Jump to content
North Side Baseball

CubinNY

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    27,596

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    23

 Content Type 

Profiles

Joomla Posts 1

Chicago Cubs Videos

Chicago Cubs Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits

2026 Chicago Cubs Top Prospects Ranking

News

2023 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks

Guides & Resources

2024 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks

The Chicago Cubs Players Project

2025 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker

Blogs

Events

Forums

Store

Gallery

Everything posted by CubinNY

  1. CubinNY
    Randomness in baseball or life in general is very small. There is always a small bit of chance it won't happen, but pitchers who walk batters consistently have high ERAs and airplanes don't fall out of the sky for no reason at all. Numbers show patterns and trends. To base baseball decision on hunches, feels, and guts is not the way to win. As with most things, there is truth on both sides of this issue. High OBP is always good, but it's better if most of the time it's in the context of a team rally, which is of itself random. Get more high-OBP guys on the same team, there is less randomness. Quality starts usually correlate closely with wins, but it's the randomness of when you throw them that makes a huge difference in W-L results. Compare Zambrano or Sean Marshall with Jason Marquis. That's not ture at all. Randomness is chance or luck. Over the course of 160 games luck plays a very limted role in who makes the playoffs and who doesn't. Randomness is a convient excuse for why things don't happen the way we want them too. The Cubs aren't bad becuase the gods hate them or because of chance, they're bad becuase their numbers indicate it is so. And using wins as a metric for starting pitchers becme usless around the time of Rolly Fingers.
  2. CubinNY
    It's not only legal, but in some cases necessary to keep separate books for tax purposes vs. reporting to shareholders. For example, the method most companies use to depreciate assets for tax purposes (MACRS) is not acceptable for reporting to hhareholders because the write-off is too fast (an asset may really have a 10-year life, which would be the required write-off period for reporting to shareholders, but be depreciated over 7 years under the tax law). Requirements for reporting to shareholders are based on generally accepted accounting principles, which are developed mainly by the Financial Accounting Standards Board with input from the SEC, while reporting for tax purposes is governed by the tax code and IRS regulations. The two frequently contradict each other, requiring two sets of books. Sorry for the accounting class, but I am a university accounting professor. Class dismissed. :D Thanks for information. Can companies intentionally mislead the public/IRS and have it be legal?
  3. CubinNY
    I can't imagine a Fortune 500 company would keep 2 sets of books in them in this day and age. With the Enrons and World Coms getting busted, the risk is far to great to do this and expect to get away with it. And also, what would the motivation be for doing this? What could possible be worth destroying an enormous company? You are wrong about that, many companies keeps 2 sets of books for internal and external reporting. There are no laws that state companies can only have 1 set of records. The reason for this is for tax reasons and shareholder reporting. When the company is reporting there taxes they want to record things in a way to limit their net income to pay as little taxes as possible. This mainly deals with how a company defers income or depreciates assets to lower net income on a yearly bases. For obvious reason, the company would not want to report these same figures to its shareholders. I don't know if keeping two sets of accounting records is illegal or not, but your company should be reported to the IRS and the CFO should be brought up on charges. I'm sure the stockholders want to hear the most accurate information possible as does Uncle Sam.
  4. CubinNY
    Randomness in baseball or life in general is very small. There is always a small bit of chance it won't happen, but pitchers who walk batters consistently have high ERAs and airplanes don't fall out of the sky for no reason at all. Numbers show patterns and trends. To base baseball decision on hunches, feels, and guts is not the way to win.
  5. CubinNY
    How "this" has not already been bumped out of the lineup is beyond me. I understand they have enough firepower to make up for his deficiencies, but he has been absolutely horrible. Ouch, those numbers are Pierre like.
  6. CubinNY
    In a three game series I wouldn't think the potential hands of stone defense would matter that much. I'd rather have the bat. But at the same time, in a three game series how much is Thome going to out produce whomever is in left for the Sox? I have no idea as I don't really follow the Sox
