ConstableRabbit

It's not directly comparable, but you have to think in line items and ratios and decide how their revenues and expenses would relate to ours. I mean, of course the Cubs bring in more revenue than the 2009 Marlins, ffs. We have discussed the Forbes estimate of ~$450m in 2018 revenue which is about 3.3x the $135m the 2009 Marlins brought in. With that said, the Cubs expenses are a hell of a lot larger, too. For example: Florida's baseball payroll was 5x smaller. Their FO staff was probably far smaller and worse paid than the 2018 Cubs FO. To your point, they were running a dirt cheap operation: they probably didn't invest much in their ballpark, marketing/promotions, or non-FO operations staff. And we know that over the past 5 years, The Cubs have an (almost) renovated stadium, a new spring training facility, a new dominican facility, etc. It's unclear whether these projects were financed over time to lessen the cost impact in a single year, but that would be the fiscally prudent thing to do. I am hopeful that the development in the neighborhood brings a ton of revenue that the ownership puts back into the team. I also don't know the mechanics of how it was financed or the breakeven analysis that was done for any of those projects. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that the hotel is not printing much more money than its burned to date given the upfront costs. It's also not unreasonable to not give a flying horsefeathers how a family of billionaires and millionaires can't turn a profit at the moment on their dumb ballpark hotel. This is the distinction I was mentioning earlier. Even if the Cubs were losing money as an entity, you'd want the owners to spend more because they have a lot. I get that! But that's not the discussion we were having and not what Ricketts was talking about.

It's not directly comparable, but you have to think in line items and ratios and decide how their revenues and expenses would relate to ours. I mean, of course the Cubs bring in more revenue than the 2009 Marlins, ffs. We have discussed the Forbes estimate of ~$450m in 2018 revenue which is about 3.3x the $135m the 2009 Marlins brought in. With that said, the Cubs expenses are a hell of a lot larger, too. For example: Florida's baseball payroll was 5x smaller. Their FO staff was probably far smaller and worse paid than the 2018 Cubs FO. To your point, they were running a dirt cheap operation: they probably didn't invest much in their ballpark, marketing/promotions, or non-FO operations staff. And we know that over the past 5 years, The Cubs have an (almost) renovated stadium, a new spring training facility, a new dominican facility, etc. It's unclear whether these projects were financed over time to lessen the cost impact in a single year, but that would be the fiscally prudent thing to do. I am hopeful that the development in the neighborhood brings a ton of revenue that the ownership puts back into the team. I also don't know the mechanics of how it was financed or the breakeven analysis that was done for any of those projects. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that the hotel is not printing much more money than its burned to date given the upfront costs.

I mean... it likely is. The Loria-era Marlins -- one of the stingiest organizations in pro sports -- had their financials leaked several years ago and they were actually cash flow negative for many seasons. Of note, ticket revenues were ~$22m on 1.5m attendance and baseball team payroll was ~$45m (lol). Even if you were to triple attendance, it doesn't get to an enormous team payroll on its own. You're talking about the Marlins, that can't get people in the door for $5 and don't get 10,000 people to watch on TV. This isn't the Cubs. As for your other point, Guggenheim did buy the Dodgers and paid a lot. Sure, but we don't have the data for the Cubs so need to make assumptions. Counterpoint is that the Cubs also have far higher team payroll, non-team payroll, stadium/renovation/capex, and tax expenses than the Marlins did in 2009 or whenever it was. And yes, Guggenheim did buy the team -- and they then got an enormous $8bn+ TV contract that likely makes them profitable.

I mean... it likely is. The Loria-era Marlins -- one of the stingiest organizations in pro sports -- had their financials leaked several years ago and they were actually cash flow negative for many seasons. Of note, ticket revenues were ~$22m on 1.5m attendance and baseball team payroll was ~$45m (lol). Even if you were to triple attendance, it doesn't get to an enormous team payroll on its own. Franchise ownership is a vanity play. If it was so easy to be profitable, we'd see far more profit-above-all institutions (hedge funds, PE firms) buying in vs. prideful billionaires. Even if you don't believe that it's hard to make money owning a team, it makes sense that ownership is building up around the park to bring in additional revenues. However, those investments take a large amount of upfront cost, and in the case of the hotel, likely licensing fees to Starwood/Marriott to run the property. It wouldn't be surprising if they've yet to yield any substantial profit. The Marlins docs also mention debts -- it wouldn't be shocking if, in addition to debt payments, the creditors imposed spending caps as contingencies (i.e., "you must use this loan for X only"). In short, there should probably be a distinction between: 1. "ownership isn't investing all of the organization's profits back into payroll" 2. "ownership isn't investing all of the organization's profits back into the organization" 3. "ownership isn't putting more money from outside the organization into payroll" 2 and 3 can both be correct.

[tweet] [/tweet] i knew my moronic ass would turn as soon as i saw one video of KB swinging a bat and here we are nl central favorites baby Yes... let the hate flow through you!

