanta or Oakland, if we can pry someone away using Brett and/or Vitters as the headliners. After that, assuming we go cheap, Ervin Santana, Joe Saunders, Liriano on 1 year deals or McCarthy or Marcum if they'd take 2 year deals. A guy like Blanton or Correia, as an innings eater you don't care if his arm falls off could be of use. Scott Baker's coming off of TJS, he's interesting to me. I'd probably want a 2 year deal, since year 1 will probably be a struggle. Feldman on a 1 year deal would be fine too.

[Clem Fandango]

Of all the mid-to-upper-tier FA pitchers out there, I think McCarthy would be the best target. I like him a lot.

 

Edwin Jackson is also out there after this season

[Cubswin11]

Bring back Prior!

[KingCubsFan]

Yeah, when I made this thread, I assumed things would be a lot clearer after the deadline.

 

I still think Garza is gone this offseason. I think the Cubs have already made up their mind they don't see him as a long-term piece and intended to trade him this deadline before his brief injury ruined it.

 

I'll assume we get one Delgado-style guy ready to step into the rotation immediately. That leaves us with Samardzija/Wood/Garzatrade/Volstad next year, and really you'd love to bump at least Volstad.

I don't think Volstad is coming back. I'm guessing he'll be replaced by another Volstad-like reclamation project.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Of all the mid-to-upper-tier FA pitchers out there, I think McCarthy would be the best target. I like him a lot.

 

Edwin Jackson is also out there after this season

 

But again, with the upper tier all but off the market, depending on what happens with Greinke the mid-to-upper tier are likely to get very expensive, and I don't trust any of them with more than a 3-4 year contract. There's also the chance that the Tigers extend Sanchez, leaving the market at McCarthy and Marcum, and probably Peavy as I can't see the White Sox picking up his 22MM option. The Yankees, Red Sox, Blue Jays, Dodgers, and Orioles will all possibly be looking for starters.

 

Unless we trade Garza, and the above is great for his trade value, we should go with Garza/Shark/Vizcaino or Reclamation/Wood/Raley or Struck.

Edited August 4, 2012 by Little Slide Rooter

[KaiserCesar]

Yeah, when I made this thread, I assumed things would be a lot clearer after the deadline.

 

I still think Garza is gone this offseason. I think the Cubs have already made up their mind they don't see him as a long-term piece and intended to trade him this deadline before his brief injury ruined it.

 

I'll assume we get one Delgado-style guy ready to step into the rotation immediately. That leaves us with Samardzija/Wood/Garzatrade/Volstad next year, and really you'd love to bump at least Volstad.

I don't think Volstad is coming back. I'm guessing he'll be replaced by another Volstad-like reclamation project.

 

I don't think reclamation is the right word. Volstad will be 26, has had some major league success and will be under control for awhile. It's a little early to let him go with the current lack of major league starters. He'll be one of the guys to pay attention to for the rest of the season.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Yeah, when I made this thread, I assumed things would be a lot clearer after the deadline.

 

I still think Garza is gone this offseason. I think the Cubs have already made up their mind they don't see him as a long-term piece and intended to trade him this deadline before his brief injury ruined it.

 

I'll assume we get one Delgado-style guy ready to step into the rotation immediately. That leaves us with Samardzija/Wood/Garzatrade/Volstad next year, and really you'd love to bump at least Volstad.

I don't think Volstad is coming back. I'm guessing he'll be replaced by another Volstad-like reclamation project.

 

I don't think reclamation is the right word. Volstad will be 26, has had some major league success and will be under control for awhile. It's a little early to let him go with the current lack of major league starters. He'll be one of the guys to pay attention to for the rest of the season.

 

Agreed. There's really no benefit to giving Germano or Coleman starts over him. Volstad should indeed finish the season on the big league team regardless. However, I would be interested in seeing what he could do out of the pen. If he pitches 1 inning a game, it should be less likely to be of the "of doom" variety.