Jump to content
North Side Baseball

Sammy Sofa

Old-Timey Member
  • Posts

    98,030
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    206

 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 Sammy Sofa

  1. Why would a playoff game cost significantly more? Because it would be. Extreme example: do you think it costs significantly more to host the Super Bowl than a regular season NFL game?
  2. You estimated that the Cardinals' net profit from the playoffs was $14 million. We're operating under the estimate of $24 million for gate revenues, and I posted why $12 million is a good estimate for non-gate revenues. That takes us from $36 to $14. In order to believe that non-gate revenues are cancelled out by operating expenses, you'd have to believe that it a major-league game carries with it a seven-figure operating cost. There's just no way you can justify that. I thought that $24 million was for all revenues. My mistake.
  3. I'm confused; I wasn't arguing $36 million down to $14 million. I was arguing $24 million down to $14-$15 million. My argument is that I'm guessing that hosting a playoff game would cost around $1-1.5 million. I think that's different (obviously) than what it costs to host a regular season game.
  4. No idea. I'm assuming a lot, especially a WS game. I'm spitballing the supply costs, maintenance, groundskeeping, security and God knows what else. I have little doubt a ton of cost goes in to hosting each of these games and making sure they run smoothly.
  5. Yes, because paying the park employees is the primary cost of hosting a baseball game.
  6. That doesn't make $24 million the floor. Those revenues ultimately being anything above $1 after all is said and done would technically count as the revenues exceeding the expenses. The costs being, say, $10 million dollars would still mean that they receive around $14 million in revenue, so your floor declaration is meaningless. Do you even bother reading? START with $24M ADJUST from 2008 to 2011 dollars ADD for concessions etc. SUBTRACT for ushers etc. ASSUME concessions > ushers Do the math: how can $24M *not* be the floor??? Please, give us something more than "well I would say it's no more than $14M". Show us your work. Used the same "formula" you just used. I don't think the concessions exceed the overall costs of putting on these games. I think the concessions help offset the cost to keep them profitable, but I don't think they get them back to or over the $24 million mark. $14 million is a shot in the dark, but I highly doubt they're still taking in at least $20 million when all is said and done, and you have have just as much as non-evidence as I do. I can't find concession figures for anyone to help answer this, so we'll just have to have differing opinions.
  7. I'm sure the argument could be made that this is due in no small part to those types of decisions, but look at the Rays' offense this year and last. They're right around league average when it comes to OPS. They're not a team that can just slug their way to victory.
  8. Man, Castro for Felix straight up? That's a tough one. I really don't know. I guess I'd lean towards Castro because of him being younger and cheaper longer.
  9. That doesn't make $24 million the floor. Those revenues ultimately being anything above $1 after all is said and done would technically count as the revenues exceeding the expenses. The costs being, say, $10 million dollars would still mean that they receive around $14 million in revenue, so your floor declaration is meaningless.
  10. Man, if we're talking ad revenues, I want the whole outfield fence lined with signs and crap.
  11. The timing comment is more in regards to the Cubs simply not having the right "sexy" prospects to make them any kind of favorites in a deal like this (unless the Mariners are more about quantity over quality or would rather pick up a bunch of really young high ceiling guys) as opposed to the Cubs needing to hang on to what they have.
  12. I'd think still making $15 million IS balancing out the operating expenses. That too. It was a silly idea to begin with.
  13. Eh, you should be able to retain enough future bullpen arms and role players that you wouldn't overly burden the free agent demand. Jackson, McNutt, Vitters, Barney and Cashner still leaves you with internal options to handle 2B/3B in the short-term (Flaherty/Baker/LaMahieu/DeWitt), an OF of Byrd/Soriano/Colvin/Campana and somebody. Plus your catcher depth. Then you would have a actual ace and stud #2 in Garza. Completely overhauling what your rotation looks like. If you were to acquire him and sign Pujols you are looking at a potentially fantastic 2012 season with more money coming off the books to address 2013 needs. Eh, I obviously wouldn't have a problem with the Cubs making that deal, but personally I don't think that gets it done.
  14. Even subtracting the subtraction of the players' pool from that total likely doesn't leave an impressive total that's going to be a Pujols-swaying signing bonus. Just spitballing the costs of hosting these games and I think it would be optimistic to say that they'd have $14-15 million left to throw at him.
  15. But what is this system? A bunch of mediocre ceilings at the top and quantity over quality. I would be more than happy to let them take just about anything they want, and lots of it, then let Theo's boys bring in fresh meat next June. Enough project to be useful everyday starters that I'd be reluctant to just ship nearly everyone off. Those are the type of players that the Cubs do need to be producing instead of having to go out and sign too many of, and emptying out the farm system right now, unappealing as it may be ranked to you, would essentially seeing the Cubs to building their teams for the next several years almost totally via FA. The time just isn't right, unfortunately, since the Cubs aren't producing enough players that make an impact on their own team or can make them major suitors in a deal like this.
  16. Yeah, I'd love to have him, but I'd have to imagine it would essentially gut the system.
  17. He hasn't been with the team in months since his wife has a serious brain tumor(as if there's any other kind). I'd have to say it's a longshot he returns to St. Louis. I thought the talk for a while was that Duncan was only going to keep coaching so long as he was working with TLR.
  18. Wait, don't the player bonuses eat into that take? There's absolutely no way they have an extra $24 million from the playoffs to throw at Pujols. There's likely less than $10 million that could go towards a signing after the player's pool and other expenses.
  19. dave, how much money would you guess they have available from the WS win? And please, don't give us some "nobody knows" crap as if that justifies making ridiculous suggestions along the lines of Pujols being more likely to sign the smaller deals reportedly offered by the Cardinals because of a signing bonus based out of WS money. I really want to know what you think they have at their disposal to offer along these lines. Let's use the reported 9 years/$195 million deal. How much would you guess the WS would allow them to add upfront to that deal?
  20. Signing Fielder or Pujols doesn't mean they're hinging their bets on being real contenders again immediately. Passing on both because 2012 is a long shot to be much better than around .500 at best is stupid.
  21. Pretty much. This is goofy, even for davearm2.
×
×
  • Create New...