It is currently Fri Nov 15, 2024 4:24 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 64 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu May 02, 2013 8:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 7:43 pm
Posts: 20537
pizza_Place: Joes Pizza
Elmhurst Steve wrote:
It looks nice and I love the Hotel. I'm pretty sure all this will happen, but Ricketts blew it. He should have looked into how much he would have saved in taxes by moving out of Chicago, how much he could have sold the land that Wrigley stands on to a developer for and what financial impact he might realize by having unlimited night games and signage opportunities. Just by contacting developers and drawing up plans for a new Ballpark in Rosemont, Schaumburg or Arlington Heights, he would have created a sense of urgency for the city and the neighborhood to come to an agreement that satisfied all the team's needs. I think this will get done now, but he's not gonna get everything he could have. They could have been much more profitable elsewhere and the idea that they are saving the old ballpark is silly. In 5-6 years the whole thing will be new.

He's a fan not a businessman.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 02, 2013 8:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:29 pm
Posts: 55840
pizza_Place: Barstool One Bite Frozen
"My baseball team's property taxes are too high!" --an asshole

_________________
Molly Lambert wrote:
The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 02, 2013 8:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 10:28 am
Posts: 11792
Location: Winnetka, Illinois
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
good dolphin wrote:
Elmhurst Steve wrote:
It looks nice and I love the Hotel. I'm pretty sure all this will happen, but Ricketts blew it. He should have looked into how much he would have saved in taxes by moving out of Chicago, how much he could have sold the land that Wrigley stands on to a developer for and what financial impact he might realize by having unlimited night games and signage opportunities. Just by contacting developers and drawing up plans for a new Ballpark in Rosemont, Schaumburg or Arlington Heights, he would have created a sense of urgency for the city and the neighborhood to come to an agreement that satisfied all the team's needs. I think this will get done now, but he's not gonna get everything he could have. They could have been much more profitable elsewhere and the idea that they are saving the old ballpark is silly. In 5-6 years the whole thing will be new.


The city had him by the balls with the landmark status. If he made a power play and moved out, he would be sitting there with the biggest privately owned dog park in the country.


Landmark status doesn't mean it can't be demolished. All they would have to do is to sell to a developer and it would be gone. Structural defects (beyond the falling concrete) exist all over that ballpark and if there is no intent to fix them and no team to play there, the developer would get a permit to demolish it with no problem.

_________________
Go Cubs!!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 02, 2013 8:59 am 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 6:17 pm
Posts: 102657
pizza_Place: Vito & Nick's
Elmhurst Steve wrote:
Landmark status doesn't mean it can't be demolished.
Thats....actually exactly what it means. That it can't be demolished. It requires the owner to maintain the building so it doesn't get neglected to the point where it needs to be demolished.

As an owner of a landmarked building, what are my obligations and duties under the Landmarks Law?
In general, there are three things that you must do as an owner of landmarked property: (1) You must obtain prior approval from the Commission before you do any work on the building; (2) You must follow and abide by all permits and other conditions required by the Commission; and (3) You must maintain your building in good repair to ensure that the outside portions of the building (or designated interior spaces if there is an interior landmark) do not become deteriorated or dilapidated.

Will the Landmarks Commission make me repair my building?
There was concern when the Landmarks Law was passed that certain owners might allow their historic buildings to deteriorate to such a degree that the buildings would be in danger of losing their significant features or even of falling down.

To help prevent such "demolition by neglect," the Landmarks Law requires that designated properties be kept in good repair. This provision is similar to the Buildings Department's requirement that all buildings must be maintained in a safe condition.

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
It's more fun to be a victim
Caller Bob wrote:
There will never be an effective vaccine. I'll never get one anyway.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 02, 2013 9:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 10:28 am
Posts: 11792
Location: Winnetka, Illinois
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
If there is no team playing there, there is no reason they wouldn't remove the status and allow it to de demolished. A handshake or two with an envelope exchanged might be in order, but it wouldn't be a problem.

_________________
Go Cubs!!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 02, 2013 9:21 am 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 6:17 pm
Posts: 102657
pizza_Place: Vito & Nick's
Nope.

There is bribery in Chicago, steve. We all know that. But if the Cubs did move, you don't think the City would want to turn Wrigley into some sort of tourist trap to keep the dollars rolling in? Museum, other exhibition games, college games, high school games, concerts, etc etc. Wrigley would still stand and would still be in use regardless of the Cubs playing there or not.

There is nobody living in Ronald Reagan's birthplace anymore, but that is still a landmark.

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
It's more fun to be a victim
Caller Bob wrote:
There will never be an effective vaccine. I'll never get one anyway.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 02, 2013 9:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 7:43 pm
Posts: 20537
pizza_Place: Joes Pizza
Elmhurst Steve wrote:
If there is no team playing there, there is no reason they wouldn't remove the status and allow it to de demolished. A handshake or two with an envelope exchanged might be in order, but it wouldn't be a problem.

That easy, huh? No sour spiteful feelings from the City of Chicago? They'd totally do Ricketts a favor like that after moving his team from the city.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 02, 2013 9:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 10:28 am
Posts: 11792
Location: Winnetka, Illinois
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
Frank Coztansa wrote:
Nope.

There is bribery in Chicago, steve. We all know that. But if the Cubs did move, you don't think the City would want to turn Wrigley into some sort of tourist trap to keep the dollars rolling in? Museum, other exhibition games, college games, high school games, concerts, etc etc. Wrigley would still stand and would still be in use regardless of the Cubs playing there or not.

There is nobody living in Ronald Reagan's birthplace anymore, but that is still a landmark.


