Leaderboard

Dude that is straight up trash trolling. Stop posting Charles the cat bullshit

*A week from now* Charles the Cat: Hearing the #Cubs are monitoring the Bryce Harper market closely. Despite recent reports I am being told owner Tom Ricketts will indeed sign off on a contract offer to Harper. #HotStove?

This is depressing. Bring back peavy44.

Lol that article reads like fanfic

Heyman is a well known mouthpiece for Boras. Nothing to see here. Think about it. They already turned down $300 million. They won’t sign for a discount . If SD was willing to pay more than $300 million, they would have been in this a lot sooner.

We need Manny and Harper resolved soon. People are so bored that this site is bordering on unreadable lately because almost every thread turns into a pissing contest.

According to Forbes estimates, Cubs revenue is almost double that of the Sox and their operating income is 3X. This doesn't take into scope additional off balance sheet assets, the benefits of which flow directly to the owners. Sure, if all you look at is what teams want you to see, and put it in the context of Luxury Tax, then you can make oversimplified comments about what the Cubs, Sox or any other team can afford. The fact is the Atlanta Braves are the only team with publicly available financials. Give me a logical business reason based on fact, not your assumptions or speculation as to why, as you put it, 'there isn't even a debate about who can more easily absorb a whale contract.' I submit that on a percentage basis, another whale contract to the Cubs would have less financial impact to the Cubs than Sox. Also, your statements that the Cubs are owned by a trust fund and are paying down debt via earnings in inaccurate and irrelevant. For perspective, which asset would you rather own (or who's shoes would you rather be in ?) JR/WS or Ricketts/Cubs.

Well it ends up it was about the Cubs meeting with Harper yesterday https://www.cubsinsider.com/2019/02/02/source-cubs-met-with-bryce-harper-friday-deal-not-believed-imminent/

I tip my Sox cap to you both. You guys are owning this thread.

Seems like a nice plant by Boras-Heyman to get Phillies to up their offer

This is one of my favorite posts of all time. You literally rip on me for using the “limited data Forbes has access to” (which I’m not doing) and then you proceed to use Forbes’ operating income estimates to make your entire argument. Second, I must question your business acumen when you only use operating profit and claim financing doesn’t matter. See when you have this thing called debt, you also have this thing called interest. Servicing their debt load eats always at their earnings / cash flow from operations. And how do you think the Cubs have been paying for the Wrigley renovations, their new spring training facility, all the rooftops, their boutique hotel, their triangle building, etc. Yeah, that shit isn’t free bro and how the Cubs finance those expenditures is extremely fucking important and impacts their cash flow position.

Can you guys stop calling each other geniuses and Einstein’s? Actually yeah just stop. If you don’t you will take a break for a bit here.

Haven’t all the recent speculation/s since the legalized sports gambling bill passed put it at closer to the $2.0-2.1 billion range? As far as the Cubs go, unless they’re suddenly in the vicinity of $200 million per season just for their regional broadcasting rights, it’s a no go...and that Dodgers’ deal is currently weighing down the big market deals because they overpaid by so much that it has become a disaster for both sides (because an entire generation of fans will have been blocked out for 20 years). It’s not like Harper is going to move the needle more than 10-15%. With the White Sox or Padres, the positive (immediate) return is going to be closer to 50% if not higher...tv ratings, attendance, ad rates, more promotional events/giveaways leading to high attendance and more tickets sold, etc. The Cubs objectively just don’t have much room to grow compared to the position the White Sox are in. If we’re going to argue that cash flow from the development around the ballpark is raking in hundreds of millions in free cash flow that can be reallocated to Harper instead of debt payments, sure...anything is possible. But ownership groups tend to be more risk averse than individual owners, and Heyward/Darvish/Chatwood are hard to overlook, as well as another diminished asset in Addison Russell they haven’t quite figured out what to do with.

at this point this is getting stupid and ridiculous

Just a terrible post and it borderlines on trolling. The Sox probably have the most financial flexibility of any team in baseball. The Cubs are owned by a trust fund, are paying down their debt load via the earnings of the business, and would need to blow out the luxury tax threshold to add a big contact (something much more liquid ownerships are afraid to do). There isn’t even a debate here who can more easily absorb a whale contract.

