iamshack

QUOTE (Hatchetman @ Nov 6, 2016 -> 03:06 PM) Mike Trout at $34 million is a steal. Top tier HOF'er. One of the best players of all time and 24 years old!! No way to you get him for Chris Sale. Never in a million years. Yeah, unless you offer to take Pujols. But even then, the Angels had a lot of money come off the books after this season. While they'll have basically $60 million committed just to Trout and Pujols, they don't have any other bad contracts. Pujols is basically owed $140 million over the next 5 years. If you took both players back, you'd be taking on about $260 million over 5 years, with a massive contract coming due to Trout in 2021.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 6, 2016 -> 08:42 AM) With Sale's contract vs Trout, that is a severe overpay by the Sox. Is it? If you assume Trout is worth $70 million per season (Fangraphs value), and that Sale is worth $40ish million (again, Fangraphs), Trout's surplus value ends up in the range of $160 million (versus the $120 million he's owed) over the next 4 years versus about $82 million surplus value (versus the $38 million he's owed) for Sale over the next three years. You better believe that if the Angels did decide to move Trout, they're going to use it as an opportunity to unload Albert Pujols as well. My guess is they MIGHT consider Trout, Pujols and $20 million for Sale. If the Sox chose to move both Sale and Rodon for Trout, now you might be talking about something that would allow you to avoid taking on Pujols and the $140 million he is still owed. Edit: Had to adjust the money Sox would get back from the Angels since I did not account for WAR Pujols might bring over the next 5 years.

Slab is poured, bases for the lights and fencing are in and poured as well.

QUOTE (whitesoxjr27 @ Nov 5, 2016 -> 09:37 AM) I don't get this financial stuff. You're saying it's going to bite them in the ass eventually? No. I'm saying after the purchase of the Cubs by the Ricketts, they actually had to cut back on some budgets due to the way the purchase was financed. There were certain limitations to the money they could spend as a result of the lending rules. So while they forgot the "not" in "Try not to suck" for a few years, it was likely partially by design but also partially due to the financing of the purchase.

QUOTE (kitekrazy @ Nov 5, 2016 -> 11:15 AM) This is where it can be misleading. There wasn't anything really to tear down. There wasn't a Sale or Q tier player. This is where Sox fans are deluded. If you look at recent Sox drafting and development, it's more of a false hope trading two ace type pitchers are going to turn you into the Cubs. They have a competent front office and organizations like the Twins tried to recruit front office people from the Cubs. The rebuild needs to happen off the field. I'm sure they will hire Tyler Flowers and Gordon Beckham to be an important part of the organization. Well, he did have to deal with a lot of bad contracts and dead money. He did the right thing and traded players with bloated contracts by eating money. When he took over, their annual payroll had risen to $140m. He cut it down to about $85 million fairly quickly, and then focused on mid-level signings which he could leverage into prospects or other useful pieces at the trade deadline.

Hah, funny. There were actually some good tidbits about this in some of those articles about the Cubs finances in the thread about potential effects of the Cubs winning the WS. They actually might have had to make some of those budget cuts in order to remain in good terms on their financing. Really some fascinating stuff in there.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Nov 4, 2016 -> 08:53 PM) Is this song real? Where did you find this? No, that was Balta, Kyyle, Ezio and me singing in Jason's garage last year.

QUOTE (fathom @ Nov 4, 2016 -> 07:03 PM) Terrible game by Bulls. Rondo might shoot 30 pct from the field this year in this offense Yeah, not much defense. Wade had probably the best game he's had in 5 years and they still lost.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 4, 2016 -> 04:15 PM) Why baseball matters. Why sports matter. Heartbreaking and beautifully written. Unfortunately, this was going to be the case for one of these fanbases no matter what. The good news is the Indians have a great young core, too. (s***ty news for us haha) This world series put me back in touch with why I love this game so much. That's really all any of this came from. Maybe it didn't for others, but IF the reason for that is your own bias, anger and hate, then I feel bad y'all missed out. Those emotions literally don't serve you in any way, and Cubs fans aren't going to stop celebrating or being obnoxious because it pisses you off... so... might as well not let it piss you off, right!? There's no winning to be had there. Reddy, I am just wondering why it took the Cubs in the WS to remind you of why you love baseball so much? Is it because it was a team from Chicago? A team built the "right" way? A team of young kids? What was it?

