Bull

That's pretty bold. Actually if all those came true I'd be disappointed with 78 wins. Yea, I was about to say, I don't think anyone has a 1.000+ OPS these days. And when they do, there aren't very many of them. I meant to say .900... But still yes, not many even OPS that anymore. 11 people last year over .900. Aramis Ramirez was one of them.

To sum up the quotes, Sullivan said that the Cubs' have benefited over the years from having a national audience, thanks in part to WGN. The national audience helped increase the value of the club. Now the club can make more money if they ditch WGN. He also points out that the Cubs' are under no obligation to stay on WGN. I think he pretty much sums up the situation. The worst thing about the quotes, is that Ricketts is now claiming that a $150MM payroll is unsustainable for the team. Granted, payroll is not the only factor determinative over whether or not a team will be good, but with the right management, it should give a team a big advantage over smaller market teams. I was actually happy to read that in context. What I see is not that the payroll is unsustainable, but that it is unsustainable unless you cash in on the media rights.

Bombay Teen Challenge is amazing. They have been rescuing kids from brothels in Mumbai since before most people knew that "sex trafficking" was even a thing.

That would be an embarrassmennt to everyone involved. Player, agent, union, owners, and commissioners office all have strong motivation to make sure that doesn't happen. Even Boras (who would stand to make more money on one deal,) could lose out on future clients if Bourn and Lohse are perceived to take a step back.

I think there's a good chance this means the Mets DO get Bourn. There is so talk of rewriting the rules to prevent this happening again. The mets had the tenth worst record and should be protected, but the pirates get a pick as compensation for failing to sign their first round pick last year, bumping the mets to 11th - not protected. So how does that mean there's a good chance the Mets do get Bourn? Yeah, I'm really confused. Because they've filed for an exemption and the players union is supporting them. I think the rules will be rewritten.

I think there's a good chance this means the Mets DO get Bourn. There is so talk of rewriting the rules to prevent this happening again. The mets had the tenth worst record and should be protected, but the pirates get a pick as compensation for failing to sign their first round pick last year, bumping the mets to 11th - not protected.

Agreed. I don't see Olt as much of an upgrade over Vitters. I'd really like to see what he (Vitters) can do repeating half a season at AAA.

I must be missing something. Those projections show Stewart at .210 and 11 homers.

no, that's Duncan. Theo only has plate discipline dust.

I am a little surprised that no one has created a rating system to determine the cutoff point of risk and reward in these matters. (an x-war average player is worth losing the 40th overall pick but not the 39th overall pick) Would the Cubs computer model do things like this? I'd imagine the variance is huge.

On one hand: Doesn't he lose a ton of value if you do that? ON the other hand: I guess the question is who do you want to potentially trade. If Wood is part of you long term plan, let these Maholm type lottery tickets start until the trade deadline. 1. they all fail, you move them to the pen and put Wood and viscaino in the rotation. 2. If they marginally succeed or one succeeds but the team fails, you trade the Maholm of the group and move Wood and/or Viscaino to the rotation. 3. If two or more succeed, the Cubs are buyers at the deadline, IMO. If wood isn't part of the long term plan, you start him and trade him at the deadline. Although the Cubs can be competitive this year, (parallel fronts?) I still think these moves are about creating value out of nothing. I think this type of signing (no compensation) is one of the few ways left to exploit the system.