I heard from a source that Manny Machado kidnapped Will and Julie Purcell.

This is the worst offseason I can ever remember.

I forgot about the shift. Part of me wants them to outlaw it. Say that ballplayers have to be within certain areas when in the field like the coaching box in college basketball. The other part of me says keep the shift and tell these selfish big leaguers to hit singles through those big holes in the infield. I think it is embarrassing when the whole left side is open and some big lug lefthanded hitter hits it right to one of the three guys on the right side of the infield or pops out to RF. Take the single every time. It can't be hard to learn how to half swing or bunt the ball where one infielder is covering the whole side of the infield. The shift is so damn annoying.

Corporate tax? What the heck is that...?

Bruuuuuuce parody account=funny

How dare you diss Ross Gload like that.

22k is still awful, though. Maybe they could've gotten 30 in a better location.

Harper is a huge marketing opportunity and I don't think Padres needed Boras to convince them of that.

?...let’s see here, the Sox have little to no debt and have a sweet lease arrangement with the IFSA to pay for stadium improvements. Meanwhile, the Cubs’ ownership group has financed the purchased one of the team, ancillary assets, and significant maintance CAPEX via debt. Yet you continue to use operating income as the be all end all. And regardless, the ability to absorb a significant salary is far more dependent on a team’s long-term financial commitments relative to their theoretical payroll ceiling. I can’t say this enough, but the Sox have zero long-term commitments and likely have a ~$150M payroll ceiling without a big jump in revenue. The Cubs are more or less up against the luxury tax and their ownership group (a family trust and not a random billionaire owner willing to throw endless cash at his team) has shown zero willingness to blow out the 2nd or 3rd tier luxury tax threshold for the foreseeable future. You can keep talking about all these revenue streams & “appreciating assets”, but if the Cubs doesn’t want to pay a luxury tax like most ownership groups (even ignoring their debt load) then it doesn’t really matter. Your argument is flawed from both a business standpoint and a practicality standpoint.

Never mind, I found this article, which I can read, without subscribing to The Athletic:, although it doesn't really give a specific description of the Dodgers' disillusionment, with Machado: https://www.dodgersnation.com/rosenthal-dodgers-out-on-harper-machado-and-explains-their-spending-practices/2019/02/02/

What was it about Machado, that caused the Dodgers to "become less enamored of him"? Was it what we all saw, during the Playoffs?

Which is why it’s hard to argue how much free cash flow the team is actually generating. What are the terms in years and interest rates for all those loans? One would imagine an ownership group is going to be more likely to prioritize paying down debt...it’s exactly what the Padres are doing, but that’s eating into 10% of their potential spending (including stadium improvements and renovations the Sox don’t have to worry about.) What is the net positive of adding another $300 million contract to Harper? How much more can they earn with him...but what happens if he joins the list of bad contracts at the exact time you’re trying to extend your contention window and “fix” the starting rotation and bullpen? For one thing, it guarantees that you won’t be able to keep Baez AND Bryant, if that was ever a realistic possibility in the first place...not to mention Contreras and Rizzo, along with Hendricks and Quintana. Signing Harper would force Heyward into CF, and/or a trade of Almora/Happ. That doesn’t make much sense either. And it would cause Boras to lose one of his biggest bidders for another of his clients in Bryant, which isn’t ideal.

Yes. Apologies

A made up Forbes number does you know good. The sox operating income doesnt go to zero by spending 30 million more - that's not how that works. Why cant he make disparaging remarks about the Cubs owners financial standing?

I can hear an angry meowing in the distance.

Yes but the mlb teams pay higher aav to pitchers is going to end in a month so that argument doesn't really work.

In no way is this guy well respected lol.