A powerful take from the other side.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 4, 2016 -> 02:08 PM) It's absolutely high on that list. How high is obviously subjective and up for debate, but multiple posters called this "just any other series" and said that the other teams and their fans don't care, and all of that is unequivocally false. I'm not a sportswriter. I don't have the breadth of knowledge they do, but reading some incredibly well written and evocative pieces over the last few days, along with my personal experience of watching that game, brought me to the conclusion it did. Others don't need to feel the same way, but Cubs fans are absolutely within their rights to still be ecstatic and obnoxious about their win just two days ago. Gimme a break. In today's world, everything that happens yesterday has a tendency to be the "most amazing thing that has ever happened." You know this is what sells newspapers and advertising. Go back to the days after some of those other World Series that we talked about, and I am sure you will find some incredibly well-written and evocative pieces, including in 2005. The Cubs are an historic franchise, they play in an historic ballpark, and they have an extremely large fanbase. Those three things, in and of themselves, do not make that WS the greatest WS ever played. The quality of play was decent. The drama was for the most part lacking. The umpiring was not good. The games were for the most part not competitive. Let me ask you this. Had the Indians won game 7, would you think it was the best WS ever? Technically, a completed comeback in game 7 and the perpetuation of the Cubs losing probably adds to the "lore" that I have seen many mention.

QUOTE (South Sider @ Nov 4, 2016 -> 01:17 PM) You gotta remember, you're dealing with a lot of Sox fans here who have no love whatsoever for the Cubs. There's nothing wrong with that, but the argument you're trying to make is falling on deaf ears. We know the historical significance of this event, let the Cub haters keep on hating and denying it all they want. Everyone wants to say there's nothing historically significant about sucking in baseball, and that's right. To be sure, there is nothing that is REALLY historically significant when it comes to professional sports. History books won't tell the tale of the Cubs finally winning a World Series. For me, it comes back to baseball lore and those who care about it. Some of the best moments baseball has are the Red Sox, White Sox and now the Cubs finally breaking historically long (in baseball lore) World Series droughts. In 100 years, if some baseball historian writes a history book about baseball, you better believe that there will be sections relating to the Red Sox, White Sox and Cubs finally winning a World Series after having not for so long. That's really all there is to it. To one person, it might not be as amazing a postseason as 2001, or it might not be as amazing as Barry Bonds breaking home run records. I know I'm preaching to a bunch of salty Sox fans, but to say this isn't significant to baseball history is just plain wrong. I think a lot of salty Sox fans are just grasping at straws to try and downplay this. Do yourself a favor: don't. Just keep being you, accept that this is what it is for us, and move on, because it doesn't impact your life in any meaningful way. I know a lot of you don't care what I have to say, and that's fine. I'm just trying to bring a little perspective to this thread in a way which I feel can enhance your life at this moment. If I helped any one person out at all, then I'm happy, that's why I'm here posting this. Not to put the Cubs on a pedestal in front of a bunch of Sox fans, but to help my fellow Sox fans out through some of the toughest times there probably have ever been to be a White Sox fan. I think we all recognize the significance of it. s***, we all just went through the same things with our own favorite team. I don't know where you are reading in this thread that the Cubs' winning is not significant. That is a very different thing, however, than "the most significant thing in baseball history," which is the argument that some seem to be trying to make.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Nov 4, 2016 -> 12:32 PM) Right, most of us agree that we could use Cespedes -- but if we weren't willing to pay for him when he was desperate and his market was suppressed, what makes you think we'll pay for him now that he's older and his market is about to be massively inflated? And, conceptually, we all agree we need a C, a CF, and a bullpen arm or two -- but that's kind of the point of this thread: look at that list and see if you can find those guys. Catchers Alex Avila (30) Drew Butera (34) Jason Castro (30) Hank Conger (29) A.J. Ellis (36) Ryan Hanigan (36) Nick Hundley (33) Chris Iannetta (34) Jeff Mathis (34) Dioner Navarro (33) A.J. Pierzynski (40) Wilson Ramos (29) Wilin Rosario (28) Carlos Ruiz (38) — $4.5MM club option with a $500K buyout Jarrod Saltalamacchia (32) Geovany Soto (34) Kurt Suzuki (33) Matt Wieters (31) It's Wilson Ramos, who is coming off a serious injury, and then nothing. Which means Ramos is going to make way too much. Center Fielders Peter Bourjos (30) Michael Bourn (34) Yoenis Cespedes (31) — can opt out of remaining two years, $47.5MM on current contract Coco Crisp (37) Rajai Davis (36) Ian Desmond (31) Dexter Fowler (31) Carlos Gomez (31) Tyler Holt (28) Austin Jackson (30) Jon Jay (32) Alex Presley (31) Logan Schafer (30) Drew Stubbs (32) Total jack. Cespedes isn't even a CF. Ian Desmond? If it were me, I would sign Avila and Navarro and platoon them, and then add a good defensive CFer like Austin Jackson...

