Chisoxfn

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).

QUOTE (scs787 @ Jul 17, 2014 -> 03:59 PM) Agreed....Wonder what he would have fetched on the open market....At least 5M I'd say. He'd have gotten the MLE, I think, maybe slightly less, probably not more. A year ago he'd have gotten probably above the MLE but he's coming off a pretty down year.

Man, what a great deal. Boozer as 3.25M is a bargain, imo.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 17, 2014 -> 11:29 AM) At some point it sure seems like someone is going to take enormous losses on that deal. It might be TWC only but if they got any guarantees from the Dodgers to cover their tails in the deal, it could bite the Dodgers seriously as well. By the way, that is a horrendous article. The Dodgers should be blamed for TWC paying them too much and should have just taken less? LOL. That is a pathetic crybaby mentality if I ever saw one. It isn't as if the Dodgers lied or put a gun to the head and coerced TWC into doing it. Pathetic that people will read that and somehow blame the Dodgers. Sure, Dodgers could do something like cut a deal from a PR perspective if they truly wanted to, but at some point, TWC is going to want to recoup some money and get the network on other stations (cause every day they don't, they are losing significantly more money then if they had sold the rights, etc, to others).

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 17, 2014 -> 11:29 AM) At some point it sure seems like someone is going to take enormous losses on that deal. It might be TWC only but if they got any guarantees from the Dodgers to cover their tails in the deal, it could bite the Dodgers seriously as well. Why in the heck would the Dodgers provide any sort of guarantee. That would be extremely unique for a mlb franchise to do. I'm sure there are some clauses regarding performance, etc, but this is not a LA Dodger issue and is a TWC issue. They paid for the contract and have been the ones who are finding that maybe they paid too much / misjudged the leverage they'd have in their negotiations with cable providers.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jul 17, 2014 -> 02:58 PM) Yeah, that's what I meant. His ability to field, hold on and pick off runners, and prevent stolen bases is such a big difference for a non strike out guy. As they point out given the ridiculous runs saved statistics he has put up. However, maybe I'm an idiot, but his defense doesn't make up for the fact that his peripheals are all normal (with above average results). Yeah he's saved that many runs, but had he not, you'd have seen even more hits, etc, which would then really just leave you to his ability to hold runners, which can't truly be measured (+ some benefit for turning double-plays, etc).

Buehrle is my favorite White Sox ever and one of, if not, the best pitcher in franchise history. He will always be a member of the White Sox and this awesome article deserves being in PHT for all Sox fans to see. I hope one day he wins #300 with the Sox and he ends up having another 5-7 year successful run on the southside!!!

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jul 17, 2014 -> 01:23 PM) I guess you are right but maybe this is a generational thing. With the unemployment rate so high and people losing their homes, etc., it makes me think people like my cousin who have put themselves thru school and gotten educated and now make a huge buck should just get used to the fact work is not fun. I am assuming when he's not traveling lawyers at least get weekends off most of the time. I haven't asked him. Maybe I'm mistaken. It seems like the way the job world works today, he's entering his prime money making years from 30 to 60. I'd assume law is different from many fields in which people over 50 aren't getting hired anymore. I'd guess a good lawyer can work til he dies in his 80s. My concern is in today's job climate, how bad can being a six figure lawyer really be? It's not a sweatshop. He's positioned himself to start raking in the money and chugging along the next many years to retirement. Starting over having to educate himself in a new field at 29 seems silly in today's horrific job environment. You mentioned he is thinking of going into physical therapy. While he's less likely to make 200K plus (presume he's close to that number currently), he is looking at having earnings potential in the low 6 figures (maybe not out of the gate but in a major city if he does things right, I believe people start somewhere in the range of 75 - 100 or so).

You rock!

QUOTE (lord chas @ Jul 17, 2014 -> 09:56 AM) Thought this trainer guy left to take a job at Oregon State? He did. It might not be a bad thing either, imo.

What site is out there where I can look up historical unemployment rates and Federal Deficit Rates? For whatever reason finding trouble finding an official spot to pull the information (for example, 6/30/14 vs. 6/30/13). Thanks in advance.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 17, 2014 -> 09:34 AM) Fred did clear a player to play who had a broken leg and nearly killed Luol Deng. He's a hell of a trainer. I am okay with a change. We've had more bouts of plantar fasiatis then any team I can remember and haven't exactly been one of the leagues healthiest teams. I have no stats to back this up, just basing it off my gut.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 17, 2014 -> 09:23 AM) He said he'll have to learn to play with his turf toe and good ole Fred Tedeschi said it may never improve. Well maybe its good we have a new trainer cause that seems absurd. I could see playing through it for a season but with a full off-season I would think you'd be able to get better.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 17, 2014 -> 08:55 AM) The bulk of defense is still going to fall on Butler, and those injuries he said he may have to play with the rest of his career, so I'm not banking on too much here. Really, his various injuries are going to be permanent? Or does he mean just playing through injuries in general?

