Sammy Sofa

Any attempts to counter a rawdog rant goes something like this: http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view4/2219994/macgruber-o.gif

When I was at a game last year and noticed them I looked it up on my phone before everything started. I'm a real blast at parties.

http://likegif.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/yes-gif-10.gif

I have my moments. For some reason minor league baseball talk puts me in a fugue state.

That is incorrect. Comcast Sports Net Chicago is not one of the networks dropping huge money on TV deals; they're essentially a step or two up above WGN. Lets say the margins on this broadcasting business are 20% (i dont know this im just using a figure) than the true value is 540k a game not 450k because they making money on both sides of the transaction. Add in whatever is made on bulls games the hawks games and the sox games and you have large ancillary revenue streams that are not generally available to sports teams. The Cards are not making money off Blues games. Is the comcast money segregated from the baseball business? We dont know. We dont know how the team finances are actually run. We dont know if the Fox money will be put on the field either. We also dont know if in the next CBA these issues, with now even larger disparities in the resources of all the teams, are not going to be addressed. You're all over the place here. The main thing you're missing is that the Ricketts' stake in CSN Chicago is a Ricketts FAMILY investment; it's separate from the Cubs investment that's spearheaded by Tom and Laura. It's a complete falsehood to say that the Cardinals aren't getting money from the Blues as if the Cubs are getting money from the Blackhawks; they're not. Look at it this way: y'know those bison burgers you can now get at Wrigley? Those are provided by High Plains Bison, which Joe Ricketts founded. Do you expect all of the High Plains Bison money to go towards the Cubs? Of course not. The proposed Fox deal would be a deal specifically based around and off of the Cubs themselves, hence the excitement and expectation that such a deal would lead to a lot more money available to the team. You're wrong. Most people here, me included, would agree with you that the Ricketts have likely chosen to not spend money they have available so far. Where you're way off is in assuming that that money is comparable to what the team would make off of a massive new TV deal. And they have a bunch of expenses they're either dealing with or prepping for coupled with the reported debt structure they took on with their purchase of the team. A huge TV deal with Fox would go a long way to hurdling past that.

That is incorrect. Comcast Sports Net Chicago is not one of the networks dropping huge money on TV deals; they're essentially a step or two up above WGN.

Im sure they are not. But im also sure they are very substantial sums. More than enough, when combined with all the other sums, to sign not only one but many tanakas. How do you figure that? Please show your math.

I will bet you my life that the money the Cubs make off of Comcast don't sniff the rumored numbers with Fox. I'm sorry, but this is your worst rant yet, and you're the guy complaining about customer surveys.

Do you not realize the difference between the rumored Fox numbers and the Comcast numbers?

Uhhhhhh.

What is exciting about the team making a [expletive]-ton more money? Really?

I will end my afternoon by also adding that none of this matters. Because in the end, we aren't getting him any way. I still believe that. With what you think mattering the very least of all. You two are terrible nihilists.

Spending more overall than what? I believe you are saying that if we sign Tanaka it's a sign that we are spending more money. But only in the context of this offseason rather than every one before that. If we sign Tanaka, to me it's not an indication ownership is prepared to spend a bunch more. It just seems they are prepared to spend the same amount on payroll and not add to it. Thus, we are in the same spot as always in our quest to be run like the Dodgers. I do fear I'm sounding like an idiot here and missing your total point. Wait...what? Why would they be trying to sign Tanaka for that much if they're just going to keep a low payroll? Because even they know it looks really, really bad to have the fourth-lowest payroll in MLB when you're the Chicago Cubs. So, you think signing Tanaka for $25 per and having the same type of payroll this season means we are about to up payroll by $25 or $50 million next season? If you do, cool. I hope you're right. Yes, that should be the obvious conclusion as opposed to assuming that the Cubs are going to perpetually just sit at a level where about 20% of their payroll is sunk on one player.

Spending more overall than what? I believe you are saying that if we sign Tanaka it's a sign that we are spending more money. But only in the context of this offseason rather than every one before that. If we sign Tanaka, to me it's not an indication ownership is prepared to spend a bunch more. It just seems they are prepared to spend the same amount on payroll and not add to it. Thus, we are in the same spot as always in our quest to be run like the Dodgers. I do fear I'm sounding like an idiot here and missing your total point. Wait...what? Why would they be trying to sign Tanaka for that much if they're just going to keep a low payroll?

Spending more overall than what?

Or maybe we combined it with other moves, made the playoffs in 2012 season with his 3.7 wins at first, and as a result have $60m more in ticket sales and Tanaka actually thinks we're a desirable destination. So, you want to be run like the present day Dodgers? Me, too. Because we'd have needed a lot more than just Pujols, and those others moves would have been expensive. I'm all for that. But until I see we spend money like that, it's an issue. But signing Tanaka...would be...spending money...like....that *Head explodes* And still not having a huge payroll. Can we do it again after doing it with Tanaka? And again? Again? Again? That's when we are the Dodgers. I hope we can. You won't start spending more/having a bigger payroll until you start signing guys like Tanaka. You've created this weird catch-22 where they should avoid signing him because they haven't signed guys like him recently; wouldn't signing him be a sign they're spending more?

Or maybe we combined it with other moves, made the playoffs in 2012 season with his 3.7 wins at first, and as a result have $60m more in ticket sales and Tanaka actually thinks we're a desirable destination. So, you want to be run like the present day Dodgers? Me, too. Because we'd have needed a lot more than just Pujols, and those others moves would have been expensive. I'm all for that. But until I see we spend money like that, it's an issue. But signing Tanaka...would be...spending money...like....that *Head explodes*

If you can get Garza on a cheap, short deal then I'd think he's an option in addition to Tanaka, not an either/or situation.

Actually, this board has been pretty clearly divided over the Cubs' spending for a long time. And simply comparing one big contract to another is pretty faulty. Hell, just given the difference in age alone makes this troublesome. But had most gotten what they wanted and insisted the "Cubs must spend whatever to get Pujols" we wouldn't be in a position to get anybody right now. I believe Tanaka is a guy to go all out for, but it just seems nobody cares what it takes to get him. And, I know I do keep saying "Most people." That's unfair. It just feels like it to me. "Most" is way off, and I say that as one of the people that wanted Pujols.

Those were just off the top. You're also now changing the rules on me. You said "Not at all." Poor wording on my part if you took that to mean there were never any guys who came over without success. But you can look more thoroughly, there aren't any recent busts, especially in the vein of Tanaka, a very successful pitcher approaching his prime years. I agree with all of that. It's still only a handful of guys, though. We have no idea if the next two or three won't bust. I want Tanaka very badly and am willing to overpay, but unlike some, I do think there should be limits. At some point it makes a lot more sense to go get Matt Garza again instead. Why would at some point would it make more sense to get the 30-year-old, injury-plagued Matt Garza for the team trying to rebuild that desperately needs starting pitchers both now and down the line?

Actually, this board has been pretty clearly divided over the Cubs' spending for a long time. And simply comparing one big contract to another is pretty faulty. Hell, just given the difference in age alone makes this troublesome.

Injuries are part of my concern, sure. No matter the reason, the BoSox lost their ass on Matsuzaka. A total of 2 quality seasons for more than $102M spent. It wouldn't worry me as much if I thought the Cubs would throw money at the problem if it didn't work out the way they hoped. But if he's a bust, I have the feeling the Cubs would allow it to hamper future negotiations. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's my fear. And just for the record, I'd love for Tanaka to be a Cub no matter the cost. I'm just worried about what happens to the team as a whole and the approach going forward if Tanaka where to bomb. It's just an inherent risk when you sign a big FA, especially a pitcher. The Cubs are in the position where they need to spend to acquire someone like him. He's young, they desperately need starting pitching, they have money to spend, there's this rumored TV deal..it's all good.

I would agree that a pitcher worries me less, but not that it doesn't bother me at all. Daisuke Matsuzaka was suppose to be a superstar and was underwhelming. There's no way his return value for the Red Sox was anywhere close to the $51M post and $51M the Red Sox have paid in salary since he joined MLB. Is it that far fetched that Tanaka could possibly end the same way. I'm not saying he will, just that the risk is there. Matsuzaka was sidelined by injuries. If that's your concern, fine, but to say he was "underwhelming" like he was a bust in terms of performance isn't accurate; he kicked ass his first two years and then got hurt.

On second glance, it appears it was just tim [expletive] his pants lmao. I say give Tanaka the money, but man, Felix's deal was pretty SEISMIC (/david) when it happened, and it's like one offseason later and more than that is being attached to a guy some scouts are like "yeah he's a good mid-rotation guy." Eh, they kinda have to do it at this point, unfortunately.

I hope they pay him even MORE than what's being reported.