Yeah, that whole description of relationships sounds EXACTLY like this autistic friend I have whom I cam across from online poker. He sees and treats all relationships and friendships as cost-benefit transactions. Conversely, my son is on the spectrum, and is the most affectionate, cuddly person you'll meet. In Elementary school we had to talk to him about appropriate affectionate displays, because he didn't get that his bus driver or classmates might not be cool with very big hugs. He's 14 now, and has learned to reign in that impulse. The idea that being on the Autism spectrum makes someone an emotionless automaton, or somehow explains Trevor Bauer's horsefeathers gets a big thumbs down from me. He could just be a huge douchebag. Or he could be on the spectrum, but I'm not going to make that diagnosis from a couple articles. No one is making a diagnosis based on a couple of articles. No one is making a diagnosis, period. No one is saying that being on the spectrum dooms anyone into being a bad person. In my non-medical opinion, the way Bauer speaks, carries himself, etc. is reminiscent of someone on the autism spectrum.

He's pretty clearly on the spectrum, imo.

Ad revenue to Sinclair is likely far greater than any monthly licensing fees they'd pick up from an a la carte model, especially since some of those fees would go to distributors like Comcast anyway. By pushing to get onto basic cable, they're assured of a much larger audience and can therefore get higher prices for ad slots.

After his horrible April, in which he played hurt with a bad back and went on the DL/sat out. He hit .303/.393/.512 with a 139 wRC+, .380 wOBA, 24 Dongs, 11% BB and K rates with a sustainable .300 BABIP from May 1 through years end. He was pretty much his same self after a bad and injured month. Overall offensive value keeps slipping year after year; slumps keep getting longer. It's great he has those surges to bounce back somewhat, but he's not that far off from just being a dude, unfortunately; that insane August OPS was sustained by a .333 BAbip, and he's not that kinda guy. I'm thinking about a 3-3.3 WAR next year is his likely best case scenario. Not all BABIP is luck. He hit the ball hard, limited soft contact, and hit line drives in August. That's going to result in more hits when the ball stays in the yard.

This photo is hilarious when you realize he's using the rear facing camera.

Between April and September, there will be fewer posts about on-the-field performance, analysis, and potential transactions than there are about off-the-field player issues management, and player compensation.

It was just their first games, so some of the play in the AAF was sloppy given that they hadn't been practicing that long, but the quality of play of the AAF will certainly be better than the NCAA. According to the NCAA's website, only 1.6% of college football players make it to the NFL. Let's say that the guys who make AAF rosters are the next percentile down, then that basically means that the guys on AAF rosters are still better than 97% of college football players. Watching the games, the players are playing at NFL speed and have NFL size. It was obvious from the 3 games that I watched that the physicality of the product is much, much closer to the NFL than to your average college game. As I said earlier, I think the league could legitimately be a viable league save for the attendance problem. Who knows, maybe the teams really catch on in those markets and people actually go to the games, but I doubt it. It's 7% of FBS and 11% of Power 5, so a bit less extreme depending on who we're comparing it to. I think physicality comes from skill, but is also largely related to the fact that everyone(?) at least 22.

To reiterate, this is where I am. It's the perfect compromise.

I wish they'd tie the DH to the starting pitcher. Would be so much more fun.

Are you guys going to be like this all season or nah

You guys spend an insane amount of time talking about the Cubs for people who aren't excited about the Cubs.

Why would that make you start watching more games?

Maybe they're grooming him to try to run for governor in Illinois. He's now the finance chair for the Republican National Committee. And Illinois apparently loves its billionaire governors... Woof Is Todd himself even a billionaire? I know Joe is, but let's be honest, they probably put the dumbest son lowest on inheritance and told him they'd fund his government runs if he didn't touch the big boy businesses. Worked for the Pritzkers.

He’s not good anymore but calling Tazawa “no-name” is making a strong case for bringing back the Sofa-doesn’t-pay-attention-to-any-other-teams meme.

Why would it be over?

That’s basically how Dierkes (spelling?) Got MLB Trade Rumors going I believe. He threw a bunch of horsefeathers out and got a thing or two right that drove traffic then just turned in to an aggregator. This would’ve been early to mid 2000’s. Chris Cotilo also got a job based on twitter. Not sure whether he had actual sources though.

People talk about baseball here?

you sound like somebody that gets really pissy when chicago is misidentified Please, tell us more about the homogeneity of Chicago’s non-downtown neighborhoods and border suburban communities, guy who lived here for two summers 15 years ago.

What vast areas of Chicago proper would you characterize as spread out houses? I'd argue direct north of downtown is hardly like that until you get to Evanston (sans Ravenswood), same largely goes for the west side until Oak Park. The south side certainly would have more spread out houses, think Hyde Park and Brideport, but otherwise I'm having a hard time where you would be thinking....northwest? Generally speaking, stuff like the Irving Park and Bucktown areas. I only lived in the city for a few summers, and was in an apartment, as were most of my friends that stayed there post-college. But when I go back now and see friends/family, almost all of them actually in Chicago live in individual structure homes, separated from the house next door. On the urban - suburban - rural scale, these places are indistinguishable from many technically suburban places I have been. The suburb I grew up in was very much a suburb and not chicago. I couldn't get away with saying I grew up in Chicago. And on that note, I also no longer say I'm from the Chicago area, as I've officially lived more than half my life in NJ and have succumbed to answering the, "where are you from" question with a simple, "New Jersey". Irving Park and Bucktown are completely different from one another, and Bucktown is not like living in the burbs. Old Irving Park is an example of a neighborhood similar to a border suburb. There’s a lot between the “densist parts of downtown” and Sauganash.

Hoopeston is literally closer to Indianapolis than Chicago.