Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 19 of 37 FirstFirst ... 9171819202129 ... LastLast
Results 271 to 285 of 554
  1. #271
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Puerto Rico
    Posts
    13,946

    Cubs rest of season IGT

    Quote Originally Posted by 1908_Cubs View Post
    Quintana is a good deal at one year. I don't want Wheeler on a multi year deal. Big difference. That one year commitment on Quintana is key.

    We are just going to disagree. Quintana to me is a no brainer. Take the bird in the hand. Don't go bidding for a pitcher like Wheeler. That's a bad investment IMO.

    I have no interest on the planet at an $80m deal for Zack Wheeler.

    Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
    I don’t think Wheeler gets 20 . I see him more in the 18 range and even if he does it’s acceptable for a pitcher of his quality at his age. Last night you had him at 13-14 per and his value went up overnight for some reason in your mind. So yeah we are just going to disagree . Give me Chacin on a minor league deal over Quintana at 10.5 . Fair chance he puts up a 4.2 xfip over 150 innings .

    Just to add . Wheeler has been worth over 30 million this year . In real life it doesn’t work that way but at 18-20 he is perfectly fine

    A couple of years ago Cubs gave Darvish 21 per year at age 31 coming of a 3.7 war . Wheeler is 29 coming off a 4.7 war . Just saying just saying .
    Enviado desde mi iPhone utilizando Tapatalk
    Last edited by Dfan25; 09-27-2019 at 02:20 PM.


    El Mago

  2. #272
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Downers Grove, IL
    Posts
    3,603
    Quote Originally Posted by CubsRule08 View Post
    What do you mean by this part? What would you think that you would be chastised about? What do you defend the owners over the players about?

    I just need a little more discussion of this part.


    So what I mean by that, is that its almost frowned upon to not have the players back. To give you a prime example, and feel free to come at me regarding this -

    I don't like Kris Bryant, nor do I dislike him. He is meh, for me. He's a hell of a baseball player and a nice piece to a World Series team. Cubs have attempted to sign him to an extension on multiple occasions, and while we don't have specifics - my assumption is it is in the $22 million per year range, maybe $24 or so. He clearly thinks he deserves more, and Bryce Harper has helped him make his point.

    Me, personally, think its ludicrous. Stanton and Harper's contracts are unprecedented and incredibly dangerous for the market. I will max out at 10 year, $250 for Kris, and even then my head hurts thinking about it. My point to all of this is, TRADE HIM NOW. WHILE YOU STILL CAN.

    My point about "owners mentality" comes into play, because I have attempted to have this discussion with people at work. Stop overpaying these players, put them in their place, and pay them for what they will contribute in the future, not what they have given us. Unfortunately, my friends are full player mentality individuals and disagree with me. I truly believe Bryant/Boris are stupid. $250 million for the Cubs, or $300 million for some team that might contend, and doesn't have the marketability near the extent of the Chicago Cubs. You've built a fan base, you've established yourself as an MVP, you have marketability through the roof, and you've laid your roots. Why give that all up for the difference in contracts. My friends arguments are "wouldn't you take more money to do the same job" and my response is always the same. My $75,000 paycheck compared to a $200,000 paycheck is a DRASTIC difference than $250 million and $300 million in terms of lifestyle.

    So to summarize it up, I am a HARD NO on just handing money to players, and bowing to their commands of higher salaries. I am a firm believer of the owners and Presidents being in control and being a massive contributor to a successful franchise. Players provide the product, sure. But, there wouldn't be a product to provide if the owners didn't shell out the cash. This is a big deal I am sure will come up in the collective bargaining agreement in 2 years (revenue sharing). I guess I just don't care enough about the players perspective, considering they are making insane amounts of money to play a ball game.

    The End!

  3. #273
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    11,489
    Who says no:
    Bryant and Q for Syndergaard, Diaz, Lugo

    Mets get a 2 years of superstar and a short term replacement for Syndergaard (sort of).

    Cubs get 2 years of Syndergaard, 2 potentially elite relievers with team control, save about $10 mil in 2020 they can add to the $30 mil or so they should have available for free agents.

  4. #274
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    3,997
    Quote Originally Posted by chi-townlove1 View Post
    So what I mean by that, is that its almost frowned upon to not have the players back. To give you a prime example, and feel free to come at me regarding this -

    I don't like Kris Bryant, nor do I dislike him. He is meh, for me. He's a hell of a baseball player and a nice piece to a World Series team. Cubs have attempted to sign him to an extension on multiple occasions, and while we don't have specifics - my assumption is it is in the $22 million per year range, maybe $24 or so. He clearly thinks he deserves more, and Bryce Harper has helped him make his point.

    Me, personally, think its ludicrous. Stanton and Harper's contracts are unprecedented and incredibly dangerous for the market. I will max out at 10 year, $250 for Kris, and even then my head hurts thinking about it. My point to all of this is, TRADE HIM NOW. WHILE YOU STILL CAN.

