Jump to content
North Side Baseball

SouthSideRyan

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    48,493

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

 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 SouthSideRyan

  1. SouthSideRyan
    I was told the increase in value of the cubs doesn't count because ricketts would never sell
  2. SouthSideRyan
    So if I'm understanding David correctly, he thinks that all of the numbers from Forbes are way off, and they're somehow overestimating what the Cubs make in revenues, rather than underestimating which might make some semblance of sense. Also he confused Simpsons and Family Guy.
  3. SouthSideRyan
    The numbers aren't even real, so it doesn't take any crazy mental gymnastics to disregard them. Are the numbers not real only for the Cubs? What's the basis for completely ignoring the numbers again?
  4. SouthSideRyan
    In other news, GFY
  5. SouthSideRyan
    61-101, 5th place in NL Central Ballparks: Wrigley Field · Attendance: 2,882,756 (5th of 16)
  6. SouthSideRyan
    What the [expletive] [expletive]
  7. SouthSideRyan
    Yeah, stop talking about your Illini hawkeyecub.
  8. SouthSideRyan
    Haha who had Mark Gottfried at UCLA 3 years ago?
  9. SouthSideRyan
    It's supposed to be 68 degrees you pansies.
  10. SouthSideRyan
    Free agency is also the surest bet on getting something in return for your investment.
  11. SouthSideRyan
    To answer the original post, Ricketts has done a pretty good job at everything except for the product on the field, which is what's most important. We appear headed for 0 playoff appearances in the first 5 years of ownership for the 3rd biggest market in the NL. That is unacceptable.
  12. SouthSideRyan
    Having to compensate for bad drafting/developing with free agent signings are part of why Hendry failed. As well as the fact that he got the worst possible outcome on two of his three playoff teams. Then bad drafting/developing is the reason Hendry failed, not that he signed free agents to what were pretty damn reasonable deals. (Soriano and Zambrano kind of excluded.)
  13. SouthSideRyan
    People need to stop saying well we're projected to win 77 games if you sign A, B, and C, so why bother. 1. Projections have a lot of variance, you shouldn't go into every season thinking if everything breaks right we should be in the playoffs, BUT 2. Projections don't last for one season. It does matter if you win 70 or 80 games, because if you win 80 games, you have 10 less games to improve upon going forward. If you only sign a guy when he puts your projection to 86 wins you are never going to get out of this black hole we're stuck in. Why do those of you who think it doesn't matter if we win 65 or 80 approve of the Baker and Feldman signings? Why is it ok to sign Navarro?
  14. SouthSideRyan
    And when we win 65 games this year, should we try in in 2014?
  15. SouthSideRyan
    No. I was being somewhat facetious. I don't really care where we rank in payroll right now. I like the idea of adding bargains and former top prospects and guys coming off injury, etc. You get the inside track to resign them if they pan out or flip them for future value. Whether those players add up to $85m or $102m isn't significant to me at this stage. I think looking purely at revenue from 2 years ago v payroll today is unfair. I don't think we could add $150m to be in the top 2. And spending another $50m to catch the Phillies wasn't going to make us a strong contender and risked saddling us with bad contracts. There's a time when having a bad contract or two to get a top tier player is fine. When you're finishing with maybe 75 wins is not that time. Signing nothing but reclamations and bargains is a good way to ensure your team sucks for a long long time. This kyle imitation is getting scary. Probably time to crawl out of his character before you get stuck that way. I wonder how your posts would look lined up side by side with davearm from November 2011. The 18 months ago selves of you pro-tankers would be slapping the [expletive] out of your current selves.
  16. SouthSideRyan