QUOTE (fathom @ Nov 4, 2016 -> 11:35 AM) As many of us have said, the managing by almost everyone was crazy bad this postseason. Too many teams playing differently than they did to get there I thought Francona did very well until the last game.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 4, 2016 -> 10:25 AM) The Twins Braves game is great competition, for sure. I just don't think you can beat the overall context of this game. This wasn't a game of incredible personal performances, but was a war of attrition with 166 years at stake. That was the storyline that set up the series...that didn't make this individual game incredible though. The 8th inning comeback was great. I will give you that. But that alone does not make it one of the best baseball games ever.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Nov 4, 2016 -> 10:16 AM) Circumstances + the Indians rally. Lindor made one of the greatest plays ever (given circumstances) if the Indians had won. Davis' homer was absurd. It started s***ty, then when Lester came in it became a great game. Which is why it was a great game 7...but certainly not one of the best baseball games ever...I mean, come on Q...and the Lindor play was a nice play but one of the best plays ever? Come on. was one of the "best ever" in a postseason game.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Nov 4, 2016 -> 10:11 AM) I'm only 24, and specifically from Indians rally forward. The beginning of that game sucked. I mean we see that game played all the time, just not in those circumstances. The circumstances made it compelling, but the game itself was not all that incredible, with the exception of Kipnis scoring from second on a wild pitch and Rajai hitting a clutch homer against Chapman. But there really was not much drama except for the last few innings.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Nov 4, 2016 -> 10:06 AM) As a whole, this World Series was mediocre. Game 7 however was one of the greatest games of baseball I've ever watched once Rajai Davis became Jobu. Really?

The 1986, 1991 and 2001 WS were all pretty spectacular...the best ever is obviously the 2005 WS... While this WS was great, I don't think it was because the individual games themselves were great. Outside of games 3 and 7, the games were really not all that exciting. There were great storylines of course, but I didn't think they were so great so as to carry the game action to one of the greatest WS ever.

That is a hell of an effort though...I'm impressed!

Gordon Wittenmyer Just Took a Financial Dump on the Ricketts Family's Ownership of the Cubs QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 3, 2016 -> 04:19 PM) They are OK now but they were in trouble 2 or3 years ago. The guy that owns the South Bend team bought 20% of the team for 300 million. They use that to pay off a lot of the construction. the guy who was the beat writer in the Sun Times Gordon something, used to always come on and said a few times the banks with the loans were pressuring Ricketts to sell the team. Not just a minority stake.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Nov 3, 2016 -> 11:51 AM) I said I was being lame. I just feel like the essence of being a Blackhawks fan used to be about being obsessed about hockey. It felt like a club. Now it's just a bunch of fat white hillbillies in too-tight Chinese knockoff jerseys. The population reminds me of that of Trump's supporter base. Again, I'm being lame and my opinion is nowhere near the truth, but that's just how I perceive it. I just can't get into it anymore. Are you exaggerating about not following the team anymore though?

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Nov 2, 2016 -> 03:05 PM) After a year and half of waiting, my team got new job titles/descriptions. During this time we were told that no one could be promoted or talk about promotions since they didn't have an accurate job title to move them into (yea...). Today I was told that I was getting promoted into one of the new job titles (yay!) but it wouldn't take effect until March during our normal ACR (annual compensation review) period. So I have two question for y'all: 1) Do I make a fuss about waiting another 4 months for this to go into effect? They already know I'm pretty upset about where I'm at currently (not just title but getting work dumped on and limited advancement opportunities outside of this team thus far). While I'm grateful to get promoted, it just seems asinine that they make you wait 1.5 years for new job titles then tack on 4 more months for really what is an arbitrary reason. 2) I've been looking at a lot of jobs externally, one big reason I wanted the title sooner is because it would make me WAY more attractive on the market. Do you guys think I could advertise that job title on a resume and if asked explain the situation? FYI the last time I was promoted was later in the year (closer to ACR season) and that didn't impact it at all except that they included the annual bump with my promotion's raise (tacked it on top). Russ, I think it's impossible for us to know whether you should make a fuss or not. If the organization is as big as it sounds like it is, making a fuss would likely get you nowhere. As for the use of the title, I would go ahead and throw it on my resume.

QUOTE (flavum @ Nov 3, 2016 -> 08:21 AM) It's the Sox official Twitter account. That's the organization...period. I'm not sure I get the passive aggressive part?

Oh Jesus...now we know it's over when Montero gets a hit. Congrats to the Cubs. They deserved this.