davell

He went 2-5 today, Soler and Bryant didn't play.

Touki just committed to Vandy. He could be a tough sign, unless he goes top 10 or so.

That's placing a ton of faith in two guys who have less than 250 PAs combined above A-ball. And even if that happens, we'd need to get the pitching too. So, you think those two are going to fail? They don't have to fail for things to not work out as they seemingly have to. There's a pretty wide gulf between failing and being awesome enough to essentially carry a team/build one around, and they kinda have to be the latter at this point. Yeah, this is the scary point to make and its true. But its not like either Javy or KB would lose all their value if they came up and struggled out of the gate either. We do have a good enough system to trade out of and get whatever the major holes wind up being. I refuse to believe ALL these guys are going to come up and not produce.

No one expected us to be thisclose on Annibal or getting Jackson last year either.

Most of the posters on NSBB thought 75-80 wins was doable in 2012 and 2013 too. Yeah at a much higher payroll and many more longterm commitments. I'll take our current positioning easily over what a 130+ mill 80 win team would have looked like.

Re-quoting all of that will be too long. I'll touch on each though. We can go round and round about 2012-13, if we had kept payroll where it was, based on what happened with other teams, we wouldn't have made the playoffs, may not have finished .500 dependent on which moves were made and could have been looking at dropping payroll NOW, in order to offset the probable loss of attendance, due to the debt crap. Not to mention, we wouldn't have KB, the 4th pick next year, and likely not Edwards or PJ, among many others. No clue IF Ricketts ever plans to spend, but I'm 100% sure I like our current set up and future more than if we had went the other route and been capped at the top end of where our payroll was. The TV rights make it much closer to a necessity to be good, than it was the past few years. I'm not thinking selling off Shark kills us, nor do I see it as an immediate concession for 2014. Getting a return including any of Bradley, Skaggs, Delgado, Taillon, Kingham, Zimmer, Ventura, Duffy, plus more could all out-produce Shark in 2014, much less going forward. If I trade him and I take a half step back in 2014 off the move, but 2 steps forward in 2015, its still a win. Bottom line is selling him off, as long as it brings back ready or near ready players doesn't mean we're punting. Not to mention, we've also been linked to every single FA out there. Rumors go both ways. We obviously didn't lose money, I'm not going to think payroll is lowered again, at least not considerably(within 5 of the 106 one way or the other is where I'm thinking) The 50 mill over 5 years wasn't meant to get us players, I'm using that as money Ricketts can just pocket. The payroll can advance from the increased attendance using the money would bring in, along with the youngsters generating a bit of excitement. In the end, I think our only difference is I have confidence the upcoming TV deal, the relative closeness of our best prospects, and currently being a 70ish win, will propel a couple of major moves this offseason.

I have damn near 0 faith in Ricketts, but I am near the opposite when it comes to the FO. Ricketts is all about money, it makes complete sense to put a more exciting team on the field immediately. A 75-80 win team in 2014 is VERY doable, especially without a selloff. CSN or WGN seeing a nice increase in wins, with an extremely young nucleus in place could be forced to pay up, if they project plenty of playoff baseball inside that 2015-2019 window. Enter 2014 with our opening day payroll of 106ish and we've got 35 mill to spend. Attendance loss is canceled out by the MLB revenue gain. No matter what Arguello was saying, I see no reason our payroll should drop. Getting WGN or CSN just to pay what CSN is already paying for their half results in around 10 mill more for Ricketts per year for that 5 year period. 50 mill over 5 years for just keeping payroll static THIS year. Attendance would also move back up, meaning more money for Ricketts. I have total confidence the FO can get 5-10 wins out of 35 mill of payroll, given the construction of our team and the assets we have available to trade(that don't include Javy or KB). I'm banking on Ricketts to be capable of seeing a financial opportunity. He ain't much, but surely he's got THAT in him.

That's placing a ton of faith in two guys who have less than 250 PAs combined above A-ball. And even if that happens, we'd need to get the pitching too. So, you think those two are going to fail? And we have Wood, E-Jax, and Arrieta as a baseline for the rotation, in place. Yeah, we need 2 frontline SP to go with them, but if Shark is dealt, I'd certainly think one comes from that trade. And we definitely have the prospects to go get one more.

