General Cubs Chit-Chat

[JudasIscariotTheBird]

guys maybe amazon can't pay their employees $20 an hour, we know this because my local grocery store can't

...but Amazon bought my nearest local grocery store!

[ConstableRabbit]

Lol how do you think the "3x to 4x what they were worth a decade ago" valuations are calculated?

[JudasIscariotTheBird]

Lol how do you think the "3x to 4x what they were worth a decade ago" valuations are calculated?

[imb]

you're being made fun of not because there's some ignorance of the fact that you have to spend money to raise your valuation, you're being made fun of because you are looking at the finances of a team who operated as poorly as possible on purpose to excuse nonspending by an ownership group whose every decision for 10 years has been aimed at creating a money printing machine.

[ConstableRabbit]

you're being made fun of not because there's some ignorance of the fact that you have to spend money to raise your valuation, you're being made fun of because you are looking at the finances of a team who operated as poorly as possible on purpose to excuse nonspending by an ownership group whose every decision for 10 years has been aimed at creating a money printing machine.

I'm looking at the line items of a P&L for an adjacent organization: a team that was operating poorly -- low spend/cost, low revenue. Because we know, for example, how cheap the Marlins were on marketing and promotions or anemic on attendance vis a vis the Cubs, we can attempt to fill in the gaps between that organization and the Cubs to come up with a reasonable estimate of what we think the Cubs brought home last year. The Marlins had low attendance. We know what the Cubs attendance was! The Marlins had low ticket prices. We know what the Cubs ticket prices were! The Marlins didn't pay their players. We know what the Cubs paid theirs! The Marlins didn't renovate their ballpark. We know the Cubs did!

 

I mean, or we can just sit around talking about the Cubs have a higher valuation now as if that contributes to the organization's cashflows. Or we can say none of this matters because the Ricketts family can always sell a few houses to increase payroll.

[imb]

you're being made fun of not because there's some ignorance of the fact that you have to spend money to raise your valuation, you're being made fun of because you are looking at the finances of a team who operated as poorly as possible on purpose to excuse nonspending by an ownership group whose every decision for 10 years has been aimed at creating a money printing machine.

I'm looking at the line items of a P&L for an adjacent organization: a team that was operating poorly -- low spend/cost, low revenue. Because we know, for example, how cheap the Marlins were on marketing and promotions or anemic on attendance vis a vis the Cubs, we can attempt to fill in the gaps between that organization and the Cubs to come up with a reasonable estimate of what we think the Cubs brought home last year. The Marlins had low attendance. We know what the Cubs attendance was! The Marlins had low ticket prices. We know what the Cubs ticket prices were! The Marlins didn't pay their players. We know what the Cubs paid theirs! The Marlins didn't renovate their ballpark. We know the Cubs did!

 

I mean, or we can just sit around talking about the Cubs have a higher valuation now as if that contributes to the organization's cashflows. Or we can say none of this matters because the Ricketts family can always sell a few houses to increase payroll.

 

the marlins had no ancillary sources of income; the cubs have dozens

 

- 30 -

[ConstableRabbit]

you're being made fun of not because there's some ignorance of the fact that you have to spend money to raise your valuation, you're being made fun of because you are looking at the finances of a team who operated as poorly as possible on purpose to excuse nonspending by an ownership group whose every decision for 10 years has been aimed at creating a money printing machine.

I'm looking at the line items of a P&L for an adjacent organization: a team that was operating poorly -- low spend/cost, low revenue. Because we know, for example, how cheap the Marlins were on marketing and promotions or anemic on attendance vis a vis the Cubs, we can attempt to fill in the gaps between that organization and the Cubs to come up with a reasonable estimate of what we think the Cubs brought home last year. The Marlins had low attendance. We know what the Cubs attendance was! The Marlins had low ticket prices. We know what the Cubs ticket prices were! The Marlins didn't pay their players. We know what the Cubs paid theirs! The Marlins didn't renovate their ballpark. We know the Cubs did!

 

I mean, or we can just sit around talking about the Cubs have a higher valuation now as if that contributes to the organization's cashflows. Or we can say none of this matters because the Ricketts family can always sell a few houses to increase payroll.

 

the marlins had no ancillary sources of income; the cubs have dozens

 

- 30 -

[align=center]Those ancillary sources can be estimated and quantified; Forbes has already made such an estimate of total revenue.

