Jump to content
North Side Baseball
Posted

 

Yeah, I've lived here my whole life. Our politicians are noted for making deals that benefit them and not some future office holder. Emanuel probably doesn't have to worry too much about being re-elected when the mayoral election comes up, but Quinn could be in trouble in this year's election.

I think Quinns issues would go much deeper than a fall out from putting state money into Wrigley would cause.

 

But you're talking about putting a ton of state money into Wrigley in addition to his other issues while running against a very conservative, cut-everything Republican.

I think the cut-everything Republican would be more likely to put state money into Wrigley

  • Replies 6.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

 

Yeah, I've lived here my whole life. Our politicians are noted for making deals that benefit them and not some future office holder. Emanuel probably doesn't have to worry too much about being re-elected when the mayoral election comes up, but Quinn could be in trouble in this year's election.

I think Quinns issues would go much deeper than a fall out from putting state money into Wrigley would cause.

 

But you're talking about putting a ton of state money into Wrigley in addition to his other issues while running against a very conservative, cut-everything Republican.

I think the cut-everything Republican would be more likely to put state money into Wrigley

 

I think it's a safe bet that neither will be putting money into Wrigley. That being said, I guess there is a slim (very slim) chance that once the election is in the rear-view mirror the governor could decide to contribute something.

Posted

 

Yeah, I've lived here my whole life. Our politicians are noted for making deals that benefit them and not some future office holder. Emanuel probably doesn't have to worry too much about being re-elected when the mayoral election comes up, but Quinn could be in trouble in this year's election.

I think Quinns issues would go much deeper than a fall out from putting state money into Wrigley would cause.

 

But you're talking about putting a ton of state money into Wrigley in addition to his other issues while running against a very conservative, cut-everything Republican.

I think the cut-everything Republican would be more likely to put state money into Wrigley

 

I think it's a safe bet that neither will be putting money into Wrigley. That being said, I guess there is a slim (very slim) chance that once the election is in the rear-view mirror the governor could decide to contribute something.

I think it is unlikely more because of the General Assembly than the Governor
Posted

 

Yeah, I've lived here my whole life. Our politicians are noted for making deals that benefit them and not some future office holder. Emanuel probably doesn't have to worry too much about being re-elected when the mayoral election comes up, but Quinn could be in trouble in this year's election.

I think Quinns issues would go much deeper than a fall out from putting state money into Wrigley would cause.

 

But you're talking about putting a ton of state money into Wrigley in addition to his other issues while running against a very conservative, cut-everything Republican.

I think the cut-everything Republican would be more likely to put state money into Wrigley

 

I think it's a safe bet that neither will be putting money into Wrigley. That being said, I guess there is a slim (very slim) chance that once the election is in the rear-view mirror the governor could decide to contribute something.

I think it is unlikely more because of the General Assembly than the Governor

I know it's been said before, but the deal the Sox got with The Cell is ridiculous. It was a different time where the states finances were in much better shape, but damn - Reinsdorf pulled off a sweet deal.

Posted
being clever is finally working out for you
Posted

If I'm following the author's argument, he's claiming that Starlin's low babip, and by extension poor performance in 2013, can be attributed to a new swing that brought about a dip in his contact rate on balls in the zone.

 

Leaving aside whether or not Castro's swing really changed that much, two criticisms occur to me. First, what does contact rate have to do with babip? And second, Starlin's Z-Contact fell from an average of 92.6% in 2010-2012 to 89.2% in 2013. That's not entirely negligible, but it isn't much either. In his three full seasons, Castro saw an average of 2577 pitches per season. Using that number (for purposes of comparison) Castro swung and missed at about 23 more pitches in the strike zone in 2013 relative to his 2010-2012 rate. Even if you assume all those balls would have been put into play if struck, and furthermore that about a third of them would have fallen for hits, that still only gets you to about a .258 average. Am I missing the point?