    My point about "owners mentality" comes into play, because I have attempted to have this discussion with people at work. Stop overpaying these players, put them in their place, and pay them for what they will contribute in the future, not what they have given us. Unfortunately, my friends are full player mentality individuals and disagree with me. I truly believe Bryant/Boris are stupid. $250 million for the Cubs, or $300 million for some team that might contend, and doesn't have the marketability near the extent of the Chicago Cubs. You've built a fan base, you've established yourself as an MVP, you have marketability through the roof, and you've laid your roots. Why give that all up for the difference in contracts. My friends arguments are "wouldn't you take more money to do the same job" and my response is always the same. My $75,000 paycheck compared to a $200,000 paycheck is a DRASTIC difference than $250 million and $300 million in terms of lifestyle.

    So to summarize it up, I am a HARD NO on just handing money to players, and bowing to their commands of higher salaries. I am a firm believer of the owners and Presidents being in control and being a massive contributor to a successful franchise. Players provide the product, sure. But, there wouldn't be a product to provide if the owners didn't shell out the cash. This is a big deal I am sure will come up in the collective bargaining agreement in 2 years (revenue sharing). I guess I just don't care enough about the players perspective, considering they are making insane amounts of money to play a ball game.

    The End!
    Bottom line is, you’re worth what someone is willing to pay you. Sure teams might draw a line in the sand, but others won’t. And they’ll pay. If you don’t want your teams to handout huge salaries, I kind of get it, but some team always caves. Good news is the middle of the road player’s salaries are leveling off. Again you’re worth what someone is willing to pay, and it goes both ways.

  5. #275
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Addison, IL
    Posts
    23,364
    Quote Originally Posted by chi-townlove1 View Post
    So what I mean by that, is that its almost frowned upon to not have the players back. To give you a prime example, and feel free to come at me regarding this -

    I don't like Kris Bryant, nor do I dislike him. He is meh, for me. He's a hell of a baseball player and a nice piece to a World Series team. Cubs have attempted to sign him to an extension on multiple occasions, and while we don't have specifics - my assumption is it is in the $22 million per year range, maybe $24 or so. He clearly thinks he deserves more, and Bryce Harper has helped him make his point.

    Me, personally, think its ludicrous. Stanton and Harper's contracts are unprecedented and incredibly dangerous for the market. I will max out at 10 year, $250 for Kris, and even then my head hurts thinking about it. My point to all of this is, TRADE HIM NOW. WHILE YOU STILL CAN.

    My point about "owners mentality" comes into play, because I have attempted to have this discussion with people at work. Stop overpaying these players, put them in their place, and pay them for what they will contribute in the future, not what they have given us. Unfortunately, my friends are full player mentality individuals and disagree with me. I truly believe Bryant/Boris are stupid. $250 million for the Cubs, or $300 million for some team that might contend, and doesn't have the marketability near the extent of the Chicago Cubs. You've built a fan base, you've established yourself as an MVP, you have marketability through the roof, and you've laid your roots. Why give that all up for the difference in contracts. My friends arguments are "wouldn't you take more money to do the same job" and my response is always the same. My $75,000 paycheck compared to a $200,000 paycheck is a DRASTIC difference than $250 million and $300 million in terms of lifestyle.

    So to summarize it up, I am a HARD NO on just handing money to players, and bowing to their commands of higher salaries. I am a firm believer of the owners and Presidents being in control and being a massive contributor to a successful franchise. Players provide the product, sure. But, there wouldn't be a product to provide if the owners didn't shell out the cash. This is a big deal I am sure will come up in the collective bargaining agreement in 2 years (revenue sharing). I guess I just don't care enough about the players perspective, considering they are making insane amounts of money to play a ball game.

    The End!
    The bolded part I did pretty much sums up how the FA market has been handled now the last 2 years. It seems to be headed in that direction now.

    2016 World Series Champions!!!


  6. #276
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    3,997
    Quote Originally Posted by CP_414 View Post
    Who says no:
    Bryant and Q for Syndergaard, Diaz, Lugo

    Mets get a 2 years of superstar and a short term replacement for Syndergaard (sort of).

    Cubs get 2 years of Syndergaard, 2 potentially elite relievers with team control, save about $10 mil in 2020 they can add to the $30 mil or so they should have available for free agents.
    Probably the Mets. Q is an absolute nothing burger.
    It would potentially fill a couple needs the Cubs have a hell of time filling while only creating one hole.

  7. #277
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    11,489

    Cubs rest of season IGT

    Quote Originally Posted by Cubboy View Post
    Probably the Mets. Q is an absolute nothing burger.
    It would potentially fill a couple needs the Cubs have a hell of time filling while only creating one hole.
    Take Q out and the money is basically equal. I just put him in because I think he’s probably worth his 2020 contract and the Mets might be losing 2 starting pitchers so he’s a fairly cheap short term replacement for them.