that would be a great point but it's not really true. lahair did not play in 5 of the first 50 games (april and may) and played but did not start 5 others. I wouldn't exactly call that a platoon. even in june he did not play in 4 games, and didn't start 6 others. (27 total games) at the end of June Rizzo took over first base after that he basically was a part-timer. I think you guys are looking at this the wrong way. I am certainly not trying to say Lahair is as good or better. Rizzo is the better player, the team is better with him no doubt. BUT If we are trying to point out where the team will win more games this season over last you can't just say we will be better because of Rizzo's performance at first. The stats we had in 2012 have already happened. To improve on paper, someone has to get those stats, and do better in order to win more games in theory. This is all theoretical but if we can't just say we will win more games because we now have Rizzo playing first for the full season because Lahair was a stud for 5-6 weeks. The team is better, but to say we will win more games than 2012, the performance that happened has to be replaced. So I am just saying that with what we can expect from Rizzo over the full year, it will be pretty much exactly the same as we got out of first base last season statistically. The main reason I say that is because the stats for our first basemen were almost identical in the first and second half. Of course its true! In 2012 LaHair had 86 starts. He started 5 games against left handed starters (.292 OPS vs all lefties on the year in 48 ABs) and 81 against right handed starters. If that's not a platoon I don't know what is. Rizzo started 23 against lefties (.599 against all lefties in 101 ABs) and 62 vs RH starters. Full time. He (Lahair) started 45 of 50 games(first 2 months). Yes, they gave him days off vs lefties but to say that "propped" up his stats is wrong. If he went 3-20 (which is about his split) he'd still have very a nice stat line. Regardless of this, do we still need to have someone replace the stats he actually put up or do they not count because he didn't hit off enough lefties? Whether we like it or not Lahair had an awesome start, the team has to compensate for that to be better this year. We have a lot of the same offense, so if we don't get a 1.200 ops for the month of april, and we are guessing everyone else to do their average, how will our offense be better? Rizzo is an upgrade but we had "george herman" Lahair for a month and a half, then he returned to plain old Bryan. 1.200 ops as a platoon player. In those 10 games he didn't start, I'd wager 9 of them were vs. lefties. Add 27+ plate appearances at a .290 OPS clip and I'd imagine that 1.200 ops falls more than a little. His stats were propped up by being a platoon player. Tim's statement is accurate.

that would be a great point but it's not really true. lahair did not play in 5 of the first 50 games (april and may) and played but did not start 5 others. I wouldn't exactly call that a platoon. even in june he did not play in 4 games, and didn't start 6 others. (27 total games) at the end of June Rizzo took over first base after that he basically was a part-timer. I think you guys are looking at this the wrong way. I am certainly not trying to say Lahair is as good or better. Rizzo is the better player, the team is better with him no doubt. BUT If we are trying to point out where the team will win more games this season over last you can't just say we will be better because of Rizzo's performance at first. The stats we had in 2012 have already happened. To improve on paper, someone has to get those stats, and do better in order to win more games in theory. This is all theoretical but if we can't just say we will win more games because we now have Rizzo playing first for the full season because Lahair was a stud for 5-6 weeks. The team is better, but to say we will win more games than 2012, the performance that happened has to be replaced. So I am just saying that with what we can expect from Rizzo over the full year, it will be pretty much exactly the same as we got out of first base last season statistically. The main reason I say that is because the stats for our first basemen were almost identical in the first and second half. Of course its true! In 2012 LaHair had 86 starts. He started 5 games against left handed starters (.292 OPS vs all lefties on the year in 48 ABs) and 81 against right handed starters. If that's not a platoon I don't know what is. Rizzo started 23 against lefties (.599 against all lefties in 101 ABs) and 62 vs RH starters. Full time.

Doesn't seem obvious to me that is what happened. He did lie, just not to the Cubs. I don't think Theo ever thought he had a deal. The agent leaked that they did to get the Tigers to go all in. It worked.

I'm not sure it's the same thing. I would never, ever buy insurance from this everybody fellow.

If there's no one left to disagree with, how will I know what to think? There are plenty of folks here for you to disagree with.

Does anyone else think its ironic that this post is on the top of the page, so that every time we open this thread, we have to see the words Jeff Francouer? Click the highlighted document instead of the text link and it'll take you to the first unread post in the thread. I like to get a running start at new posts. :D

Does anyone else think its ironic that this post is on the top of the page, so that every time we open this thread, we have to see the words Jeff Francouer?

Just looked up Pierre on BR. I can't believe he was only with the Cubs 1 year. It seemed so...much...longer.

He is an asset that costs you nothing in terms of prospects. Why not?

Which is why I dismissed the idea. While its much more helpful to accept it at face value, I'm just pointing out that I don't think its irrational that the OP considered it. No need to yell.

That would strike me as a terribly inefficient way to get a potential future coach into the system. I will gladly pay you 1.6 million today for an opportunity to pay you $250,000 to coach when you retire. More like, I can only pay you 250K later, but I've got the money to pay you handsomely now if you'll hang with us. Sounds good to me. I had thought about this myself, and then dismissed it. Not because it doesn't make sense, just because its a huge leap.

I understand that. I was just wandering if Theriot's birth control patch had anything to do with Banedon's desire to screw him.

??

the guy in cali with 40 tickets.