jersey cubs fan

he's got like 10 posts this week in the GOT thread. We're over it.

never trust a Pittsburgh affiliated blogger

A star "talent" branching out on his own with the risk of less income over the near-term, but for greater opportunity in the long-term (financial and freedom from the bosses above) is a pretty common occurrence. Not sure what would be crazy about it. Grantland was supposed to be his "branching out." They basically said "Hey Bill, Page 2's traffic is literally all being driven in by you how about we fund and let you run an entire site based on the premise." He seems to have been given quite a bit of freedom on Grantland, whether he will admit it or not. He's not getting into a situation where he's making more money by leaving ESPN/Grantland when his contract is up, the only thing he will get is a little more freedom. Which I understand valuing that but he seems to have plenty other than being able to swear on his podcasts and threaten ESPN. It was a theoretical branching out that is really just him running a small department under the ESPN/Disney umbrella. Which he's getting paid more to do than he would be making if he started his own site without ESPN/Disney's funding and ability to drive in traffic. That's my point, he's not going to be able to make as much money by starting billsimmons.com. And again, that ignores the point that pretty much every "star" that left one big corporation to start their own business goes through that same exact issue. In the short-term they take a hit, but it helps that they have already earned a lot of money and presumably have a sweet nest egg and very little nut. And in the end they leave for freedom from their corporate overlords and the opportunity to potentially become overlords themselves.

A star "talent" branching out on his own with the risk of less income over the near-term, but for greater opportunity in the long-term (financial and freedom from the bosses above) is a pretty common occurrence. Not sure what would be crazy about it. Grantland was supposed to be his "branching out." They basically said "Hey Bill, Page 2's traffic is literally all being driven in by you how about we fund and let you run an entire site based on the premise." He seems to have been given quite a bit of freedom on Grantland, whether he will admit it or not. He's not getting into a situation where he's making more money by leaving ESPN/Grantland when his contract is up, the only thing he will get is a little more freedom. Which I understand valuing that but he seems to have plenty other than being able to swear on his podcasts and threaten ESPN. It was a theoretical branching out that is really just him running a small department under the ESPN/Disney umbrella.

A star "talent" branching out on his own with the risk of less income over the near-term, but for greater opportunity in the long-term (financial and freedom from the bosses above) is a pretty common occurrence. Not sure what would be crazy about it.

Yeah, it may be perspective but it seems to me almost anybody can come over from Cuba and get a ton of money since they are the only unregulated group. What do you mean unregulated? They still have to fit the cutoffs to be exempt from the IFA rules. Players from Cuba are essentially the only players that do fit those cutoffs. You aren't getting 26 year old Dominicans randomly popping up on the multi million dollar radar.

Yeah, it may be persception but it seems to me almost anybody can come over from Cuba and get a ton of money since they are the only unregulated group.

Cheap way to keep the asbestos under control.

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--aKXUHEkX--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/bubphwdooh4pr4zdb2fa.gif

If you consider the bullpen to be player facilities, then yes, they are adding them under the bleachers.

he was there when that was going on.

Robot David was never able to understand the human act of love making.

I can read fine, I'm busy, so when I type on the iphone I don't worry about spelling that much. I'll match my accomplishments with yours any day. You've been typing on the iphone for 10 years? he used to have one of those hokey internet enabled flip phones back in the day.

To go alongside this, Cutler's projected 16 game totals based on his play this year 416/611 68.1% 4,469 yards 7.32 YPA 35 TD 16 INT 97.4 rating tipping point

Using something as broad as just playoff appearances allows you to do just that. Playoff success is impossible for a GM to control (unless we want to bury Billy Beane). Regular-season win totals are tricky because it flies in the face of the "60 wins are no worse than 75" philosophy of rebuilding. So I guess what you're saying is there's just nothing we can do to improve the evaluation process and it's just the Wild West of focusing on whatever we like about guys. Maybe we really can't do any better than that? That's it Kyle, everybody is above average. Nothing matters. Just sit back and drink your slurpee.

So again I ask: Why does inheriting Bonds wipe out Sabean's accomplishments, but inheriting a 93-win team with Manny Ramirez and Pedro Martinez doesn't do the same for Epstein? I'm not wiping it out. I'm putting it into a perspective you are incapable or unwilling of viewing. Sabean also wasn't competing with the Yankees every year back then either.

I'm a big fan of using playoff appearances as a percentage of seasons in charge. I'm willing to accept some context, but you have to be really careful not to just use it as an excuse to get to conclusions you want to get to. And I think that there's a lot of successful GMs out there that are all more or less fungible in terms of quality. Stupid question: Before Friedman, is there any good examples of a small-market genius taking on larger resources? Beane famously turned down Boston. The difference in resources has expanded so much in recent years it's almost impossible to make the comparisons.

I think that's the answer too. And I'm uncomfortable with that answer. And so should the saber-savvy community of fans. That's not how we're supposed to think. We just feel like one guy is better because we like what he has to say, regardless of results? No you buffoon. Sabean has hardly had amazing results despite a rising payroll. 4 of the 7 playoff appearances on his resume were Bonds related and the rest was very Hendryian, which is not impressive.

You're asking stupid questions in pursuit of a non-existent thing. There is no one coherent set of standards of judge all GMs by and you know this fact. I'm not talking about giving Epstein a pass. I am pissed about what he has done with the Cubs. But pretending that what Brian Sabean "did" with Bonds in 1997 is at all comparable to what Epstein did with the Cubs in 2012 is foolish.

Ok. Are we judging on that? Because that knocks out Beane and puts in Sabean. What I am looking for is a coherent set of standards that create a top tier (Beane, Friedman, Epstein?) that clearly differentiates them from Sabean, mozeliak, cashman, Jocketty, duquette, etc. You are looking for a reason to keep saying stupid stuff. I don't see the point in judging Theo's purposefully losing seasons the same as anything Cashman has been involved with. Sabean's payroll has gone up sharply the past several years but he hasn't been making it every season. There is plenty to be critical of but you're like the boy who cried wolf here.

Are you really asking what is so impressive about Beane taking that team to the playoffs with no payroll so often? San Francisco has been in the playoffs three times in 11 years and the payroll has risen significantly during that time. He inherited the greatest baseball player in history before that to pad his early numbers. You can make a point about this without being so freaking stupid.

That's a theory, I guess. But it doesn't make much sense.

Hokey? Those things were amazing.

he got a nugget from the Theo telling the world he would be an everyday catcher next year? strong nugget acquisition fella

That is an awful statement.