Warren Brusstar

Throw effing strikes

So how much are they asking for a Sox or a Cubs spot this year? As soon as I find it I'll post the info for 2007. Have you found this or were you just making an assumption? No, I am awaiting a return email. No assumptions on my part. I've already proven part one--the ratings dictate the cost. Got to love your persistence. Keep an eye on the thread if you truly want to know the answer. :roll: The only thing the Crain's article establishes is the unremarkable proposition that ratings ultimately correlate to advertising dollars. I've never contended otherwise. The Crain's article does not prove that advertising dollars directly correlate only to the ratings for the previous season. That's the issue. I don't see how this information is ambiguous: That quote, and the subsequent information that followed in the article, implies that the ratings would force the Cubs to lessen their asking price. Yes. That doesn't prove your point. What if the result is that, based on adding the 2006 ratings to the analysis, the Cubs can charge only $9,750 per 30-second commercial, while the White Sox can charge $9,250 per 30-second commercial. That would be entirely consistent with everything written in that article, but yet not support your position that advertising costs correlate only to ratings from the previous season.

So how much are they asking for a Sox or a Cubs spot this year? As soon as I find it I'll post the info for 2007. Have you found this or were you just making an assumption? No, I am awaiting a return email. No assumptions on my part. I've already proven part one--the ratings dictate the cost. Got to love your persistence. Keep an eye on the thread if you truly want to know the answer. :roll: The only thing the Crain's article establishes is the unremarkable proposition that ratings ultimately correlate to advertising dollars. I've never contended otherwise. The Crain's article does not prove that advertising dollars directly correlate only to the ratings for the previous season. That's the issue.

So how much are they asking for a Sox or a Cubs spot this year? As soon as I find it I'll post the info for 2007. Have you found this or were you just making an assumption?

Not taking sides, but you really haven't provided any evidence to support your claim that the slightly higher ratings will actually equal higher profits for WGN. It was a more than slightly. In advertsing, rating are key. Both Nielsen and Arbitron show the Sox won the ratings battle in the most desired age demographic. Again, no evidence there are differences in rates, just an assumption. OK... Are you contending that the ad rates for each team are directly tied to television and radio ratings only for the prior season and nothing else? If so, how do you know this? Go back and read what I wrote. You've said: and and and and and So, basically, you've said (1) that the 2006 ratings serve as a starting point for 2007 ad rates; but that (2) the Cubs probably negotiated for higher rates because of their long term success; and (3) you don't know whether they were successful. No. 1 would surprise me a little bit, but I certainly don't have proof otherwise. I would think that ratings over a number of years would serve as a starting point. But, more importantly, even if No. 1 is correct, and given Nos. 2 and 3, how can you say with any degree of certainty that "the net effect is that during the 2007 season, WGN can make more advertising dollars for Sox broadcasts"? You've already conceded that the Cubs probably negotiated for higher rates because of their long-term success (and, I suspect, their offseason spending spree). And, you've conceded that you don't know the results of any negotiations. In sum, you just don't know. So who is making the assumption?

Not taking sides, but you really haven't provided any evidence to support your claim that the slightly higher ratings will actually equal higher profits for WGN. It was a more than slightly. In advertsing, rating are key. Both Nielsen and Arbitron show the Sox won the ratings battle in the most desired age demographic. Again, no evidence there are differences in rates, just an assumption. OK... Are you contending that the ad rates for each team are directly tied to television and radio ratings only for the prior season and nothing else? If so, how do you know this?

