Geech
-
Posts
2,018 -
Joined
-
Last visited
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 Geech
-
Quick, find the rooftops who didn't sell to Ricketts. Hint, look beyond every single sign Which rooftops in this photo did sell to Ricketts?
-
We'll see, but I think you have way more faith in a lawyer trying to use anti-trust arguments against the Cubs remodeling their stadium than I do. Taping phone calls isn't a common business practice, especially with a smaller business. Not saying it couldn't happen, but I don't think it's probable.
-
I'm not really worried about that unless they have documentation, like recordings of these phone calls. People's memories of conversations are so heavily colored by their perceptions of the context, that I don't think the rooftop owners are capable of coming all that close to a literal transcription of his words, and I think that's going to be pretty clear. I have to believe that starkly varying recollections of conversations are extremely common in lawsuits. Chief Rash: "He said ovaries?" Jeff Dearly: "Oh yeah, all the time."
-
No, not primarily. Having money now is simply more valuable than having the same amount of money in the future, even absent any inflation. If you have the money now, that means you have the ability to use it now. Being able to use money is better than being unable to use money. Hence, even without inflation, people would have to pay interest on borrowed money. But what about the $15m/year you can't use for the 7 years following the end of the contract? What's the negative impact of that? It's the same amount of money either way. The only difference is that you get to use some of the money for a longer period of time.
-
No, not primarily. Having money now is simply more valuable than having the same amount of money in the future, even absent any inflation. If you have the money now, that means you have the ability to use it now. Being able to use money is better than being unable to use money. Hence, even without inflation, people would have to pay interest on borrowed money.
-
He's not. The point that both of them are circling around is that it's better to have money now than the same amount of money in the future. If you pay a player x over 14 years instead of x over 7 years, you're paying the same amount of money in both cases, but you have the advantage of using it longer in the 14 year situation. Is that clear enough? If not, then I'll gladly pay you $1001 dollar in 10 years for $1000 today. That's a whole dollar of pure profit, so you should jump all over it.
-
You can't believe they are getting grief for this? Yeah, when has something like this happened elsewhere? I can think of teams having parts of their stadiums closed down for work during a season, but weren't those announced as such? The Cubs have been talking all along like the construction wouldn't impact things during the season. The Athletics used to routinely tarp over huge sections of their seating - and still might for all I know - but it's the Athletics so nobody attends those games anyway.
-
Almost certainly not. I hope I'm wrong, though.
-
Hahahah holy [expletive] you are seriously the worst. What a miserable piece of garbage you are. The post pretty much reads like a parody of himself.
-
Look on the bright side you guys: he might die in some kind of tragic accident before he actually gets the chance to sign the contract.
-
Next season is going to be very exciting.
-
Maybe Lester's taking the time to notify all of his second cousins about the decision before he drops this bomb on the media. Some of us love our families, dude.
-
The Winter Meetings Thread
Geech replied to David's topic in MLB Draft, International Signings, Amateur Baseball
I agree. I think this looks like a big upgrade if you consider that you'll be replacing some crappy, backup catcher. -
This one is great. I would vote for this one if it was an option.
-
Indeed. It's almost as if the father-in-law is not closely involved in the negotiations. Of course, that's apparently crazy talk.
-
Less likely that the FIL passing on information we already know, or less likely than the FIL yanking his buddy's chain, or less likely than any number of possibilities I haven't thought of. Of course Lester's father-in-law is interested in what contract he'll sign, and of course he would like to know. It simply doesn't seem likely to me that the guy has an real inside info that he would then pass along. The negotiations are taking place without the FILs direct knowledge or input, and despite being related to the Lesters, it's not clearly obvious to me that he's any closer to the process than a well-connected reporter would be. What did the text say? Lester could be a Cub? Say whaaaaaaa-
-
yeah, his daughter probably hates his guts anyway Do you actually think it's more likely that Lester's father in law just texted a scoop to some random guy?
-
You wouldn't be interested in news relating to what city your daughter and grand kids are going to be living in half the year? I think he's simply not in a position to have detailed information on the negotiations. I think he's not interested in pestering his son in law every hour or so for some hot stove scoops.
-
I think you guys both missed the point. I don't believe that Lester's father-in-law is ignorant of his son's profession, but I don't think there's any particular reason to believe that he has some up to the second inside scoop on Lester's negotiations either.
-
Without knowing much about Lester's father-in-law, that seems much more likely than the guy having some kind of direct line to the negotiations. I'm not even sure my father in law could reliably tell you what I do for a living.
-
Went did Brett say it was a great move? I didn't see that in the article. I couldn't find any assessment he made of the move overall, aside from just discussing the implications. Do you think "surprising" means the same thing as great? He did call it surprising. As for La Stella being a more valuable asset, I think that's pretty obviously true. Why did the slots go with Vizcaino and not the other way around if it wasn't?
-
It's not devil's advocacy, by the way, I was genuinely curious to see the answers.
-
Derwood did. It was the line you deleted of the post you were responding to. Why is he considered the best? One of the major themes of Moneyball was the idea that the things "everyone knows" to be true aren't always actually true. I'm just wondering how we can conclude that Maddon is worth getting excited about.
-
You first sentence is pretty much my point of view, and I'm just wondering why I should change that for Maddon. I don't actually care about the spanish thing, except that it's a tangible qualification for Renteria, which is one more than I'm aware Maddon possesses.
-
Well, sure, since this was Renteria's first year as a manager and Dusty has, what, 19, 20 years under his belt? Nobody is going to make that comparison because it doesn't make any sense. Why does the comparison makes sense against Maddon, then? That's what I was responding to.