 

 

###[/align]

[CubinNY]

you're being made fun of not because there's some ignorance of the fact that you have to spend money to raise your valuation, you're being made fun of because you are looking at the finances of a team who operated as poorly as possible on purpose to excuse nonspending by an ownership group whose every decision for 10 years has been aimed at creating a money printing machine.

I'm looking at the line items of a P&L for an adjacent organization: a team that was operating poorly -- low spend/cost, low revenue. Because we know, for example, how cheap the Marlins were on marketing and promotions or anemic on attendance vis a vis the Cubs, we can attempt to fill in the gaps between that organization and the Cubs to come up with a reasonable estimate of what we think the Cubs brought home last year. The Marlins had low attendance. We know what the Cubs attendance was! The Marlins had low ticket prices. We know what the Cubs ticket prices were! The Marlins didn't pay their players. We know what the Cubs paid theirs! The Marlins didn't renovate their ballpark. We know the Cubs did!

 

I mean, or we can just sit around talking about the Cubs have a higher valuation now as if that contributes to the organization's cashflows. Or we can say none of this matters because the Ricketts family can always sell a few houses to increase payroll.

The Ricketts could today afford anything they want. They are in a private club who has decided they want to keep costs down and have artificially set a ceiling that they are agreeing not to go over. The Ricketts are one of the prime movers behind this agreement.

[imb]

I'm looking at the line items of a P&L for an adjacent organization: a team that was operating poorly -- low spend/cost, low revenue. Because we know, for example, how cheap the Marlins were on marketing and promotions or anemic on attendance vis a vis the Cubs, we can attempt to fill in the gaps between that organization and the Cubs to come up with a reasonable estimate of what we think the Cubs brought home last year. The Marlins had low attendance. We know what the Cubs attendance was! The Marlins had low ticket prices. We know what the Cubs ticket prices were! The Marlins didn't pay their players. We know what the Cubs paid theirs! The Marlins didn't renovate their ballpark. We know the Cubs did!

 

I mean, or we can just sit around talking about the Cubs have a higher valuation now as if that contributes to the organization's cashflows. Or we can say none of this matters because the Ricketts family can always sell a few houses to increase payroll.

 

the marlins had no ancillary sources of income; the cubs have dozens

 

- 30 -

[align=center]Those ancillary sources can be estimated and quantified; Forbes has already made such an estimate of total revenue.

 

 

###[/align]

 

annnnnnnndddddddddd

[ConstableRabbit]

you're being made fun of not because there's some ignorance of the fact that you have to spend money to raise your valuation, you're being made fun of because you are looking at the finances of a team who operated as poorly as possible on purpose to excuse nonspending by an ownership group whose every decision for 10 years has been aimed at creating a money printing machine.

I'm looking at the line items of a P&L for an adjacent organization: a team that was operating poorly -- low spend/cost, low revenue. Because we know, for example, how cheap the Marlins were on marketing and promotions or anemic on attendance vis a vis the Cubs, we can attempt to fill in the gaps between that organization and the Cubs to come up with a reasonable estimate of what we think the Cubs brought home last year. The Marlins had low attendance. We know what the Cubs attendance was! The Marlins had low ticket prices. We know what the Cubs ticket prices were! The Marlins didn't pay their players. We know what the Cubs paid theirs! The Marlins didn't renovate their ballpark. We know the Cubs did!

 

I mean, or we can just sit around talking about the Cubs have a higher valuation now as if that contributes to the organization's cashflows. Or we can say none of this matters because the Ricketts family can always sell a few houses to increase payroll.

The Ricketts could today afford anything they want. They are in a private club who has decided they want to keep costs down and have artificially set a ceiling that they are agreeing not to go over. The Ricketts are one of the prime movers behind this agreement.

Yes, you subscribe to what I like to call The Church of my Last Sentence, which is totally cool.

[ConstableRabbit]

 

the marlins had no ancillary sources of income; the cubs have dozens

 

- 30 -

[align=center]Those ancillary sources can be estimated and quantified; Forbes has already made such an estimate of total revenue.

 

 

###[/align]

 

annnnnnnndddddddddd

Dude just like you don't know finance I don't know journalism. Am I allowed to type now that I did the ### thing?

[imb]

[align=center]Those ancillary sources can be estimated and quantified; Forbes has already made such an estimate of total revenue.

 

 

###[/align]

 

annnnnnnndddddddddd

Dude just like you don't know finance I don't know journalism. Am I allowed to type now that I did the ### thing?

