Cubswin11

Also none of these logos even acknowledging the rooftop owners? Do the artists have no sense of history and not know that Wrigley would not exist without the rooftop owners?

Got the email, I'm in as Dual Fronts, either Friday after 5 or the already scheduled Saturday time works for me.

I like #4 a lot, but there is no Cubs logo/wording or really any Cubs colors or green (which is a color used often with Wrigley). I get this is a celebration of Wrigley at 100 years and not the Cubs, but if #4 incorporated a Cubs logo of some sort or had a better color scheme I'd vote for it.

Not Mentolly Redy, Hed Hurding

I thought the popular theory was Duke/UNC after Coach K/Williams retire. I also thought I've heard he wants the Wisconsin job once Bo leaves, as he's from Madison.

The Packers either are having soon or already have had Michael Huff and Ahmad Bradshaw in for visits this week. Those would be two okay pickups for them assuming on the contracts. They have like $22m in cap space right now, but also have Rodgers, Matthews and Raji contracts expiring after this year (Rodgers might actually be in two) and will have to lock them up soon and that space will obviously need to be used for them.

Good news for the NL Central, the Brewers just signed Yuni B back to a major league contract.

IF THE CUBS HAD THAT EXTRA ADVERTISING REVENUE THE TICKET PRICES WOULDN'T BE THIS HIGH!

The last game I actually went to was Opening Day 2010. Time for my epic return. That's not operating on dual fronts as a fan [-X

I wonder what gave them a shot in the arm in 98... the 97 team was awful. 98 they opened at Wrigley on a Friday, guessing that helped. Opening day was like 3-4 days earlier in Florida

Home Opener (Not Opening Day) on a Monday Afternoon+Low Expectations+Unseasonably Cold Weather+Inflated Ticket Prices=Low Attendance

So is that a plan or a goal?

How is this years draft class shaping up??? Compare to the last couple years? I haven't exactly been following much college bball this year. Would be interesting to see if LeBron does come back... Got Irving,Waiters,Thompson, and Zeller plus the 4 picks that you mentioned and probably another lottery pick the following year. Varejao will be on his last year of his contract I believe, but he's most likely gone to make cap space for LeBron. It's pretty weak. No stars, a few guys who probably could be second division starters, mostly role player types.

I'm in, draft time works for me (not going to Indy anymore for the sweet 16). I am fine with the current scoring system, but wouldn't mind seeing saves/holds being a combined stat (if that's possible).

You must mean you own rooftop season tickets

Lots of fun names in there.

Who voted "other?" Care to explain? Or was a just a vote of indifference?

The most recent Forbes estimates was from 2011 and had the Cubs at No. 3 in revenue. I look forward to seeing what the 2012 estimates bring. Ownership cries poor across all of sports, and it's almost universally horsescrotum. Revenues might be top in the league but the Cubs have to have some of the largest debt in all of MLB due to the recent purchase. As we talked about in the other thread, who really knows what that debt service is but what if the initial intention was for the added advertising/signage to take care of the debt service on the loans required for purchase while the exisitng revenue would continue to fund the baseball operations? It's possible that debt service is robbing the Cubs of spending power, but that doesn't mean that the old payrolls were unsustainable. That just means that Ricketts can't sustain them. Haven't people on both sides (Zell's/Trib's guys prior and now Rickett's) said that 2007-2009 payrolls were unsustainable and basically there as a front to increase the team value and that they didn't realistically fit into a budget with the revenue at the time? If their revenues have stayed relatively the same since then and now they have this massive debt service burden added with questions of when (if ever) they can see large increases in revenue (new tv deal, added advertising through renovations, etc.) their spending power certianly is lower and means prior payrolls aren't sustainable with the old revenue model and the added debt.

The most recent Forbes estimates was from 2011 and had the Cubs at No. 3 in revenue. I look forward to seeing what the 2012 estimates bring. Ownership cries poor across all of sports, and it's almost universally horsescrotum. Revenues might be top in the league but the Cubs have to have some of the largest debt in all of MLB due to the recent purchase. As we talked about in the other thread, who really knows what that debt service is but what if the initial intention was for the added advertising/signage to take care of the debt service on the loans required for purchase while the exisitng revenue would continue to fund the baseball operations? I know this is all guesswork/assumptions but a big part of their business plan might be under major re-evaluation with not being able to get the added revenue in place by now along with looking at the likely burden of personally being on the hook almost 100% (when at the time I'm guessing they were thinking the city would kick in money in some form) for any renovations in the near future.

It should work for me, I might be going to Indy for the sweet 16 this weekend and I'll know by Thursday. If I don't go, I'm in.

Bring in Pearl!

Are you talking about the new CBA or the one the Brewers operated under to build their team? Because the new CBA hurts small market teams more than the old one.

Tubby got fired

3 years $11mm per+ incentives. No, seriously. http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/brewers.html

Well, that's just good [expletive] business. When you own a product and have parasites trying to latch on for free and/or getting in the way of increasing revenue that's rightfully yours, you cut off their lifeblood.