  8. #278
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Puerto Rico
    Posts
    13,946
    Quote Originally Posted by CP_414 View Post
    Who says no:
    Bryant and Q for Syndergaard, Diaz, Lugo

    Mets get a 2 years of superstar and a short term replacement for Syndergaard (sort of).

    Cubs get 2 years of Syndergaard, 2 potentially elite relievers with team control, save about $10 mil in 2020 they can add to the $30 mil or so they should have available for free agents.
    I would do this one not sure the Mets would though. I think the framework of Bryant for Noah is okay . Mets would probably need to add some cause Bryant is the better player but not sure that some is Lugo or Diaz . I just don’t think Q is near enough to get them to include any of those guys. With that said you maybe on to something . Perhaps adding some from the Cubs side of things in addition to KB / Q / .


    Enviado desde mi iPhone utilizando Tapatalk


    El Mago

  9. #279
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    11,489
    Quote Originally Posted by chi-townlove1 View Post
    So what I mean by that, is that its almost frowned upon to not have the players back. To give you a prime example, and feel free to come at me regarding this -

    I don't like Kris Bryant, nor do I dislike him. He is meh, for me. He's a hell of a baseball player and a nice piece to a World Series team. Cubs have attempted to sign him to an extension on multiple occasions, and while we don't have specifics - my assumption is it is in the $22 million per year range, maybe $24 or so. He clearly thinks he deserves more, and Bryce Harper has helped him make his point.

    Me, personally, think its ludicrous. Stanton and Harper's contracts are unprecedented and incredibly dangerous for the market. I will max out at 10 year, $250 for Kris, and even then my head hurts thinking about it. My point to all of this is, TRADE HIM NOW. WHILE YOU STILL CAN.

    My point about "owners mentality" comes into play, because I have attempted to have this discussion with people at work. Stop overpaying these players, put them in their place, and pay them for what they will contribute in the future, not what they have given us. Unfortunately, my friends are full player mentality individuals and disagree with me. I truly believe Bryant/Boris are stupid. $250 million for the Cubs, or $300 million for some team that might contend, and doesn't have the marketability near the extent of the Chicago Cubs. You've built a fan base, you've established yourself as an MVP, you have marketability through the roof, and you've laid your roots. Why give that all up for the difference in contracts. My friends arguments are "wouldn't you take more money to do the same job" and my response is always the same. My $75,000 paycheck compared to a $200,000 paycheck is a DRASTIC difference than $250 million and $300 million in terms of lifestyle.

    So to summarize it up, I am a HARD NO on just handing money to players, and bowing to their commands of higher salaries. I am a firm believer of the owners and Presidents being in control and being a massive contributor to a successful franchise. Players provide the product, sure. But, there wouldn't be a product to provide if the owners didn't shell out the cash. This is a big deal I am sure will come up in the collective bargaining agreement in 2 years (revenue sharing). I guess I just don't care enough about the players perspective, considering they are making insane amounts of money to play a ball game.

    The End!
    Are you Phil Rogers?

  10. #280
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Puerto Rico
    Posts
    13,946
    Quote Originally Posted by Dfan25 View Post
    I would do this one not sure the Mets would though. I think the framework of Bryant for Noah is okay . Mets would probably need to add some cause Bryant is the better player but not sure that some is Lugo or Diaz . I just don’t think Q is near enough to get them to include any of those guys. With that said you maybe on to something . Perhaps adding some from the Cubs side of things in addition to KB / Q / .
    I think if you add something from Cubs side you may be able to get 1 of Diaz / Lugo.

    Enviado desde mi iPhone utilizando Tapatalk



    Enviado desde mi iPhone utilizando Tapatalk


    El Mago

  11. #281
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Puerto Rico
    Posts
    13,946
    I quoted myself again **** .


    Enviado desde mi iPhone utilizando Tapatalk


    El Mago

  12. #282
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    14,935
    Quote Originally Posted by Cubboy View Post
    Bottom line is, you’re worth what someone is willing to pay you. Sure teams might draw a line in the sand, but others won’t. And they’ll pay. If you don’t want your teams to handout huge salaries, I kind of get it, but some team always caves. Good news is the middle of the road player’s salaries are leveling off. Again you’re worth what someone is willing to pay, and it goes both ways.
    But if a teams does get a FA why is it called overpaying? You just said, bottom line is you're worth what someone will pay you and then said eventually a team ends up overpaying. If you really want to talk BOTTOM LINE, the real bottom line is teams revenues are at an all time high and rising much faster than salaries. So owners are making even more than they used to. i get it, they are the owners. But I also get the players side when they suggest that salaries are not rising as fast as revenues. It is not as simple as players should be happy they make what they make and are greedy. They have a valid point. And I am not sure why many people get upset at a player for making money, yet have no problem with the billionaire owner, making more revenues than ever before, and not sharing at the same percent they used to share at. Why are the players greedy for wanting more money but the owners are not greedy for taking more in than before and not spending it on players?