 

it depends on how badly you wanna keep looking stupid i guess

[ConstableRabbit]

 

annnnnnnndddddddddd

Dude just like you don't know finance I don't know journalism. Am I allowed to type now that I did the ### thing?

 

it depends on how badly you wanna keep looking stupid i guess

Oh c'mon, that was a joke made in earnest. I'm not that mean.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I vote you guys take this to the Harper thread so we can psych people out by having it jump forward five pages in a day.

[CubinNY]

I'm looking at the line items of a P&L for an adjacent organization: a team that was operating poorly -- low spend/cost, low revenue. Because we know, for example, how cheap the Marlins were on marketing and promotions or anemic on attendance vis a vis the Cubs, we can attempt to fill in the gaps between that organization and the Cubs to come up with a reasonable estimate of what we think the Cubs brought home last year. The Marlins had low attendance. We know what the Cubs attendance was! The Marlins had low ticket prices. We know what the Cubs ticket prices were! The Marlins didn't pay their players. We know what the Cubs paid theirs! The Marlins didn't renovate their ballpark. We know the Cubs did!

 

I mean, or we can just sit around talking about the Cubs have a higher valuation now as if that contributes to the organization's cashflows. Or we can say none of this matters because the Ricketts family can always sell a few houses to increase payroll.

The Ricketts could today afford anything they want. They are in a private club who has decided they want to keep costs down and have artificially set a ceiling that they are agreeing not to go over. The Ricketts are one of the prime movers behind this agreement.

Yes, you subscribe to what I like to call The Church of my Last Sentence, which is totally cool.

The Cubs are not a business, MLB is not a business. It's a billionaire club that is closed. It's exempt from antitrust and the rules that you think apply don't apply. You're too smart by half.

[JudasIscariotTheBird]

The Ricketts could today afford anything they want. They are in a private club who has decided they want to keep costs down and have artificially set a ceiling that they are agreeing not to go over. The Ricketts are one of the prime movers behind this agreement.

Yes, you subscribe to what I like to call The Church of my Last Sentence, which is totally cool.

The Cubs are not a business, MLB is not a business. It's a billionaire club that is closed. It's exempt from antitrust and the rules that you think apply don't apply. You're too smart by half.

[bbvideo=560,315]

[/bbvideo]

[KingCubsFan]

The Ricketts could today afford anything they want. They are in a private club who has decided they want to keep costs down and have artificially set a ceiling that they are agreeing not to go over. The Ricketts are one of the prime movers behind this agreement.

Yes, you subscribe to what I like to call The Church of my Last Sentence, which is totally cool.

The Cubs are not a business, MLB is not a business. It's a billionaire club that is closed. It's exempt from antitrust and the rules that you think apply don't apply. You're too smart by half.

What?

[ConstableRabbit]

I'm not a businessman I'm a business, man.

[PackLandVA]

So can the Cubs afford Harper or not???

[Tim]

So can the Cubs afford Harper or not???

Absolutely.

 

However, if you believe Ricketts, it may mean running a loss for 2019.

[David]

[tweet]

[/tweet]

[squally1313]

https://deadspin.com/you-dont-have-to-believe-any-of-this-horsefeathers-1832715464

 

Potentially the best article of all time.

[treebird]

https://deadspin.com/you-dont-have-to-believe-any-of-this-horsefeathers-1832715464

 

Potentially the best article of all time.

 

it’s a good article but it’s pretty unfair how the writer leaves out the loria-era marlins data that proves that the ricketts are losing lots of money every year

[Cubswin11]

I just looked at the ZiPs projections for Cubs pitchers and am surprised at how well the bullpen depth does. While they all walk a crap ton of batters, Maples a batter per IP, several keep the ball in the park, don’t give up many hits, and pile up Ks. Mekkes gets a strong projection, Barnette and Cedeno get really strong projections, but also randos like Craig Brooks and Wyatt Short do pretty well. Wick, Norwood, and Maples also do pretty well...I don’t trust it, more excuses for the owners to pocket what could be spent on Harper and Kimbrel to make this team the one to beat

The bullpen is going to be good, I just have no clue who the actual good pitchers will be (outside of Strop, Cishek, Morrow when healthy and Carl at least here and there. Someone(s) will rise to the top and breakout from the quantity of guys we have.

[Perd]

KB donged in his first AB of the spring. So we’re going to win the World Series.