We're likely a 70 win team right now, heading into 2014. Yes, I can see Shark dealt, but I doubt we trade anyone else of importance. Javy and Bryant could make us slightly better than 70 as well. If we head into next year with the same payroll as we headed into 2013 with, we've got 35 mill or so to spend. I can see us around .500 in 2014(without trading away much from the farm), with 2015 being the year we try to move into 90 win territory. It even makes sense from the business end, with the need for TV ratings, to get the most money out of WGN or CSN.

Typical Cubs.....Aren't allowed to negotiate with anyone other than CSN until 2020, if they leave WGN. So much for leverage.....

Ricky Davis did the same to me. After I partially blocked his shot. He then told me to enjoy the highlight of my career. Dunked all over me. It was awesome. I wish I had it on tape. A High School teammate of mine transferred to Oak Hill Academy for his senior season. I'd go visit him and we'd wind up on the courts with Stackhouse and McInnis. I was coming down with a one handed board and Stackhouse went up, grabbed it, and if I hadn't of let go, I think he may have broken my arm off on the rim. It was a Christmas tournament that we played Mauldin(KG's team in). Shammond Williams was on the team as well and I honestly thought he sucked. As a UNC fan, when we signed him out of prep school, I couldn't believe it. Our only loss of the season(we were a 1A team) came in the finals of the tourney, against Hillcrest, who had Ray Allen. We played "Loyola" ball, press-go for steal, release type of game, they did it much, much better than we did. They were a 5A team in SC. Allen was by far the best player I played against. He was athletic as hell back then too, just unstoppable. He won a dunk contest at a ABCD camp I was at by throwing the ball off the back wall, catching and reversing off the bounce.

KG(prior to moving to Chicago) placed his nuts squarely in my face, while dunking over me, screaming his ass off. Despite us winning the game by 20+, that image is what made the front page of the sports the next day. Forgive me, SSR, if I've never said anything positive about the guy. Getting ball-faced is likely why.

"You.re a leader and you're a professional. Those two things are null and void. It's about winning. Period." Samardzija quote. OK, he's not much intellectually.

For 2015? Virtually non-existent. Yeah, I doubt it's an option until after the CSN deal runs out.

Deli counter, or greeter at the front entrance? Greeter. My wife recognized him, I had forgotten he existed.

Yep. Seriously, grew up in NWA/WCW territory and those guys were always out, drinking their asses off. I'd be shocked if there aren't a thousand Flair stories better than mine was. As a grownup, I have to travel quite a bit and see things from time to time. The funny thing though, my wife and I moved to LA a few months back and see very little of that type stuff, other than a Kardashian at a restaurant and Tony Danza at the country mart. But I'm not around too often, as of yet.

Mike Illitch is a very old dude who REALLY wants to win before he expires. I'll be beyond shocked to see Scherzer dealt. And considering he's definitely testing FA in a year, even if he IS somehow dealt, I don't see our FO giving up premium value for a year in which its unlikely we're contending. OTOH, as a FA the year after? Yeah, I see us in bigtime on him.

Since this was brought back up kinda, here's one.....A few months back, I was at a Dodger game and they have a receiving line that allows you to meet players and celebrities. Beer/food type meet up for after the game that the owners put on. Anyway, I'm there, its usually just players stopping in to shake hands, a few wealthy types and fans, with the occasional celeb stopping in-and a bunch of fans.....I'm eating, look up from my phone because I hear a voice that sounded really familiar. He turned around and it was Sam [expletive] Jackson. Took me by surprise, so I stuck out my hand, "Mr. Jackson, big fan of your work" I said. He stared at me. 10 seconds easy. I looked at my buddy uncomfortably, then back at Sam.....Still staring. Then, and you have to remember his voice-"HEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEY, IIIIIIII LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVE MYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANS." He had now begun shaking my hand, for quite an awkward length of time. Again, I looked at my buddy, who was trying not to burst out laughing. Because Sam was flat zonked out on something. Finally, a buddy of his says "Sam, time to go" and lead him to the door and likely back to wherever he'd been to get that fucked up. I looked at my buddy and probably laughed harder than at any point in my life.

