UMFan83

I'm not sure what you are asking. Are you asking for more suggestions for random statistics that I'd like to see? Are you asking me if I also desire those sort of stats? Or are you asking me how to get those stats?

My personal feeling is that you are wrong, but the other part of me thinks Reinsdorf doesn't give a crap what the Bulls do as long as they aren't embarrassing him personally, like you said 98-03 bad.

I still think it's extremely strange that we traded DeRosa, and for the players we traded him for. Now we are apparently shopping for a utility IF with some of the supposed "9 million" we have left to spend.

No, now it stands for North Side Bragging & Bitching. :D my 6-year old son just read this post and now he won't stop saying bitching who do i need to call to talk to about this You have a kid? I would start by calling social services.

If the Cubs have their own channel, I wonder what a team with such a history of futility can show in terms of classic games. Sure, post-1984 there are plenty of games to show, but what do you have between 1945 and 1983? Umm...1969..Banks 500th HR...Monday saves flag...Schmidt game...is that it? What other memorable games are there during that time period of almost 40 years when TV was making its way into the mainstream?

That's pretty ridiculous. What's so ridiculous about it? We are talking about profit not investment. You can't just decide that the money invested doesn't matter. It only matters from the standpoint of rate of return and not money in the bank. Well it's not like you are not investing the other $80 million. Hypothetically its costing you $40 million to make the first $20 million in profit and then $80 million to make the next $20 million. That's diminishing returns. I think what you are saying is that we can't be certain that investing your $80 million elsewhere is going to get you more than $20 million in profit, and that I can't answer because that's about as far as I can coherently use my economic knowledge in developing my argument. Maybe someone else either way can go further.

They're getting a new stadium too. I think its retractable roof. Those pansys can't stand playing outdoors in the winter.

I was just looking over their team the other day and thinking the same thing. Like you said, a lot of things have to go right, but they could contend for the division. I don't really think any team in the Central is all that great besides Cleveland.

Sadly, gaining or losing draft picks because of a Type A FA doesn't seem to be much of a concern for Hendry.

Can someone summarize what it says? I can't watch the video here at work.

that's not true at all. you cant just assume that you'll make profit on the 80m that you're investing elsewhere. There is a definite value to the money not spent. I'm no finance or economics guru, but I'm pretty sure spending $40 million to make $60 million is much better than spending $120 million to make $80 million.

Yay early season competitiveness + very thin draft = useless 8-12 pick to be used on another Joakim Noah. FYI, NBAdraft.net has the Bulls picking Greg Monroe from Georgetown in the draft, who is described as "Chris Webber (late career version)" Yay?

But as someone pointed out before, it's better to make $60 million profit on a $40 million payroll, than to make $80 million on a $120 million payroll because there is a value to having that $80 million difference in payroll to invest elsewhere. Ricketts may be a Cubs fan, but he's also a businessman. I have no doubt he wants the Cubs to win, but no one would risk $900 million just to try to break even.

I think they own part of NESN, sorta like how the Cubs own part of CSN, but I think the Sox own a lot more of it. Edit: Looked it up, Red Sox own 80% of NESN, Bruins own 20%

Hinrich has by far the best trade value out of any Bull besides Rose at this moment. Remember, no teams consider any of the Bulls players besides Rose to be current or future stars, so it's about finding teams that need a Hinrich like player to fill a role, possibly starting PG, but also possibly a 6th or 7th man. Gone are the days where we can packages 2-3 of our core players and pick up a superstar. That won't happen, other teams don't see any potential stars anymore. No one trades a star for 3 role players. So all a trade can do is trade role players for different role players. The only way a trade like that makes sense is if you can get someone who has low post scoring/defense, someone who is an especially great defender, or most importantly, someone whose contract comes off the books before 2010 (especially important with regards to Hinrich, Nocioni and Deng whose contracts all go past 2010)

I hear the Indians have this super utility player. Apparently he has a pretty good bat too. Maybe we should look into that.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/chi-24-cubs-changes-chicagojan24,0,5693918.story Sounds like speculation by Sullivan, but he seems to be reporting as fact.

From Buster Olney. I haven't read the last page or so, so apologies if it's been posted http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=3854411&name=olney_buster

nobody follows the NIT closely. except perhaps michigan fans. You have your glitzy tournament, we'll have ours. I'm especially excited about this year's tournament as we've already had experience playing on the MSG floor.

Anyone see the program prestige rankings on ESPN.com? Here is their list: 1. Oklahoma Sooners 2. USC Trojans 3. Ohio State Buckeyes 4. Notre Dame Fighting Irish 5. Nebraska Cornhuskers 6. Alabama Crimson Tide 7. Texas Longhorns 8. Michigan Wolverines 9. Florida State Seminoles 10. Miami Hurricanes 11. Penn State Nittany Lions 12. Tennessee Volunteers 13. LSU Tigers 14. Georgia Bulldogs 15. Florida Tebows 16. UCLA Bruins 17. Washington Huskies 18. Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets 19. Arkansas Razorbacks 20. Texas A&M Aggies 21. Auburn Tigers T-22. Clemson Tigers T-22. Colorado Buffaloes 24. Ole Miss Rebels 25. BYU Cougars By conference: Big 12: 5 Pac 10: 3 Big 10: 3 Independent: 1 SEC: 8 ACC: 4 MWC: 1 http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3849468

How can you assume it was more watched because of the HFA thing? You did catch me there. I only have anecdotal evidence to back that up. I know many people including myself who have admitted they wouldn't have stayed up until 1:30 in the morning to watch an All-Star game without the allure of seeing which league won HFA. The interest on this site's game thread was incredible to the point where that is still the longest game thread on file even beating all the Cubs playoff games and Opening days (the site's archives go back 4 years). There was even a hatred of Dan Uggla that came out of the game that shows how many people were emotionally invested in the game, and that is something that was not happening for the most part in the 90's. Yeah, but you're talking about one game. They've been doing this for years, how is increased interest in last year's game indicative of HFA being the difference maker? For us there was a lot more interest because we had the best record in the NL at the ASB, and many people thought this was our best shot to win a World Series. IIRC, we were hovering around .500 at 2007s ASB. In 2004, we had interest but Clemens gave up like 5 runs in the first inning. 2003 we were also around .500. For the general public, I am not sure, I guess because it was a very close back and forth game and it was showcasing historic Yankee Stadium for one of the last times.

Typical NSBB poster entry Adam Dunn went 1-4 with a HR, BB and 3K in the Nationals 4-3 win over the Pirates. OMG! Adammmm Dunnnn *drooooool* Dunn has solidified himself as the greatest player in baseball history by consistently having games like this. He is now hitting .234/.368/.500 for the season.I want have have his children.

Except the AL has had HFA for like the last 7 years. Strangely enough, the AL is only 4-3 in World Series in those 7 years (Angels, Red Sox, White Sox, Red Sox vs. Marlins, Cardinals, Phillies). Just weird that the last time the NL has had HFA in the World Series was the Diamondbacks in 2001.

This is disapointing. I am going to have to lower my impression of the Blackhawks. I thought they were the 3rd best team in the West, but now I'm leaning towards 5th or 6th. I could be overreacting to a down stretch though. Just 1-1-2 against the Blues this year, with that one win being a 2-1 win. They just have our number this year.

If they are going to keep doing this HF advantage thing, please lift the rule that says that every team needs to be represented. It was horrible to see Christian Guzman getting 3-4 ABs in last years game.