The starting pitcher has an effect on 100 pitches per game for 30 or so starts that's 3000 plays. That's more than the 600 at bats plus his defensive plays or at least close. He has more impact on his 30 games than the hitter has spread out over the 150 or so games that most hitters play.

I predicted 666 pages.. it may actually reach that even though I was kidding.

Right, so if we are talking about single seasons (not longevity), baseball teams are paying the highest AAV to pitchers. Which means that currently teams believe the best pitchers have more value in a single season than the best hitters. The reason for investing more long term in a hitter versus pitcher doesnt have to do with teams believing hitters have more impact in a single season, it has to do with the fact that hitters are more likely to have value at the end years of a contract. Its impossible to know, but Id guess if teams were bidding for 1 season for players, after Trout, the next few would be pitchers. Because while overall a hitter has more chances to have an impact in a season, a pitcher has the greatest chance of having the most impact on a single game.

Its not a flaw. If you want to argue that a pitcher faces over 600 at bats in a full season I can understand that but it's a fallacy to say that is equal to a batter taking 600 at bats. The reason is this. A player can impact the outcome for all 162 games in a season - it's not just his 600 at bats. It's his time on the bases and in the field. The ability to impact the game daily is why an owner is more likely to invest heavily in a bat.

No, shorter term investments are to accommodate for the higher volatility. When assessing the risk of a large and long term investment that is very likely to not warrant its end year values, it's the total investment that matters - not the aav investment. Teams weren't paying Stanton or Cabrera for their age 37 seasons. These are the biggest investments given and I want to reiterate that it's the total investment that matters for investments that are likely to have no value in them at the end of it... 1. Giancarlo Stanton, $325,000,000 (2015-27) 2. Alex Rodriguez, $275,000,000 (2008-17) 3. Alex Rodriguez, $252,000,000 (2001-10) 4. Miguel Cabrera, $248,000,000 (2016-23) 5. Albert Pujols, $240,000,000 (2012-21) … Robinson Cano, $240,000,000 (2014-23) 7. Joey Votto, $225,000,000 (2014-23) 8. David Price, $217,000,000 (2016-22) 9. Clayton Kershaw, $215,000,000 (2014-20) 10. Prince Fielder, $214,000,000 (2012-20)

Hes saying your wifes been sleeping with your bestfriend the last couple of years

What are your “sources” saying?

The scary thing is that this could go on for another month, if not longer.

This sport sucks. I say that as a huge baseball fan. It sucks. It absolutely sucks.

Alonso is a much better player than most here give him credit for.

The Rays drew 22,000+ for 3 straight years 2008-2010. The stadium is in the same place. It has steadily declined ever since. But also Hockey is not big in the South but it is in Tampa.

We almost got to that part of the temperature chart where Celsius and Fahrenheit match up.

Well the number of jobs would be the same. There would just be one more player on the NL teams getting paid more to DH as opposed to a backup utility player making near league minimum.

If baseball dies it won't be because of tanking although that would play a part in it. It'll die because of the "three outcome" approach in my opinion. The games are becoming boring, TV ratings are dramatically down in some places, attendance is down. The game needs to go back to fundamentals, putting the ball in play, action on the bases and so forth. Regarding the "time element" One of the beauties of the game is that there isn't a clock. I don't care if a game takes four hours if it is well played. And I continue to wonder why some folks b**** if a baseball game takes three hours but are perfectly fine when an NFL games goes 3:15 or 3:30 with even less action.

Hawk's the best announcer of all time.

This may be the most Caulfieldized thread ever. Pot stirring, crazy tangents, defensive rants, this one has them all.

If you have a problem with the board or it's staff, feel free to move along. The people who do this also do things like raise families, work full time jobs, and do some world altering stuff in their free time. No one profits a penny to listen to you b**** about their volunteer work here, so I am not going to let you take a crap on the work ethic of our moderators and admins. If you don't like Soxtalk, find some where else.

I will note that suspensions have been handed out for some of the ridiculous stuff from last night.