Do you have any support for that assertion? If you're implying that Zell might look to ratings in 2006 and decide to cut back on Cubs programming, while increasing White Sox programming, don't you think a man that was able to make billions as an investor is more sophisticated than to base such a decision on ratings for only the last year? Also, doesn't it also assume that you're right about your initial point - that the cost of advertising on White Sox games will be more than the cost of advertising on Cubs' games? I would be quite surprised if that's true. On your first question, it's common knowledge that the Sox beat out the Cubs in radio and TV ratings (2006) for the first time in over 20 years. It really isn't a surprise considering the Cubs won 66 games and the Sox were basking in the glow of a WS. It was published in the Tribune so you may want to search the archives. On your second point, no, my view is that Zell doesn't care about the baseball part of the Tribune (he's admitted as much). My point about the Sox was specific to the poster I was replying to---who implied that WGN must be profiting because they are running Sox games--as if to say there is minimal profit in Sox telecasts. My reply is two fold: because of the recent success of the Sox, WGN can charge more per advertiser in 2007 than they can for Cubs games... Also, the Cubs, Sox, and Bulls will always be shown locally in Chicago because it is a local station (with a national following). You missed the point. Do you have support for your assertion that the cost of advertising on White Sox games will be greater in 2007 than the cost of advertising on Cubs games? I don't think that is true. You missed the point because it is right. You don't have to believe it but the White Sox had higher television and radio ratings than the Cubs in 2006. Look it up. The ad prices are based on ratings which measures the most recent consumer behavior. An argument has already been made in this thread that the Cubs would look to their longer track record of ratings success when attempting to set advertising prices. However, that isn't a guarantee that they have gotten their intial price for this seasons ads. Are you intentionally not answering the question? I DO NOT DISPUTE THAT THE SOX HAD HIGHER TELEVISION RATINGS IN 2006. You're not responding to the actual question: Upon what are you relying when you suggest that the cost of advertising on White Sox games will be greater in 2007 than the cost of advertising on Cubs games? Is this reported anywhere? I don't believe this to be true and I'm not just going to take your word for it. Yes, why don't you look it up. I can't find it. The fact that you're unwilling simply to provide a link demonstrating the truth of your assertion tells me what I suspected all along - you're just making an assumption. And I suspect that your assumption is wrong.

Do you have any support for that assertion? If you're implying that Zell might look to ratings in 2006 and decide to cut back on Cubs programming, while increasing White Sox programming, don't you think a man that was able to make billions as an investor is more sophisticated than to base such a decision on ratings for only the last year? Also, doesn't it also assume that you're right about your initial point - that the cost of advertising on White Sox games will be more than the cost of advertising on Cubs' games? I would be quite surprised if that's true. On your first question, it's common knowledge that the Sox beat out the Cubs in radio and TV ratings (2006) for the first time in over 20 years. It really isn't a surprise considering the Cubs won 66 games and the Sox were basking in the glow of a WS. It was published in the Tribune so you may want to search the archives. On your second point, no, my view is that Zell doesn't care about the baseball part of the Tribune (he's admitted as much). My point about the Sox was specific to the poster I was replying to---who implied that WGN must be profiting because they are running Sox games--as if to say there is minimal profit in Sox telecasts. My reply is two fold: because of the recent success of the Sox, WGN can charge more per advertiser in 2007 than they can for Cubs games... Also, the Cubs, Sox, and Bulls will always be shown locally in Chicago because it is a local station (with a national following). You missed the point. Do you have support for your assertion that the cost of advertising on White Sox games will be greater in 2007 than the cost of advertising on Cubs games? I don't think that is true. You missed the point because it is right. You don't have to believe it but the White Sox had higher television and radio ratings than the Cubs in 2006. Look it up. The ad prices are based on ratings which measures the most recent consumer behavior. An argument has already been made in this thread that the Cubs would look to their longer track record of ratings success when attempting to set advertising prices. However, that isn't a guarantee that they have gotten their intial price for this seasons ads. Are you intentionally not answering the question? I DO NOT DISPUTE THAT THE SOX HAD HIGHER TELEVISION RATINGS IN 2006. You're not responding to the actual question: Upon what are you relying when you suggest that the cost of advertising on White Sox games will be greater in 2007 than the cost of advertising on Cubs games? Is this reported anywhere? I don't believe this to be true and I'm not just going to take your word for it.

Do you have any support for that assertion? If you're implying that Zell might look to ratings in 2006 and decide to cut back on Cubs programming, while increasing White Sox programming, don't you think a man that was able to make billions as an investor is more sophisticated than to base such a decision on ratings for only the last year? Also, doesn't it also assume that you're right about your initial point - that the cost of advertising on White Sox games will be more than the cost of advertising on Cubs' games? I would be quite surprised if that's true. On your first question, it's common knowledge that the Sox beat out the Cubs in radio and TV ratings (2006) for the first time in over 20 years. It really isn't a surprise considering the Cubs won 66 games and the Sox were basking in the glow of a WS. It was published in the Tribune so you may want to search the archives. On your second point, no, my view is that Zell doesn't care about the baseball part of the Tribune (he's admitted as much). My point about the Sox was specific to the poster I was replying to---who implied that WGN must be profiting because they are running Sox games--as if to say there is minimal profit in Sox telecasts. My reply is two fold: because of the recent success of the Sox, WGN can charge more per advertiser in 2007 than they can for Cubs games... Also, the Cubs, Sox, and Bulls will always be shown locally in Chicago because it is a local station (with a national following). You missed the point. Do you have support for your assertion that the cost of advertising on White Sox games will be greater in 2007 than the cost of advertising on Cubs games? I don't think that is true.