    I'm suggesting their ranking will drop due to TV money seemingly everywhere, not necessarily the revenue figure itself (I realize that doesn't explain the payroll number dropping...but then, that wasn't necessarily a sustainable payroll number). Are any TV deals starting this season other than the Astros? (Nevermind that I still fail to see why our 2014 money is untouchable until the ink is on the contract) And that still doesn't explain why payroll is dropping AGAIN I'm not really sure... I feel like there have been a few that have gone/will be going into effect since that ranking was published (spring 2011?), but I have nothing to base that on. The ranking was published in Spring 2012. The article itself discusses the TV deals and only mentions the Astros new deal. This fangraphs article was posted here awhile back, there's nobody but the Astros starting new deals. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/dodgers-send-shock-waves-through-local-tv-landscape/
  17. SouthSideRyan
    No. I was being somewhat facetious. I don't really care where we rank in payroll right now. I like the idea of adding bargains and former top prospects and guys coming off injury, etc. You get the inside track to resign them if they pan out or flip them for future value. Whether those players add up to $85m or $102m isn't significant to me at this stage. I think looking purely at revenue from 2 years ago v payroll today is unfair. I don't think we could add $150m to be in the top 2. And spending another $50m to catch the Phillies wasn't going to make us a strong contender and risked saddling us with bad contracts. There's a time when having a bad contract or two to get a top tier player is fine. When you're finishing with maybe 75 wins is not that time. Signing nothing but reclamations and bargains is a good way to ensure your team sucks for a long long time.
  18. SouthSideRyan
    I'm suggesting their ranking will drop due to TV money seemingly everywhere, not necessarily the revenue figure itself (I realize that doesn't explain the payroll number dropping...but then, that wasn't necessarily a sustainable payroll number). Are any TV deals starting this season other than the Astros? (Nevermind that I still fail to see why our 2014 money is untouchable until the ink is on the contract) And that still doesn't explain why payroll is dropping AGAIN
  19. SouthSideRyan
    Rice can't shoot, but he can take it to the basket, and seems to actually want to.
  20. SouthSideRyan
    It looks like the revenue numbers were from the 2011 season. If the Cubs revenue dropped it's because they didn't try to be a good baseball team, so I'm not sure why they should be excused for that. GR, are you saying you would've been fine if the Cubs didn't sign Jackson, Feldman, Villanueva, or Baker this offseason? Are we back to the lose 110 games a seaosn until you spend 80M in one offseason plan?
  21. SouthSideRyan
    The White Sox drew 900,000 less with cheaper tickets, looking at ~54M less in ticket revenue and they have a 20M payroll advantage. That's embarrassing. ETA: They have make ~52M less in overall revenue according to Forbes estimates.
  22. SouthSideRyan
    Total revenue. It is, however, an estimate because the books are not open. http://www.forbes.com/mlb-valuations/#p_1_s_d5_ Then all this talk about woe is us we can't put up enough ads on our scoreboard and we're getting screwed on tv deals has nothing to do with why we're suddenly a mid-market team. My whole point is that I don't buy that we're #3 in total revenue given those facts. Is our advantage in attendance/ticket prices so great that we're overcoming this huge edge that so many other teams have on us? How badly do you think Forbes fucked up the calculation? We're 13th in payroll by BR's estimator These are BR's payroll estimates for opening day: LAD $217.2M NYY $211.6M PHI $157.9M BOS $151.7M LAA $149.6M DET $148.5M SFG $140.0M TEX $121.5M CHW $120.4M TOR $114.8M WSN $111.7M STL $111.7M CHC $102.0M CIN $98.5M NYM $90.0M BAL $88.2M ATL $87.3M SEA $83.9M ARI $83.0M CLE $80.9M KCR $79.3M MIN $78.8M MIL $73.4M COL $73.2M SDP $63.1M PIT $60.8M OAK $60.7M TBR $59.9M MIA $45.5M HOU $25.7M Going to have to explain to me why the difference between Philly and us is greater than the difference between us and everybody but the [expletive] Marlins and the worst MLB team ever assembled.
  23. SouthSideRyan
    Unless Rayvonte Rice is better than I'm expecting, yes. They lose 4 rotation players, and are almost certainly going to have to play 4 wings with Myke Henry at the 4 at least to start.
  24. SouthSideRyan
    I got the pleasure of learning this year that no, season tickets are not discounted
  25. SouthSideRyan
    Total revenue. It is, however, an estimate because the books are not open. http://www.forbes.com/mlb-valuations/#p_1_s_d5_ Then all this talk about woe is us we can't put up enough ads on our scoreboard and we're getting screwed on tv deals has nothing to do with why we're suddenly a mid-market team.
×
×
  • Create New...