Chisoxfn

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 21, 2014 -> 08:34 AM) They clear a max contract when a guy reaches free agency in 2 seasons if they can't win a title. You just think Lebron is bailing? I don't think so. He even talked about in his letter how he was in it to win 1 title (I'm sure he wants more) but he knew it would be a long-term move and play. He's waiting 2 years to get a fatter contract, unless of course, the next two years are total disasters, but if they are, it probably means something has happened to Lebron. Giving up Bennett, Wiggins, and a future 1st is just not a smart long-term move, imo. You need to have a good defense to win a title, imo, and they will not have that with their planned construction.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 21, 2014 -> 08:32 AM) Trading stars in the NBA for a package of non star players rarely works out for the team giving up the star, going back to the Bucks trading Kareem. That is why this is such a unique situation. Never have I seen a star generate such fair trade value in return. I can understand the Warriors offer but Cavs are offering up a lot of flexibility and two very high upside guys. They could potentially get the better deal, which is pretty much unheard of in this type of trade.

QUOTE (Brian @ Jul 20, 2014 -> 05:47 PM) With what Wiggins has shown in summer league, I'm not trading him for Love. I'm prob in minority though. A poll of GM's and Assistant Gm's indicated you were not in the minority. It was a smallish sample size though. The majority said they'd rather have Wiggins then Love (probably factors in contract as well). I hope the Cavs make that deal. Will really hinder their flexibility going forward and prevent them from being a good an above average defensive team, imo.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jul 20, 2014 -> 09:17 AM) Golden State has to be dead at this point. They can't match Cleveland with Wiggins on the table. When losing a superstar like Love, this is a dream come true scenario for them. There are posters on here who will cry why didn't the Bulls make this trade. It is absurd how much teams are going to give up for Love.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 19, 2014 -> 03:06 PM) Yeah and wasn't hinroch SO awesome in the playoffs? Nate Robinson won that series with nets along with noah and was reason we stole game 1 vs Heat Hinrich's career playoff numbers are actually > then his career regular season numbers.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 19, 2014 -> 12:57 PM) You are right, for less money, Nate and DJ only offered us more ppg, more assists per game, better FG% and better 3pt FG%, and only slightly less steals and rebounds than Kirk Hinrich the past two years. Also Kirk sucks at free throws. DJ's defensive ratings were pretty horrific.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 19, 2014 -> 10:45 AM) While true, I'd still take Nate over Hinrich and DJ over Hinrich. The problem is Hinrich. I'll already take Aaron over Hinrich. Hinrich has gotten significant minutes everywhere he has played with multiple coaches. We have one of the best head coaches in the league and he clearly values Hinrich. DJ was absolutely atrocious defensively. I liked DJ and was appreciative of what he did and wanted him back, but I'm perfectly fine with Brooks and I always wanted Hinrich + DJ or a guy like Brooks. Hinrich is important because when you can limit his minutes, his efficiency will increase and he is capable of playing the 2 allowing Rose to play off the ball without hurting your defense.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jul 21, 2014 -> 06:59 AM) Troy Tulowitzki, home versus away: .323/.397.565/.962 vs .274/.349/.469/.818 That's a hall of famer versus a merely good hitter. Coors has a large effect, but players will always perform better at home on average. I would imagine that Gonzalez would end up as a .825-.850 OPS, 120-130 wRC+ type of player. 20M per season for a potential .825 - .850 OPS seems like overspend. I guess technically it is 16 or 17 and scaling upwards but still. There is a lot of risk getting Car Go, although the tools are definitely nice.

QUOTE (Jake @ Jul 20, 2014 -> 03:36 PM) I actually think it's a very valid question - is Konerko the worst baserunner of all time or just one of the worst? Well, he's the worst. I think there is a difference between foot speed and baserunning. Yes, he is inherently slow and that means he will clog the bases, however, does that mean he gets bad reads / jumps, etc? No, no necessary correlation there. These stats are pretty much completely worthless and obvious.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 18, 2014 -> 02:18 PM) Buster Olney ‏@Buster_ESPN 1m Team officials guesstimated this week that if Brady Aiken was a free agent, he'd get something in the range of $30m-$40m. What a system. I wonder if he would really get that much money. If I were the Sox, I'd go in the 15-20M range no problem. Of course, I even question whether teams would do that as you might set a pretty poor precedent to the other players in the organization who were unable to get around those rules. If you look at what Loux signed for when he was a FA, it wasn't huge money, something like $300K when he was a 1st round pick.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 18, 2014 -> 12:28 PM) Depends. What if in the fourth the only lineup that Thibs trusts is Rose Kirk Jimmy Taj Noah *shudders* That is still a lot better then the team that scored 68.

