12-15-2009, 08:50 AM
<!--quoteo(post=71715:date=Dec 15 2009, 02:17 AM:name=MrSheps)-->QUOTE (MrSheps @ Dec 15 2009, 02:17 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=71626:date=Dec 14 2009, 02:12 PM:name=Clapp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Clapp @ Dec 14 2009, 02:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=71624:date=Dec 14 2009, 03:04 PM:name=Brock)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Brock @ Dec 14 2009, 03:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=71623:date=Dec 14 2009, 03:52 PM:name=Clapp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Clapp @ Dec 14 2009, 03:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=71612:date=Dec 14 2009, 01:13 PM:name=Brock)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Brock @ Dec 14 2009, 01:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=71602:date=Dec 14 2009, 01:14 PM:name=Clapp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Clapp @ Dec 14 2009, 01:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Rotation should be the least of our concerns.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe, but is there a plausible offensive acquistion we could make that would have as much of an impact on the success of this team as Halladay would? I can't think of one.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hanley Ramirez was as plausible of an acquisition as Halladay was though. Never had a chance for a million reasons and I'm just glad we don't have to hear about it anymore.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well it's too late now and maybe there wasn't much chance to get him anyway. <b>I do think it's silly not to want to get one of the game's best pitchers because we think our rotation is ok. </b> Players of Halladay's calibre don't become available all that often.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course we'd want him... but we had really no situation possible to make it work. I mean look what the Phillies have to give up to get him, and then have to sign him to a massive $ extension through late 30s. We don't have the financial ability to do something like this, nor can afford to give up what it would take to get him.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I believe the Cubs made 200mil in revenues in 2007, and reported 214mil in '08. Assuming it went up again in 09, where should their payroll be? I think that's what I'd like to know. And I won't pretend to know, I'm just asking...
I don't expect the Cubs to spend like the Yankees, they don't make nearly as much, but a quick look at the differences in players expenditures (end of year/after bonuses) and revenue in 07 and 08, even after the Cubs started spending, would still suggest to me the Cubs aren't overspending on payroll, in fact what they spend on players represents a smaller piece of costs compared to revenue than some of the other big boys. So yeah, the Cubs opening day payroll is now very high and a lot of money is tied up, but compared to what the team generates...?? Let's just say it doesn't seem the team is going to go poor anytime soon...
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So you think the Ricketts are lying, and are pocketing the extra $$, rather than putting it into payroll? (and by the way, the cubs revenue in 09 was almost certainly less than 08, since there were no playoff games).
Maybe, but is there a plausible offensive acquistion we could make that would have as much of an impact on the success of this team as Halladay would? I can't think of one.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hanley Ramirez was as plausible of an acquisition as Halladay was though. Never had a chance for a million reasons and I'm just glad we don't have to hear about it anymore.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well it's too late now and maybe there wasn't much chance to get him anyway. <b>I do think it's silly not to want to get one of the game's best pitchers because we think our rotation is ok. </b> Players of Halladay's calibre don't become available all that often.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course we'd want him... but we had really no situation possible to make it work. I mean look what the Phillies have to give up to get him, and then have to sign him to a massive $ extension through late 30s. We don't have the financial ability to do something like this, nor can afford to give up what it would take to get him.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I believe the Cubs made 200mil in revenues in 2007, and reported 214mil in '08. Assuming it went up again in 09, where should their payroll be? I think that's what I'd like to know. And I won't pretend to know, I'm just asking...
I don't expect the Cubs to spend like the Yankees, they don't make nearly as much, but a quick look at the differences in players expenditures (end of year/after bonuses) and revenue in 07 and 08, even after the Cubs started spending, would still suggest to me the Cubs aren't overspending on payroll, in fact what they spend on players represents a smaller piece of costs compared to revenue than some of the other big boys. So yeah, the Cubs opening day payroll is now very high and a lot of money is tied up, but compared to what the team generates...?? Let's just say it doesn't seem the team is going to go poor anytime soon...
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So you think the Ricketts are lying, and are pocketing the extra $$, rather than putting it into payroll? (and by the way, the cubs revenue in 09 was almost certainly less than 08, since there were no playoff games).
I wish that I believed in Fate. I wish I didn't sleep so late. I used to be carried in the arms of cheerleaders.