Do you have any support for that assertion? If you're implying that Zell might look to ratings in 2006 and decide to cut back on Cubs programming, while increasing White Sox programming, don't you think a man that was able to make billions as an investor is more sophisticated than to base such a decision on ratings for only the last year? Also, doesn't it also assume that you're right about your initial point - that the cost of advertising on White Sox games will be more than the cost of advertising on Cubs' games? I would be quite surprised if that's true.

If Prior doesn't throw a single pitch, we have an excellent shot at the division.

This is a great signing. He's a significantly better pitcher than, for example, Jason Marquis.

Don't worry what Muskat has to say, she is worthless! can we stop calling her Muskat? jesus. Is it really that big of deal? No, but that's because it really reflects more upon the childishness of the person calling names than it does upon Carrie. I have no problem with refraining from calling her Muskat, I just find it hard to believe that it is a bigger deal than openly taking the Lords name in vain. Call me childish, that is cool, but to continue to let people use language on this board that IS OFFENSIVE and not call them out is a pathetic lack of control in my opinion! Just my humble opinion, but my sense is that the Lord would view calling another human being "worthless" as being much worse than taking his name in vain.

I wasn't suggesting that they thought Harris would turn into Pujols. If I recall correctly, the quote was, in substance, something like - "If you look at Harris' statisical line at squint real hard, you see striking similarities to Albert Pujols' minor league numbers." They went on to discount expressly any suggestion that Harris would be as good as Pujols and added a comment about how Harris had already earned the reputation as a "redass."

Which 10 players were those? The ones that Grimsley named? I don't know which 10 players they were. I think it's likely ESPN's source for this story is the New York Post: http://www.nypost.com/seven/12292006/sports/eight_of_balco_10_failed_steroid_test_sports_brian_costello.htm Here are the ten that were subpoenaed during the BALCO scandal: Barry Bonds Gary Sheffield Jason Giambi Marvin Bernard Benito Santiago Armandos Rios Randy Velarde Jeremy Giambi Bobby Estalella AJ Pierzynski Only Pierzynski was never called to testify.

I'll never forget when BP's 2004 annual compared Harris to Albert Pujols...

I'd love to see the Cubs be a bit more creative in their use of Wood. If I was running things, they'd let him go 2-3 innings at a time, no more than 3 times a week, and never on consecutive days. This bullpen has enough good arms that the Cubs don't have use their relievers in defined roles.

Yawn. Anyone that is even slightly surprised by this "sudden" progress toward an agreement doesn't really understand how a good agent operates. In the end, Boras will have successfully gotten Boston to pay far more than they originally intended. Quite simply, he's very good.

Also, Hendry didn't recruit Huff when he was at Creighton. I wish that didn't matter, but for whatever reason it seems to.

He'll sign. Boras knows that the only possible leverage that he has here is to have Boston feeling pressure from its fans and the commissioner's office and the Seibu Lions to get something done. I expect that they'll move up as the deadline approaches. Of course, Boras isn't stupid. He knows that he's not going to get $15 million without any leverage. He's just trying to maximize Matsuzaka's total package by running up against the deadline. Indeed, that's his job.

Well, nobody is paying Marquis $8 million first of all, and second, take a look at how our 16 pitchers did last year filling out the rotation. Those were not reasonable numbers for a 5th starter. Good call on that one. :roll:

Well, nobody is paying Marquis $8 million first of all, and second, take a look at how our 16 pitchers did last year filling out the rotation. Those were not reasonable numbers for a 5th starter. Mateo and Marshall (the two best candidates for the 5th spot) combined for 171 innings and a 5.51 ERA. That's certainly better than Marquis and, given that each was seeing his first big league action, it's pretty reasonable to think that either/or would be better in 2007.

We have about 16 pitchers that could credibly pitch for $325K and post reasonable numbers as a 5th starter. Why the heck do we have to pay someone $8 million to do the same thing?

I'd prefer that the acquire him and give him 500 plate appearances. We'll see. In any event, the fact that Frank Robinson and/or Jim Bowden didn't like him in my view weighs in favor of acquiring him. What's more troubling is his reputation, as I understand it, as an unabashed evangelist. That has the potential to make him a huge locker room distraction.

Thank you, Dayton. That was a nightmare waiting to happen.