Jump to content
North Side Baseball

Hairyducked Idiot

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    39,504

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    46

 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 Hairyducked Idiot

  1. Hairyducked Idiot
    It's not a matter of should or should not. It's stupid to pay $20 for a month of content on the daily herald website. It costs money to produce ESPN.com's content but they don't charge to see the majority of it. It costs money to produce a hell of a lot of things that don't cost the consumer a nickel to view. ESPN.com's content is run at a loss in order to advance the overall brand. http://ryanspoon.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/espn-valentines-day.jpg I bet JC Penney isn't paying them a dime! I shouldn't have to explain that revenue and profit are not synonymous.
  2. Hairyducked Idiot
    So if this is all true, why have you been unable to come up with a significant number of examples of web sites that are pulling in the kind of revenue you are talking about?
  3. Hairyducked Idiot
    No, I'm speaking from experience and empirical observation. The money that web advertisers will provide you is a fraction of what it takes to pay the costs associated with producing local news, even in a major city like Chicago. It is virtually impossible to run any sort of web venture on a profit on ad revenue alone while paying full-time staff to create the content. The list of web sites that have successfully done so is incredibly short. (Deadspin? And ... I'm drawing a blank, there must be a few others). Since the newspapers are going to be extinct as soon as the generation still buying the paper dies out, which will be any day now, the only chance any of these places have is to convince people to buy subscriptions online. It's a probable failure. But giving away the content for free is a certain failure. Yes, I get a little annoyed at people being so derisive at the idea that someone might dare charge them for the work. I don't think the lawyers on the board would appreciate someone saying "How dare lawyers charge me for private practice, there's plenty of places to get pro bono work." But there's also emotion from the other side. How dare they charge for something I want for free? They must be idiots not to behave in the way that benefits me the most!
  4. Hairyducked Idiot
    Again the comparison to places that don't pay for the content produced.
  5. Hairyducked Idiot
    Speaking as someone recently out of the industry, the advertising rates for web ads are proverbial pennies, not worth picking up.
  6. Hairyducked Idiot
    NSBB costs me money to run. Can't remember the last time you sent a check my way to help out with that. technically, he's upping your traffic by being here, which makes you money, though. As does every non-paying reader over at the Herald. He is arguing that people should pay for content that costs money to develop / maintain / distribute. More specifically, I'm arguing that they shouldn't complain if the person creating the content wants to charge for it.
  7. Hairyducked Idiot
    NSBB costs me money to run. Can't remember the last time you sent a check my way to help out with that. If you started charging, I wouldn't complain. You of all people should know how hard it is to turn a profit on web views. Now add in a few full-time, content-producing employees.
  8. Hairyducked Idiot
    It's not a matter of should or should not. It's stupid to pay $20 for a month of content on the daily herald website. It costs money to produce ESPN.com's content but they don't charge to see the majority of it. It costs money to produce a hell of a lot of things that don't cost the consumer a nickel to view. ESPN.com's content is run at a loss in order to advance the overall brand.
  9. Hairyducked Idiot
    Because there's too much free content out there. I suspect you know this already and are just being Kyle. They seem to think their content is better than the free content. I agree it'll probably fail. But giving the product away for free will certainly fail. I'd rather see the industry take the hail mary than just kneel it out.
  10. Hairyducked Idiot
    It costs money to produce it. Why shouldn't it cost money to read it?
  11. Hairyducked Idiot
    Lamar has GM experience, has been part of winning franchises, and has a background in player development. As long as he gives some lip service to stats, that sounds exactly like what Ricketts said he wanted.
  12. Hairyducked Idiot
    If Randy Wells could continue not sucking into next year, that would *really* help.
  13. Hairyducked Idiot
    I have no idea what one has to do with the other. "Hello, elite GM candidate. We'd like you to stake your professional reputation to come in and save our franchise because we've produced putrid results given the resources we have over our direct competitors. Have you met the staff? They've contributed heavily to those putrid results, and we signed them to guaranteed contracts before we interviewed you."
  14. Hairyducked Idiot
    Also, the sun revolves around the Earth, which is flat, and everything is made up of combinations of the four elements: air, water, fire and earth.
  15. Hairyducked Idiot
    No.
  16. Hairyducked Idiot
    How much less could he really walk?
  17. Hairyducked Idiot
    The Cubs are in and have been in a position to spend more money on payroll and player development than they have spent in the past. Nothing that the new ownership group has done so far has shown a willingness to increase payroll. The only notable change so far, has been an increase in spending on the draft, with a concurrent drop in payroll spending. Why would the GM of a team that spends $50MM more a year in payroll and has consistently spent money on the draft and international signings, go to a team that is cutting back on payroll and has a middle to the back of the pack minor league system? Because I'm not sure there aren't four organizations in the AL East that wouldn't easily be the best in the NL Central? (I may have too many negatives in there, it's late).
  18. Hairyducked Idiot
    Ewww. Mutual option that he's going to try to turn into a longer-term deal? That kind of sucks considerably.
  19. Hairyducked Idiot
    Any amount that the Red Sox have extra to spend is made up for by the fact that their division is much, much tougher.
  20. Hairyducked Idiot
    Can we have a blanket ban on the "If he helps us win a championship, I'll take it," argument. You could justify any move, anytime, anywhere, for any amount of money, with "if it wins us a championship...".
  21. Hairyducked Idiot
    You let him hang around the team next year as a backup just to fill a cheap roster spot, then if he doesn't do something amazingly unexpected, you let him go next time you feel like upgrading that spot.
  22. Hairyducked Idiot
    Vitters 3-for-5, 2b, 5 RBI, might get one more AB. The 10-day line on his MiLB page tomorrow is going to look so sexy.
  23. Hairyducked Idiot
    Yeah, Sunday was the season finale. A few of their guys might show up in Boise. @BruceMiles2112: #Cubs Rookie ball team in Mesa is done. Going to Boise (A) are IF Javier Baez and RHPs Tony Zych, James Pugliese and Michael Jensen. No Vogon? :(
  24. Hairyducked Idiot
    Is the Southern League still an extreme pitcher's league?
  25. Hairyducked Idiot
    He has to be the starting CF next year, right?
×
×
  • Create New...