imb

wonder if boras had him convinced he would make the team

the point is that "let someone else pay it" is a refrain for the poor teams. i don't want the cubs doing that crap with their good players outside of the most extreme circumstances (i.e. something like your player refuses to talk extension and insists on hitting the market, then receives an outlandish offer, and the cubs have an equal or better replacement readily available). if the cubs are popular for years and monetize their tv rights (not to mention all this other revenue generating crap they're building) the way they seem very sure they will, they shouldn't have a problem. they need to be and should be what the dodgers are now. they cant spend it in IFA, they can't spend it on the draft...it's either give it to their (and other teams') players or make ricketts some money. maybe it's time to update your financial software. It's completely likely that the idea of paying a massive contract to a 30-whatever Rizzo is not a good idea, regardless if you're tossing money around like a [expletive] sultan. what do you suggest they do with the money then? if the cubs have it to spend, you should want them to spend it to be as good as they possibly can, regardless of how much value they're getting out of it. if they can sustain a $280M payroll, you should want them to. I don't know what they should do with the money they'll theoretically have six years from now because I'm not a genie and I can't see what will happen in the next six offseasons.

the point is that "let someone else pay it" is a refrain for the poor teams. i don't want the cubs doing that crap with their good players outside of the most extreme circumstances (i.e. something like your player refuses to talk extension and insists on hitting the market, then receives an outlandish offer, and the cubs have an equal or better replacement readily available). if the cubs are popular for years and monetize their tv rights (not to mention all this other revenue generating crap they're building) the way they seem very sure they will, they shouldn't have a problem. they need to be and should be what the dodgers are now. they cant spend it in IFA, they can't spend it on the draft...it's either give it to their (and other teams') players or make ricketts some money. maybe it's time to update your financial software. It's completely likely that the idea of paying a massive contract to a 30-whatever Rizzo is not a good idea, regardless if you're tossing money around like a [expletive] sultan.

sorry david, i know your software requires it, but im not going to list every obvious, rhetorical hypothetical

Why wouldn't we just give Rizzo his $300M contract? Also Scharber will want one too by then. why would we give a post-30 Rizzo a big contract? because he's a very good player and we'll have nothing else to spend all the payroll we'll be able to sustain on lmao you seem very confident predicting 6 years into the future

Why wouldn't we just give Rizzo his $300M contract? Also Scharber will want one too by then. why would we give a post-30 Rizzo a big contract?

You guys are weird. I'm just saying that Schwarber could take over as full-time catcher in 2016 (if all breaks right) and do it for a few years, then be an option to be moved to 1B while his body still works and Rizzo wants his $300m contract.

Man I love Schwarber. I hope he can handle catcher, even if it's just for three or four years. He could work as a bridge beyond Rizzo that way.

Eat [expletive] you stupid loser

Nothing that'd make me laugh about the trade over. Oh sorry, next time I giggle about something I'll be sure to ask myself if it would meet your esteemed standards first. Didn't say you couldn't, just said I wouldn't. Autists generally don't know when to laugh though

whats the over under on baez making it to the majors again

seeing you spell lede correctly really turns me on fyi

It doesn't get better than his show

Seven years ago, Bryant was learning how to drive. By the time he's up for FA this will be a distant memory

God I know, can't swing a dead cat without hitting someone talking about Matt szczur

Both these games are horrid

^^^ something only said by people who can't grow beards

Murderer's Throw redux bat edition

watching good interesting players play good basketball in meaningless games is far more fun than watching shitty basketball players play bad basketball in meaningless games.

Not being a smart ass...just curious why you'd have the guy most likely to be the worst hitter of that group bat second. because he's the second baseman, you idiot

a lot of that is (sort of) phony. They let their models work out right before the photoshoots so they're beefier than usual

I seriously don't get it. Kentucky is undefeated and will dick slap its way through the tourney. I Probably watched about every Saturday or Sunday Kentucky game this season and they are objectively a bad basketball team. They have a guy who blocks shots and they rebound their misses. That's it. In a decade, if the ncaa doesn't make massive changes, college basketball will be an after thought.

I'm not sure why one would come into a thread about this subject and say this. I think I posted it in response to the discussion about all the fouls being called. Have you watched any of these games? They're horrific.

college basketball blows and is unwatchable. basically sports is bad.

9 years for a serial rapist? jesus christ. they must be banking on him [expletive] up his probation