Derwood
-
Posts
87,652 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
80
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 Derwood
-
He's not. The point that both of them are circling around is that it's better to have money now than the same amount of money in the future. If you pay a player x over 14 years instead of x over 7 years, you're paying the same amount of money in both cases, but you have the advantage of using it longer in the 14 year situation. Is that clear enough? If not, then I'll gladly pay you $1001 dollar in 10 years for $1000 today. That's a whole dollar of pure profit, so you should jump all over it. So it's an argument of inflation devaluing the dollar? Fair enough -
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/20/report-chip-kelly-already-plotting-to-move-up-for-marcus-mariota/ And by "privately", he means "telling a reporter so that the entire world will know immediately"
-
Thinking that guaranteeing a 31 year old pitcher $210 million is a bad thing = meatball logic? Sure, okay You think it's worse to pay a guy 210M over 14 years than it is to pay him 210M over 7 years. Yes, that is dumb and meatball. Well I'm convinced How many times has this been discussed? You can't possibly have missed it every time. Getting $10 today is better than getting $10 in a year. Do you understand that? You can invest that $10 if you get it today and in a year, maybe you have $10.30. Now instead of $10 making you 20-30 cents in a year, think of $10m today making you $300,000 in a year. That's the most basic way to look at this. A 1%er like ssr can explain the details of how much more money $210m is if you get it over the next 7 years compared to how much it is if it's spread over the next 14. But it's a lot. If the dollars are the same, it's always better for the team to pay more later (ignore luxury tax issues, which are't a consideration for the nats). You seem to be arguing the exact opposite thing SSR is arguing
-
The Bulls aren't like the Spurs where they can coast because they've proven good enough to win a title. I will agree that this stretch of terrible basketball could easily be a blip, and the regular season is a bit of a meaningless exercise for a team like the Bulls, but Thibs wants to win every game, Rose wants to prove he is back, this team wants to win and right now they aren't There's clearly a lot for them to figure out before playoff time, I'm not refuting that. It's the idea that their records against other potential playoff opponents means [expletive] all
-
I can't believe anyone still takes the regular season that seriously.
-
woosh
-
The fact you guys took that seriously was worth every post in it This is like a tiny cherry meatball on top of a meatball sundae. delicious
-
The fact you guys took that seriously was worth every post in it
-
See, now THIS is meatballin' It's a very low bar you are setting for yourself. ha, okay. be sure to point out all the meatbally hot takes I make about the Cubs this year.
-
See, now THIS is meatballin'
-
Thinking that guaranteeing a 31 year old pitcher $210 million is a bad thing = meatball logic? Sure, okay You think it's worse to pay a guy 210M over 14 years than it is to pay him 210M over 7 years. Yes, that is dumb and meatball. Well I'm convinced
-
You sure about that least meatbally statement you made before? Care to retract that statement now that we know that they'll be paying him $15m/year for 14 years? Does paying more of it later rather than sooner somehow make it worse in your mind? Like that is literally the definition of meatball logic. Thinking that guaranteeing a 31 year old pitcher $210 million is a bad thing = meatball logic? Sure, okay
-
I get that. And I understand that GM's think that they have to make these kinds of deals with declining stars in order to get them to sign, but it doesn't make me like them.
-
You sure about that least meatbally statement you made before? Care to retract that statement now that we know that they'll be paying him $15m/year for 14 years? Does paying more of it later rather than sooner somehow make it worse in your mind? I don't like paying him that much at all, but I especially don't like paying guys to not play for you
-
You sure about that least meatbally statement you made before? Care to retract that statement now that we know that they'll be paying him $15m/year for 14 years?
-
C - Montero (L) 1B - Rizzo (L) 2B - Javy? ® 3B - Bryant ® SS - Castro ® LF - Coghlan (L) CF - Fowler (S) RF - Soler ® Pretty nice lineup flexibility
-
javi baez deep concern and probably giving hope up thread
Derwood replied to treebird's topic in Chicago Cubs Talk
I asked for Baez's autograph at the Cubs Convention, but he missed the ball the first three times -
That's going to be a boutique hotel. Can't imagine they'd do it there. Always imagined it would be used in conjunction with the new ballpark facilities. If not, what - something like McCormick Place? That seems like overkill. I think it contractually has to be a Sheraton property
-
Absolutely
-
7 years for a 31 year old is just stupid. When will GMs ever learn?
-
Girl, you know it's true
-
I'm one of the least meatbally people here.
-
Oh yay...can't wait to hear about the Sox's response at their fan fest next weekend b/c you know they love to pander to their meatball fan base. Let me guess, something original like 100+ years and counting? I don't know if it's fair to complain about a team catering to their meatball fanbase in a thread about the Cubs Convention. It was far less meatbally than I anticipated
-
Steve Trout?
-
Guy at the Down On The Farm Q&A just got booed/shouted down by the crowd. There's always someone who likes hearing himself talk when they get a microphone