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jul 17, 2014 -> 08:58 AM) Assuming the plane was at cruising altitude, this wasn't just some foot soldier with a small piece of weaponry. This had to be a serious type of military missile owned by the government. My bet is that was just a major, major f***-up. That is my presumption as well. I presume this was a military strike, likely accidental, but still completely inexcusable.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 17, 2014 -> 08:51 AM) Jimmy will get a whole lot better simply by having other offensive options around him. He wasn't ready to be a primary scorer, and probably never will be. Great points. While he wasn't a primary scorer, he was looked to more then in past seasons to score. In addition, he also had numerous injuries which prevented him from having as much of his legs underneath him and really impacted him getting comfortable offensively. He shook off his rust as the season went on a bit but injuries really stalled him last year.

What the heck. Total disaster and extremely scary situation. I don't know that I can remember a time in my lifetime, other then some of the conspiracy theories regarding some various plane crashes, that a large passenger plan was shot down by a military (non terrorist attack).

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 17, 2014 -> 05:24 AM) Traveling for work can get old fast. It's not the same as traveling for pleasure. And if, as you say, life goes by fast, why spend it all working so much if you're not enjoying yourself? I appreciate my free time plenty without needing to routinely work more than 40 hours a week. Spending years working 60-100 hours sounds absolutely miserable, and that's with me generally enjoying what I do. I completely agree. Traveling for work can be fun in small stints but when it is a regular occurrence it gets old. 3-4 times per year, to me, is the perfect amount of work travel.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Jul 16, 2014 -> 12:35 PM) I've got friends who complain all the time about busy season as an accountant, just like going into law you pretty much expect these hours. It's much easier to think you can handle those hours then when you actually have to do it, plus your life may have changed drastically (significant other, family, etc). Personally, I work in IT Security, part of that is being available for off hour work including an on call rotation. My friends give me grief when I saw I can't go out because I'm on call, but they'll complain how I make more money. I've got one friend in particular, she works as at a major TV channel company around ad sales (she essentially finds slots for her clients to air ads per their contracts), it's a strict 8 hr a day job. Meanwhile, I average about 50-55 hours a week (part of it is me doing extra out of my own accord, which has gotten me promoted and multiple raises) and I legitimately make double of what she does. She complains about money/being cheap all the time, but has more opportunities to go out/do things after work compared to me. Personally, I like making more money compared to having that extra free time at this stage in my life. My goal is to work extremely hard to solidify my career and to get me to where I want to go. Not that I'll be lazy later, but I don't want to hamper my future by not taking advantage of a time in my life where my one major responsibility is just work. It's all about what you are willing to do and put up with, fortunately I find IT work to be a challenge and keep me interested even though the pay is what drew me to staying with it as a career. Great post.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 16, 2014 -> 12:26 PM) A similiar thing happened to a friend of mine. He was worked like a dog and couldn't take it so he quit maybe 6 months into his legal career. He drove a beer truck for a while, then went into the world of trading indexes. Now he's back as a corporate lawyer. I was going to suggest corporate law. Yeah, working at a law firm can be tough, etc, but just because you don't like that, if you are doing well and getting great experience (which he presumably is as I presume he's working for one of the top firms, given you mentioned big pay, blah blah blah), then I would encourage a first alternative to getting into Corporate law. Pay isn't usually as much as the law firm, but can still be extremely lucrative and hours, etc, tend to be much better. Often times people go to work at those firms to eventually settle into that area. I spent the first 8 years of my career busting my hump working 60 hours a week most weeks and 80-100 for months at a time, but always knew while certain aspects I didn't like, the long-term opportunities were great and there was an eventual light at the end of the tunnel when I was ready to cut back on the hours, etc (mainly when the kids came around). In the grand scheme of things, pretty small sacrifice to make to try and position yourself and ultimately your family as well as you can for the long-term. Note: Unrelated side effect of it. I find that I complain less than almost anyone I know. People cry about working 42 hours or blah blah blah and It amazes me. They don't appreciate their free time, etc. When you work hard and work a lot, I think you come to better appreciate the free time and from my perspective, I did it because I wanted to (to move up, etc) not because i had to. Totally different story if I was working 2 full time minimum wage jobs to put food on a table (cause in that situation, there is a gun to your head to do it and provide where as in my situation, I felt that I can't complain because i am lucky to do what I do and I ultimately chose to do it; If I don't want to, I can always leave and go work somewhere else).