WrigleyField 22
-
Posts
19,067 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
16
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
2026 Chicago Cubs Draft Tracker: Picks & Bonuses
Blogs
Events
Forums
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by WrigleyField 22
-
I don't disagree with what OWN did or didn't do since I wasn't there, but it's almost as if you're holding ESPN to a higher journalistic pedigree which isn't necessarily true. They're just as much about drama as Bravo, OWN, and most other cable networks. Now it is possible for ESPN to capture more organic drama in the form of live sporting events, but the draft is not a sporting event but a big production not dissimilar to a reality show. The cynical reasoning first offered I viewed as a weird back track. And I think you still have a weird view of what the draft is in it's nature, which is primarily an event driven by drama. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
See the last part of the quote. What you haven't conveyed is why ESPN cameras aren't there to manufacture drama and also just as much of an indicator of narcissism. All you've offered is editing as the primary difference while ignoring the live tv aspect of ESPN cameras. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
If you don't want to defend your view I totally understand because these conversations get exhausting. I don't have any good reason to believe you're holding back on anything. Re: cake scene I know you didn't bring it up, but seemed to agree with it. Though honestly you'd have a better argument if you stick more to the cake thing and how they playfully smashed it like it was a wedding. But if I had one last question to ask it would be why inviting/allowing ESPN cameras into your home on draft day makes you any less attention seeking and narcissistic? And while I understand it's pretty common, I think all those guys who do, do so from a narcissistic place. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
By the way you seem to think I'm jumping down your throat, but I made one snarky comment after you insinuated that maybe the OWN tv producers were responsible for cake at a party. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
ESPN cameras are there to capture a live moment. The OWN production crew was there to tape, take it back to the studio and make into the most entertaining show they can. Can you not even grant that there is a difference there? And even if you can't, will you acknowledge that I actually think people would react differently? I really wish you would sack up and actually tell me what it is I am supposedly leading to here. I'm not sure you're intentionally leading anywhere, but you've walked yourself in some weird loop where suddenly ESPN cameras were just there to capture live moments and OWN cameras were there to manufacture drama. You know what's a great way to manufacture drama? Put someone in front of a tv crew on live TV. There wasn't some journalistic /reporting need for ESPN to film there or in the manner they did. They were there because it had good odds of drama. I'll grant people do act differently though in front of a live tv crew verse a documentary. In a non-live setting they usually need booze to get an emotional effect like that. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
"painting him as attention seeking": Also this: Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
You don't have to defend why you thought it was cheapened but some people are just pointing out that it was a little silly for the stance to change because of the presence of OWN cameras. If you want to defend that flip, that's okay, but there really isn't much defense unless you live in the delusional world of purity of sports. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
It can't possibly make you cynical because a cynical person believes ESPN cameras cheapen the moment. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Unless it's a home video a camera is a camera and it's a manufactured moment, so I don't understand the cynical thing. A cynical person would be cynical about the ESPN cameras. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I thought about this...but if they are looking for an agreement from them all not to sue, how can they stop the one guy from doing so? I guess I'm just not really sure about the ownership structure here. If the association as an entity would agree to not sue, hypothetically on a 10-1 vote, any dissenters would only have a claim against the association and not the cubs. But I guess that's why the association wouldn't want to override any dissenters and agree? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I am a little surprised that one owner is enough to stop an otherwise unanimous opinion though. What kind of agreement did these guys sign? Taking other ownership agreements for instance, it doesn't take all 30 MLB owners to vote yes to a new media deal. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Yea but most people that stubborn are easily identified early on in my experience. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
You were trying to paint him as attention seeking and only backtracked to the "I didn't realize it was staged before" argument before realizing how silly that stance was, which we are happy to point out, since it was always staged. I suppose the gay thing never really came from you but otherwise we're all just leading you down the path you're setting up. I mean the cake thing, really. Trying to connect it to a tv producer... Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Yea I mean, how long does this court case last? Longer than it took to change course on the plans why they patiently waited? And you're still going to court and possibly facing an injunction. Sounds like it should have been clear very early on that the non litigation route was never realistic and pursuing it was blind hope and not a smart business move. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
So lawyers on both sides think the RTOs lose in court, but is there enough there to cause an injunction to stop renovations while it's settled? If there isn't I'm not sure why it took so long for this revised F U plan to cone forth. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
You basically stated the moment felt less genuine to you because it was a manufactured moment for a reality tv show, when in reality you saw what you saw by watching a reality tv show that manufactures drama for three days every spring. You're feelings on the moment shouldn't have changed. It was always a manufactured moment there and Sam always had control over what cameras would or wouldn't be there. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
No you're reaching to think reality tv producers somehow try to milk any more drama out of a situation than the [expletive] NFL draft who clearly always look to minimize drama for the tv. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Lol, yea who orders a cake for a big celebration, anyways, besides attention seeking gays with a reality tv contract. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Okay then that will work out great when it is determined your building is unsafe for occupancy and you can no longer conduct business there. Of course you're going to do the other stuff. My point is I totally get why an owner refuses to start anything until he makes a decision on the revenue streams. In no way am I applauding him here-the decision to go this direction should have happened a long time ago, in my mind. But in no way am I going to sink a couple hundred mill into a place when my future revenue generators are in limbo. The future revenue streams aren't in that much limbo. If the contract ends in 8 years or whatever the Cubs will be able to do whatever they want with OF signage really. It's the near term that it's limbo, but taking the long view the future doesn't appear that uncertain. But if they need the immediate revenue to fund the 300m reno then they can't really just wait out the contract for 8 more years. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Whether the cake and/or the crying was staged I don't know how ones feelings could change based upon finding out a documentary camera crew was there instead of or in addition to a ESPN crew. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I prefer Melo, but if a Love deal somehow materialized first I wouldn't wait on Melo even if it's a hypothetically better deal.
-
If we were moving assets for Love, Thibs to LA makes more sense. Thibs and Mirotic to LA for their lotto pick and other assets. Any Memphis pick is no better than picks already at our disposal. And Mirotic holds no value in a Love deal since he won't sign in Min, but he would sign in LA. Now I'd prefer a Melo deal where we keep Thibs, but I'd play both and take the first, which is still probably Melo.
-
It doesn't at all sound probable, but I'd take this hypothetical Thibs for Hoiberg + Love(extended presumably).
-
This rollover payroll thing better work. You could probably put together one and a half OF with the difference in Tanaka and Hammels (which is presumably what we left on the table) on a annual basis, but if they roll over a longer term it's like half an OF.
-
Yes you would give them as many picks as we could for KLove, but they are not as worthless as MLB draft picks. NBA draft picks are quite valuable, just not as valuable as a star player. But that goes back to our additional picks just not really being that enticing to the Wolves. Melo remains a more likely route to take (though still not a good chance overall). I agree that Melo is the more likely route. According to ESPN we have trade exceptions related to Deng (about 2 mill) and Teague (1 mill). Didn't realize we had one from Deng. They're worthless unless we forgo our cap space plan. If we did forgo our cap space, they're worth a trade for traded player(s) up to 2 and 1 M respectively. But for instance are not worth a 3M player together, nor worth a ~11M with Gibson. Gibson alone just using the TPE rules can absorb that much extra salary anyways.