  13. #283
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Downers Grove, IL
    Posts
    3,603
    Quote Originally Posted by rcal10 View Post
    But if a teams does get a FA why is it called overpaying? You just said, bottom line is you're worth what someone will pay you and then said eventually a team ends up overpaying. If you really want to talk BOTTOM LINE, the real bottom line is teams revenues are at an all time high and rising much faster than salaries. So owners are making even more than they used to. i get it, they are the owners. But I also get the players side when they suggest that salaries are not rising as fast as revenues. It is not as simple as players should be happy they make what they make and are greedy. They have a valid point. And I am not sure why many people get upset at a player for making money, yet have no problem with the billionaire owner, making more revenues than ever before, and not sharing at the same percent they used to share at. Why are the players greedy for wanting more money but the owners are not greedy for taking more in than before and not spending it on players?
    Hey there, I am actually the one coming in hot and claiming I am 100% for the owners and don't like the players viewpoints.

    BUT, I will say this. I don't truly know the actual breakdown of profit, revenue, and how much the owners keep and the players get. But, my take on it - stop with the 300 million dollar contracts. If you want more money to the players, start paying triple A players who spend their lives on the road in coach buses more than 100k. Increase salaries elsewhere, rather than just the cream of the crop. The Stantons and Harpers and Bryants don't need anymore money. So, that line should never be set where they say - yes, Bryce, you are worth $320 million to us. Because he just isn't, just no. But, spread the wealth around. More for tier 2 players. Maybe expand the rosters to 30 and allow for more availability. This honestly makes the game more exciting in my opinion. More options for backups, pinch runners, etc. More money still going into the pockets of the players - just not the top players only. and again, PAY THE MINOR LEAGUERS MORE. I make more than a lot of them, and don't have to do nearly as much travel or dedication.

  14. #284
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    3,997
    Quote Originally Posted by rcal10 View Post
    But if a teams does get a FA why is it called overpaying? You just said, bottom line is you're worth what someone will pay you and then said eventually a team ends up overpaying. If you really want to talk BOTTOM LINE, the real bottom line is teams revenues are at an all time high and rising much faster than salaries. So owners are making even more than they used to. i get it, they are the owners. But I also get the players side when they suggest that salaries are not rising as fast as revenues. It is not as simple as players should be happy they make what they make and are greedy. They have a valid point. And I am not sure why many people get upset at a player for making money, yet have no problem with the billionaire owner, making more revenues than ever before, and not sharing at the same percent they used to share at. Why are the players greedy for wanting more money but the owners are not greedy for taking more in than before and not spending it on players?
    I never really called it “overpaying” I stated a team will cave. Example: Cubs with Kimbrel. I just stated that a player is worth what someone is willing to pay. That goes for Bryce Harper. And it goes for Brad Brach. Actually never used the term overpay.

    And while everyone wants to paint it as players vs owners, it’s really players vs front offices at this point. Smart front offices are only handing out long contracts to those with game changing talent, not to guys simply because they happen to be available.

  15. #285
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    14,935
    Quote Originally Posted by chi-townlove1 View Post
    Hey there, I am actually the one coming in hot and claiming I am 100% for the owners and don't like the players viewpoints.

    BUT, I will say this. I don't truly know the actual breakdown of profit, revenue, and how much the owners keep and the players get. But, my take on it - stop with the 300 million dollar contracts. If you want more money to the players, start paying triple A players who spend their lives on the road in coach buses more than 100k. Increase salaries elsewhere, rather than just the cream of the crop. The Stantons and Harpers and Bryants don't need anymore money. So, that line should never be set where they say - yes, Bryce, you are worth $320 million to us. Because he just isn't, just no. But, spread the wealth around. More for tier 2 players. Maybe expand the rosters to 30 and allow for more availability. This honestly makes the game more exciting in my opinion. More options for backups, pinch runners, etc. More money still going into the pockets of the players - just not the top players only. and again, PAY THE MINOR LEAGUERS MORE. I make more than a lot of them, and don't have to do nearly as much travel or dedication.
    So then you are not really for the owners. You just do not feel anyone should make the kind of money guys are making. However, do you realize a guy like Cabrera, years ago, got as much annually as guys like Harper and Machado received last year. The top end money has not really went up. As for the other idea of owners spending more on the minor league players, I totally agree. I do not like 30 man rosters however. 26 is plenty.
    But maybe you should look into the revenues before suggesting the players should be put in their place.

Page 19 of 37 FirstFirst ... 9171819202129 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •