Sammy Sofa

Did you read any of Scotti's posts?

Great job reading the rest of this page.

$30 million is always going to be a "thang". That's likely to be ~20% of the payroll. Maybe. Maybe the payroll will be higher. Or maybe they'll be developing enough players internally that they can swing investing that much in a player to get impact years from him previously in the deal. I'm thinking optimistically here; if the Cubs are still constrained by similar financial and player development restrictions 8 years from now that they face now then they've failed, period. Oh well. For most of that contract that's $30 million that likely wouldn't have been better spent.

Look, you're likely looking at between $26 million and $30 million a year, so let's not act like $30 million is some huge leap from a more reasonable annual salary. And you're always paying for past performance when you sign a big FA you haven't developed internally.

Personally I'd be fine with the Cubs offering 6-7 years at $30 million per.

Yeah, good call; I was mixing that up with Boras representing Prince.

I think $26 million is essentially the floor. Boras isn't going to settle for Pujols making the same per year or less than Howard's ridiculous contract.

The Cub plan doesn't/didn't ask for the City to give the Cubs any currently generated Chicago money. Cub FANS pay apx $16 million per season as an "entertainment tax" (way more than any other Chicago team) when they purchase their tickets. Generally, these types of taxes exist to offset the cost that a municipality pays in supporting the entertainment (this usually includes the municipality having a financial stake in the stadium but Wrigley is 100% owned by the Cubs). In addition to the $16 M that Cub fans pay, the Cubs pay millions more for extra security (police) and cleanup before, during and after games and events (again, a part of what the "entertainment tax" is SUPPOSED to be for). What the original Cub plan proposed was, in part, for the "entertainment tax" to be capped at 2009's level (the $16M) for a given period (IIRC, 15 years) and any further generated revenue (generated ONLY because of further investments in Wrigley) be used as security for a bond (the expected means of paying off said bond would actually be the 2% sales tax on hotels that also pays off the Bears and Sox bonds). Again, that is WAY fair because: A) Cub FANS pay way more in the "entertainment tax" than Bear fans, Bull fans or Sox fans (nearly double the Bears and quadruple the Sox). B) The Cubs receive BY FAR the smallest benefit from the City. C) The City claims that future Cub "entertainment tax" growth belongs to the City YET the City proposes to do NOTHING to grow it. D) Cub FANS are taxed more than the other teams by the 2% sales tax on hotels because a much higher percentage and number of Cub fans come from outside the area (and, thus, use area hotels--roughly 1/3 of the 3M Wrigley attendees are from outside of the area). E) The Cubs are hamstrung when it comes to improving income sources at Wrigley because of it's monument status (i.e can't generate 20-30 million per year via a JumboTron). The only way to get sufficient revenue increases from crumbling Wrigley is to get substantial structural improvements that allow for greater amenities. All of the above shows that the City/County/State has NO SKIN IN THE GAME! They get taxes ("entertainment tax," 2% hotel tax, 10% sales taxes on Cub fans spending $, income taxes on Cub and area employees), the team pays millions for services, etc. all to the tune of millions and millions of dollars and the City does what in return? They limit when the Cubs can play and what they can do to their own freaking stadium--the Cubs have more restrictions placed on them than any other major sports team in the U.S. Look, it isn't just the Cubs but, ultimately, Cub fans that are getting screwed. The "entertainment" and hotel taxes are paid directly by Cub fans. The millions extra for security and clean up comes from monies generated by Cub fans. To your point of a financial crisis... Neither the Cubs nor Cub fans caused the City's (or county's or state's) crisis and they shouldn't be expected to pay more than they are now to bail them out of their self-made sinking ships. The Cubs are, and will continue to be, a cash cow for the City, etc. (easily over $300 M per year in local revenues NOT including the Cubs take). If the City wants to see that increase then the City needs some skin in the game. Well said. The general idea that "the city would be paying to fix/expand Wrigley" is woefully misunderstood.

Oh THAT'S it? The proclamations I make on how rebellious and edgy my posts are? Why didn't you say so my main man bro?!!??! Don't mind them. This is just some initial hazing. Keep up the awesome jokes and you'll be part of the crew in no time. GREAT CALL, SULLEY.

The Cubs 8 years from now will ideally be able to swallow a $30 million contract like it ain't no thang.

Yessss.

Or as Earl Weaver said, Jim Thome is the type "that can sit on his ass for eight innings and enjoy watching the baseball game just like any other fan and then have the ability to get up there and break one open in the [expletive] ninth" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YKxf3OkpJc holy jesus I've never heard this omg what is i dont even Really? The Manager's Corner prank is pretty legendary.

dew just made a point that too many don't seem to get; if the Cubs are somehow "crippled" or severely limited by Pujols making $25-$30 million a year 7 years from now then the organization has severely fucked up across the board. This is a team that should be able to take a contract that size and still have plenty left to work with, ESPECIALLY when you're looking at almost a decade from now.

What the [expletive], man. Between this and the Carlton story you're trouncing everyone.

Are the home and away clubhouses the same? I thought I remembered that the Cubs clubhouse is fine and up to date, while they just left the away clubhouse crappy and with things like bad hot water systems and stuff. I might be completely off, but I thought I remembered reading that awhile ago. Nope, the home clubhouse is a piece of [expletive], too Yeah, the home clubhouse is technical better than the away dungeon, but compared to basically every other home clubhouse it's a disgrace.

Keeping Garza.

Poor some gravy on that heaping helping of irony, dammit.

The question now is whether "primo" was a sticking point pre- or post-breakdown.

Blorp thanks blorp for blorp that blorp!

A madman would indeed think something like that.

That "tss" thing is some primo crazy.

PSYCH!!!!!!!!!!

That gif times perfectly with every song I've just skimmed through in my music library.

YES.

He is a suit, and people hate suits. He's from the Tribune, and people hate the tribune. There have been Hendry supporters and Hendry bashers and throughout Cubs history opinion wavers on the baseball decision makers. But for at least as long as the tribune has been involved, people have used ownership as the primary target. Now only the real loony tunes are angry at Ricketts, so the only remaining suit to hate is Crane. Many in the media hate him for reasons that are rarely articulated. The most complete I've seen is this recent takedown from Sullivan: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-10-24/sports/ct-spt-1025-cubs-crane-kenney-chicago--20111025_1_ricketts-family-rickettses-cubs-owners An excerpt: [expletive], this is goofy.