Posted

If I'm following the author's argument, he's claiming that Starlin's low babip, and by extension poor performance in 2013, can be attributed to a new swing that brought about a dip in his contact rate on balls in the zone.

 

Leaving aside whether or not Castro's swing really changed that much, two criticisms occur to me. First, what does contact rate have to do with babip? And second, Starlin's Z-Contact fell from an average of 92.6% in 2010-2012 to 89.2% in 2013. That's not entirely negligible, but it isn't much either. In his three full seasons, Castro saw an average of 2577 pitches per season. Using that number (for purposes of comparison) Castro swung and missed at about 23 more pitches in the strike zone in 2013 relative to his 2010-2012 rate. Even if you assume all those balls would have been put into play if struck, and furthermore that about a third of them would have fallen for hits, that still only gets you to about a .258 average. Am I missing the point?

 

This article didn't agree with the one I read about Castro taking more pitches early in counts but then swinging more later in the counts/with two strikes.

Posted

Cubs are 5th most valuable frachise. Poor Tom Ricketts!

 

From Wall St. Cheat Sheet:

 

 

5. Chicago Cubs

 

The longstanding sufferers from the city on a big lake that’s not the ocean, ladies and gentlemen, your Chicago Cubs. Yeah, the Cubs make bank. No, they still haven’t won since 1908. Yes, we should probably take the Goat Curse as fact at this point. No, this isn’t a misprint or a mistake — the Cubs are worth $1,320 million ($1.3 billion).

 

Singlehandedly proving Vince Lombardi wrong, the Cubs stand firmly on the side of “winning isn’t everything,” as do their fans, bringing in $320 million worth of team revenue for the Lovable Losers. That’s a whole lot of Cubs paraphernalia. Perhaps because there’s nothing like eating (and drinking) the pain away, the Cubs rank third overall in concession sales, pulling in $30 million from all the fans who show up. And boy, do they show up. Try fourth in the league for gate receipts ($128 million), because everyone likes a train wreck.

 

That’s probably not fair to the Cubs. Or their fans. Or their players, who are collectively being paid $107.6 million to try and end the longest-running drought in American sports. Which they won’t do. Again. At least your team is worth more than the White Sox.

 

 

 

 

 

.

Posted

 

Non-roster invitee Jonathan Sanchez is trying to make the Cubs' Opening Day roster as a reliever.

Just five of Sanchez's 134 appearances since 2008 have come in relief, but the left-hander is at a crossroads in his career and is willing to give the conversion a shot. The 31-year-old is feeling good about how his stuff has been early on in camp. "I’ve got my speed, my slider, my split — everything is there," he said. "I’m getting back to where I was." Sanchez owns an 8.73 ERA and has more walks than strikeouts over the last two seasons. However, if his stuff is indeed back, it wouldn't be a shock to see him turn into a useful bullpen option for the Cubs.

Posted
I still want someone to address my question.

- They have cash flow restrictions on how much they can spend on the team vis a vis their debt repayment as a result of the terms of the sale from Zell

- They're intentionally minimizing future commitments to minimize their risk while the 500 million renovation project they would like to pay for and start construction on is up in the air

 

What is it about the debt structuring of the deal that everyone speculates is so bad?

Guest
Guests
Posted (edited)

Since North hasn't been posting here much...

 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ApDc5PGsBzgVdHNSSjE4Zk5YSGxneGpuR3B2bWljZ0E&usp=sharing#gid=0

 

There it is, the answer to all your Rizzo shift questions. Teams pull a major shift on him a good % of the time, but not an extraordinary amount. And, look at that! Against no shift, his .BABIP is still too damn low.

 

Look out this year, that BABIP is going up, up, up.

 

EDIT-fixed link

Edited by David
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
The North Side Baseball Caretaker Fund
The North Side Baseball Caretaker Fund

You all care about this site. The next step is caring for it. We’re asking you to caretake this site so it can remain the premier Cubs community on the internet. Included with caretaking is ad-free browsing of North Side Baseball.

×
×
  • Create New...