QUOTE (MexSoxFan#1 @ Jul 18, 2014 -> 11:12 AM) Sorry, not buying it. Part of the reason why 2000s LeBron/Cavs were so good (at least in the regular season) was that they were a really good defensive team with the best 2 way player in LeBron. What made the Heat great the first three years was the fact they had three legit offensive stars along with being among the best defensive teams when they wanted to be. This Cavs team has alot of offensive power with LeBron/Love/Kyrie but on paper, that's an awful defense. They can certainly score but other teams will score on them too. What I like about that team is, we have defensive people at the right positions for that potential match-up and should be able to take advantage of the weak defense at some of those positions.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jul 18, 2014 -> 07:19 AM) Just cuz it's Friday and it's fun to go back into time, DirtySox is the first person I see to make a mention at all: http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?sh...t&p=2168667 EDIT: http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?sh...7853&st=150 You just can't beat immediate reactions. I was pretty smart. I was touting Harvey over the other pitchers. Not too shabby. I'll take Sale. Edit: Of course I made lots of stupid comments too. Funny how one of the guys highly talked about, Stetson Allie, who had a huge arm, ended up being drafted by the Bucco's as a position player.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jul 18, 2014 -> 08:02 AM) HOF voters loves playoff success and awesome as 2005 was, other than that he was one inning of relief and one bad start to show for on his playoff resume, that's it. That was in the series, he threw a complete game against the Angels. He has a no-hitter and a perfect game and when you look at his innings pitched, consecutive seasons with 10 or more wins, etc, and all of a sudden he joins some extremely elite company on those lists. We also have to remember in this day and age, it is extremely unlikely, imo, that we'll see really anyone else get to that vaunted 300 win number (is there anyone else with even a shot at it other then Buehrle, currently?), so if he can get even close to it, it will be impressive given the era he pitched in.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jul 18, 2014 -> 07:55 AM) I bet Krush has a very identifiable strike and out call. We have an awesome ump at AH, an older black guy who has a rollie fingers curly mustache. He yells "THAT....IS A STRIKE" and points in the air when he calls a strike, and does an emphatic out call on the bases. And he is a really good active ump, so his antics dont really rub people the wrong way I can just picture Krush practicing his ejections at home in the mirror. What's that...you want to challenge the call....your out of here!

Does anyone have a ticket connection for Bears games? I'm looking for 2 seats to the Bears / Niners game in San Fran. I was hoping to get lucky on individual pricing and am not looking to spend an arm and a leg (so the stub hub method doesn't work...since its home opener in a new stadium). Looking for at or near face and am hoping someone somehow has a connection and would hook it up. I'd be forever grateful!!!

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 18, 2014 -> 07:44 AM) In the modern age stats have become so much more important to the Hall of Fame, I think Mark has less of a shot than ever, unless he can stick around and win 300 games. He's in my HOF, but the only way he is going to Cooperstown is with a ticket. This is why I think you have to look at both. I think he's a borderline HOFer but he needs to get to 275. 300 and he is a shoe in, but if he can somehow stick around and win another 80 or so games to get to 275, I Think that is a pretty strong argument.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 17, 2014 -> 06:04 PM) Well Gage in this case I will defer to you as the expert, guess I was mistaken. I figure in a week or so, something will come out and I'll be the one with egg on my face, haha. It will turn out whatever it was, wasn't material enough to warrant inclusion in the financial statements or something cause TWC are just ballas. I did find it interesting that this morning I got in my car, turned on the radio, and there was a long add from TWC slamming DirectTV for not negotiating, etc. At this point, I would think TWC has almost zero leverage. When DirectTV has something...they have so much more power then a cable provider because 90+% of the population can get a sattelite signal from where they live. However, even if I wanted TWC, if I don't live in an area that has it (or one of the other companies it owns), I am completely out of luck. I get a kick when people in the media on local radio keep talking about how fans should just switch. Its like...hello, yes that works if you have DirectTv and live in an area with TWC owned cable but if you aren't, you are out of luck. And I don't know how much of LA has TWC as an option but where I live in South Orange County I don't think anyone can get TWC (maybe some small pocket) but everything here is pretty much Cox controlled and they have no reason to negotiate with TWC and pay big money (nor do the other cable providers) until an alternative like DirectTV or DishNetwork has the service, cause only then, will they be at threat of losing customers. Note: The alternative is TWC, if they really wanted to stick it to Direct, could put some pressure by making it widely available on cable providers networks at beneficial pricing and thus put the pressure on Direct. However, I don't know if that is a good move cause they'd likely be locking in some mega losses (although I can't see how they could possibly recoup as it is, having lost 6 months of the season). I think I heard (and haven't fact checked this so I might be wrong) that there were similar problems with the Yes network in its original year as well (where it took almost a full season until all of the major carriers had picked it up).