  7. CubinNY
    Wow that seems like a lot. And yet is probably not enough. Plus Aramis makes a lot of money.
  8. CubinNY
    How would he lose money!!?? We've got so many revenue streams. Last year the Cubs had @ $100 million dollar team and they made @ 5 or 6 million in profit. You do the math. Those are figures reported by the Cubs, right? No, that's a best guess from Forbes reported profit from 2001. But more to the point, money is not what is holding the Cubs back.
  9. CubinNY
    How would he lose money!!?? We've got so many revenue streams. Last year the Cubs had @ $100 million dollar team and they made @ 10 million in profit. You do the math.
  10. CubinNY
    Cuban may like to win, but the Chicago market cannot sustain a $130 million dollar team. First and foremost Cuban is a business man. And from all reports a pretty smart business man. He'll want to win but not at the cost of losing millions of dollars. That is just foolish.
  11. CubinNY
    If he would grow back that mustache I'd like him much better.
  12. CubinNY
    If the Cubs retain Vaughn Joshua I am confident that his flaws can be corrected. Uusally I don't worry about swings at this point. If he has good enough # to consider being drafted high in the draft then he has the raw talent to make adjustments. What worries me more is plate discipline. IMO, controlling the strike zone is the hardest skill to learn. That written, I agree with everything DDS wrote.
  13. CubinNY
    Kiley is not very happy with the Cubs. It's a good thing he doen't work for the Trib.
  14. CubinNY
    'Twasn't in a mocking way, it just reminded me of my dad. Even with the Cardinals, he's an eternal pessimist. It's funny, and that response to Carlos Lee was something he would say about anyone the Cardinals would acquire. I can't wait to be a Cubs fan have the same sunny disposition when it comes to my team. :) A pessimistic Cardinals fan? Not possible. The only thing less believable would be a pessimistic Yankees fan. Actually, many Yankee fans are not only pessimistic but prone to panic attacks at two game losing streaks. Then they dream up outrageous trade proposals becuase, well everyone wants to play for the Yankees.
  15. CubinNY
    Jon you're an island of sanity amongst a sea of insane posts. Wood has been the good solider all through this fiasco. Last year his shoulder was hurt, but instad of going on the DL he trusted the Cubs and pitched in the bullpen, and he pitched THE DAY BEFORE HIS SURGERY. This year he tries to come back and help a team mired in a miserable slump. What a me player. What a whimp. He doesn't care about the Cubs. He only cares about his next contract. Everyone should be fired. O'neil, Hendry, Backer, Rothschild, everyone of them.
  16. CubinNY
    Seconded
  17. CubinNY
    I don't get it...didn't we get rid of the long ball approach because that made us inconsistent? This organization makes no sense. That's just it. The long ball approach is not what made the Cubs inconsistent. It has always been the lack of plate discipline that leads to walks and hitting in good hitter's counts. Someone should have told Hendry & Co. about the other side of the equation. Instead they pick up Slappy McGroundout and JJ, two free swingers.
  18. CubinNY
    Those are constant? Baker's managed for what...3 1/2 years? Hendry's been GM for about that same time. MacPhail's been in Cubs management for maybe 10 years?? (That's a guess) And the Tribune has owned the Cubs for 25 years or so? So that means out of nearly a hundred years of futility, one or more of those guys have only been involved in a quarter of that maximum....how does that make it constant? constant hyperbole I don't see any hyperbole is what you bolded. In 1945 MLB was full of 4A guys who couldn't be drafted in the Army, and the Cubs still got swept. Since then its been nothing but futility with the occasional utter ridicilous.
  19. CubinNY
    Crap I didn't see this thread. I've been posting in the Colvin thread. How about the fat kid from Oral Roberts hitting a 500 ft Aluminuim bat HR? Oh, Colvin should fit right in. Swang at a bad first pitch and grounded out 4-3.
  20. CubinNY
    They should have drafted the fat kid from Oral Roberts who just it a 500 Ft Alluminium bat HR.
  21. CubinNY
    He should fit right in. I just him swing at a bad first pitch and ground out 4-3.
  22. CubinNY
    ...Badly
  23. CubinNY
    I friggen wish.
  24. CubinNY
    Isn't that about the most stupidly hypocritcal rule ever? Hey, your coach and the Universtiy can make millions from but you better not.
  25. CubinNY
    SHOCKED I tell you. I'm just SHOCKED! :twisted: Someone needs to let Dusty & Co. know it's easier to score runs when you have guys on base. No its that darned BA w/RISP.
×
×
  • Create New...