Thats a nontender, re-sign to minor league deal, waiting in our mist.

Yeah, that makes sense. It's not a long term commitment by any stretch and they'd be able to make their last bit of cash off the Cubs. They could throw the Cubs that type of bone to seal off CSN.

I would definitely say we're at the mercy of how the Phils new deal turns out. There's absolutely no reason for either CSN, WGN, or any other potential interested party to set the market before its a necessity to do so. Not with the money involved. And not with the years it will take. It's potentially a gigantic mess moving forward for MLB. If streaming takes up much more of the market, which is likely, MLB could move to making a deal involving all teams without longterm deals in place and dividing money up based on market share. But that leaves the teams WITH the longterm deals with a humongous advantage over everyone else and the stupid teams(Braves) in a gigantic hole for locking in longterm at a horrible time and crippling themselves. A buddy of mine who works for Time Warner swears the Dodgers made out like bandits and its the last one thats going to be of this magnitude. He has no idea how MLB can try and level the playing field, once its apparent the market has dried up for everyone else. We're talking about a 5 year deal(maybe 6 if we're lucky) for less than half of one team's games. I don't think should be a ton of worry about us setting the market or continuing to blow up a bubble since the majority of the games aren't up for grabs for 6 years. [expletive], I misunderstood what you were asking. I thought you meant to try and get CSN to buy out the WGN years AND lock in longterm as well.

I would definitely say we're at the mercy of how the Phils new deal turns out. There's absolutely no reason for either CSN, WGN, or any other potential interested party to set the market before its a necessity to do so. Not with the money involved. And not with the years it will take. It's potentially a gigantic mess moving forward for MLB. If streaming takes up much more of the market, which is likely, MLB could move to making a deal involving all teams without longterm deals in place and dividing money up based on market share. But that leaves the teams WITH the longterm deals with a humongous advantage over everyone else and the stupid teams(Braves) in a gigantic hole for locking in longterm at a horrible time and crippling themselves. A buddy of mine who works for Time Warner swears the Dodgers made out like bandits and its the last one thats going to be of this magnitude. He has no idea how MLB can try and level the playing field, once its apparent the market has dried up for everyone else.

Not particularly. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/dodgers-send-shock-waves-through-local-tv-landscape/ We're pretty much slightly better than middle of the pack as is. Bear in mind the Dodgers new TV deal doesn't even start until this coming season, yet somehow they found a way to spend money without it. Honestly the only teams that are currently outclassing us are the Dodgers, Angels, Yankees, Mets, Orioles, and Red Sox. But #PoorTomRicketts has created a wonderful narrative that everybody has bought that we don't make enough money to support a top 20 payroll. Well, Tom IS spending the vast majority of his allowance anyway...... The Dodgers are a fans wet dream, when it comes to ownership. Lets all get pissed together..... Dodgers spent 100 mill on their stadium already and will spend 100 mill more all before Ricketts gets started on our grand plan..... Cubs payroll has dropped near 40% since Ricketts took over, Dodgers have upped theirs 150% in less than 2 years.....And have said recently they've got no issues adding a "couple more" 200 mill contracts, if they see value in the player. Ticket prices have gone up at Wrigley more than they have at Dodger Stadium. Ricketts debt load is talked about all the time as a crutch as to why we can't spend......The Dodgers debt load? ZERO. [expletive] ZERO.

Well, a lot of it goes into revenue sharing but that's more or less right. The norm on TV deals is 34% goes to MLB, the team keeps the rest. In the Dodgers case, they're pocketing around 6 billion of their deal.

I don't see how you can or should expect that given the most recent data point. His value has diminished and fairly so. What isn't certain is whether you can get enough in return to justify dealing him for what his value should be now. But you certainly shouldn't expect to get what you would've a year ago. Basically, it's just my way of saying I'm not trading Starlin right now.