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 17, 2014 -> 05:15 PM) To save JR $13 million? Firsts had to he offered. LOL...so true.

QUOTE (Stan Bahnsen @ Jul 17, 2014 -> 01:58 PM) Awesome that this isn't crazy. I'm just hopeful that Noesi, or Carroll or whatever we might get in trades emerges as a preferred BOR option (or better) heading into next season. Will make the rebuild much shorter, potentially. What is sad is we won't contend with those type of #'s being put up by our best players. I really hope we don't waste these guys primes cause you never know what can happen the next year.

QUOTE (peavy44 @ Jul 17, 2014 -> 01:28 PM) Abreu 300 50 130 roty Sale 1.89 18-4 Welcome aboard!!!

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 17, 2014 -> 04:57 PM) To get picks. And depending on what their plans are, they might have wanted that contract to help acquire another large contract.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 17, 2014 -> 04:31 PM) You don't think that it's plausible for a company like TWC to add in a clause saying "here's this amount, except in this circumstance" in a contract? I will tell you right now, that for the Dodgers to do something like that would be ludicrous and they'd have the dumbest attorney's and business people on the planet (given the type of transaction this is). Usually contingent contracts are ones in which you have some semblance of control of the situation or you are giving some beneficial pricing for volume (e.g., we provide you 2B units, we give it to you at X price, however, if you drop below that, the price is going to get more because of scales). It can happen in sales transactions where you are acquiring / selling an actual business and there are questions around certain current / existing conditions and thus you put certain contingencies in place. In something like this, there is no way a franchise's attorney are going to sign off on this as it is so far outside of their powers. Contracts with contingent pricing based on suppliers demands, etc, can happen, but that is to protect the supplier from losing quantities of scale that they can control. Dodgers have zero control in what is impacting Time Warner. I'm sure the only scale back provisions are tied to certain morality clauses, as in, if Dodgers ownership did something completely off-base that pissed the entire fan base off, as well as things that would impact what was negotiated (e.g., moving the franchise to another market). If I sell Apple 5 billion units for an iphone and it is a done deal, am I going to put in a clause where I get less money because Apple wasn't able to sell as many units (even though they made them and utilized my parts)? Hell no. Now if it was a JIT inventory system, then you have a different scenario, where it would be plausible (and then it would go back to the variable pricing, situation, etc) but if the parts have been used, apple is on the hook. If there were major contingencies as part of the contract, they'd show up in their audited financials as well (most likely) as you'd have to come up with a value for any of these so called contingencies you are referring to. Per my perusal of the financials, including the MD&A, they specifically refer to the following: TWC’s business may be adversely affected if it fails to reach distribution agreements providing for carriage of the Company’s RSNs or if such agreements are on unfavorable terms. There is more detail in there about the negotiations and this section is specifically referring to the agreement w/Dodgers and about how the Company will be adversely impacted if they can not reach agreements with other providers for carriage or reach unfavorable terms. Zero mention of any potential outs or shared liability of potential lost income. Bottom Line: Businesses aren't in the business of making deals and then seeing how they would go about things. That would be a partnership; This is not a partnership from the perspective that both teams profit / lose depending on the results; TWC thought they could make money despite the price paid and maybe they won't, but Dodgers have a fixed business. If they wanted an alternative, they would have entered into a joint venture with them or did something similar to what the Chicago Sports teams did with a consolidated network with various hurdles, etc. That was not what the Dodger transaction was.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jul 17, 2014 -> 04:39 PM) Yea the bulls are gonna pay the difference. Carlos is getting 16+ this year regardless. If he went to an open market I highly doubt he would get more Exactly; He probably didn't care either way, just wanted the opportunity to play in a good spot.

QUOTE (Jake @ Jul 17, 2014 -> 04:21 PM) The thing about the amnesty that f***s you is that it happens after everyone has spent their money. He would have gotten himself paid if he became available July 1 Technically, he doesn't get any more or less so he could care less what this works out to. It isn't like he gets this amount on top of what the Bulls pay him (or at least I don't think so). This is just what the cap hit is for the team that acquires him and they essentially pay the Bulls this amount (with the Bulls paying Carlos the remainder of his salary). So this is basically 3.5 less M of the ~16M the Bulls had hit. So from a cash flow perspective, Bulls are spending an additional 12.5M then what their true salary is per our cap number (as this is all non-cap but real cash).