Thats because Ronald Reagans home is in a small town where the property is of little use for anything else anyway. The land Wrigley field stands on is prime real estate. A developer could build many homes there that trasnslates into many construction jobs and a lot of real estate taxes. Besides, the city couldn't do squt with the ballpark (Museum, high school games etc.) it's a privately owner ballpark. the city would have no say in how it was used. With no tickets being sold (because no games would be played there) there would be no ebntertainment taxes coming into the city either. The city would be screwed and have to remove the landmark status and allow it to be demolished, so they could create jobs and get tax dollars flowing in from the structures built on the property. it might take a year or two, but it would happen.

_________________
Go Cubs!!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 02, 2013 9:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 40610
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
Frank Coztansa wrote:
Nope.

There is bribery in Chicago, steve. We all know that. But if the Cubs did move, you don't think the City would want to turn Wrigley into some sort of tourist trap to keep the dollars rolling in? Museum, other exhibition games, college games, high school games, concerts, etc etc. Wrigley would still stand and would still be in use regardless of the Cubs playing there or not.

There is nobody living in Ronald Reagan's birthplace anymore, but that is still a landmark.



The problem with this point is that if the city screwed Rickett's on the landmark after moving out he would still own the field and land. He could sit on it and let it rot and not allow the city to do anything with it. Out of spite.

_________________
Elections have consequences.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 02, 2013 9:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 10:28 am
Posts: 11792
Location: Winnetka, Illinois
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
pittmike wrote:
Frank Coztansa wrote:
Nope.

There is bribery in Chicago, steve. We all know that. But if the Cubs did move, you don't think the City would want to turn Wrigley into some sort of tourist trap to keep the dollars rolling in? Museum, other exhibition games, college games, high school games, concerts, etc etc. Wrigley would still stand and would still be in use regardless of the Cubs playing there or not.

There is nobody living in Ronald Reagan's birthplace anymore, but that is still a landmark.



The problem with this point is that if the city screwed Rickett's on the landmark after moving out he would still own the field and land. He could sit on it and let it rot and not allow the city to do anything with it. Out of spite.


Just put a safety fence around the building and lock it up.

_________________
Go Cubs!!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 02, 2013 9:36 am 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 6:17 pm
Posts: 102657
pizza_Place: Vito & Nick's
Then the lawers would get involved. The law would require him to maintain the building in good order as I pointed out above.

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
It's more fun to be a victim
Caller Bob wrote:
There will never be an effective vaccine. I'll never get one anyway.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 02, 2013 9:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 40610
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
Just the outside if I read it right. My point is still valid though. No concerts, events, festivals etc bringing in economic impact for the community/city.

_________________
Elections have consequences.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 02, 2013 9:44 am 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 6:17 pm
Posts: 102657
pizza_Place: Vito & Nick's
Quote:
(3) You must maintain your building in good repair to ensure that the outside portions of the building (or designated interior spaces if there is an interior landmark) do not become deteriorated or dilapidated.


Looks like he would have to maintain the bricks, ivy, and scoreboard too. You are right about him not giving the green light to concerts or whatever though.



Steve, your ex wife should have put a safety belt around your tiny penis and locked it up.

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
It's more fun to be a victim
Caller Bob wrote:
There will never be an effective vaccine. I'll never get one anyway.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 02, 2013 9:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 10:28 am
Posts: 11792
Location: Winnetka, Illinois
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
Frank Coztansa wrote:
Then the lawers would get involved. The law would require him to maintain the building in good order as I pointed out above.



I hate when Lawers get involved...almost as bad as Lawyers. pittmike is right-no concerts, events, ballgames, nothing but a shuttered ballpark. With bars/resturants and other businesses going belly up all over the neighborhood. Sure some would survive (though far less profitable), many would not. The economic impact of the Cubs leaving Chicago would be considerable. It would cost Mayor Emmanuel a lot....maybe his job even. To lose a huge moneymaking (and iconic) team like the Cubs, which would result in many lost businesses and jobs as well as tax dollars. He might lose his gig.

_________________
Go Cubs!!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 02, 2013 11:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 2:35 pm
Posts: 82149
Elmhurst Steve wrote:
Frank Coztansa wrote:
Nope.

There is bribery in Chicago, steve. We all know that. But if the Cubs did move, you don't think the City would want to turn Wrigley into some sort of tourist trap to keep the dollars rolling in? Museum, other exhibition games, college games, high school games, concerts, etc etc. Wrigley would still stand and would still be in use regardless of the Cubs playing there or not.

There is nobody living in Ronald Reagan's birthplace anymore, but that is still a landmark.


Thats because Ronald Reagans home is in a small town where the property is of little use for anything else anyway. The land Wrigley field stands on is prime real estate. A developer could build many homes there that trasnslates into many construction jobs and a lot of real estate taxes. Besides, the city couldn't do squt with the ballpark (Museum, high school games etc.) it's a privately owner ballpark. the city would have no say in how it was used. With no tickets being sold (because no games would be played there) there would be no ebntertainment taxes coming into the city either. The city would be screwed and have to remove the landmark status and allow it to be demolished, so they could create jobs and get tax dollars flowing in from the structures built on the property. it might take a year or two, but it would happen.


The city wouldn't get screwed as much as the Cubs. Any subsequent developer would be paying a greatly reduced price for the property because of the landmark. The developer might ultimately realize a windfall but there are plenty of mechanisms in place to ensure that the Cubs would not.

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 02, 2013 11:18 am 
Online
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 79455
Location: Ravenswood Manor
pizza_Place: Pete's
Elmhurst Steve wrote:
Frank Coztansa wrote:
Then the lawers would get involved. The law would require him to maintain the building in good order as I pointed out above.



I hate when Lawers get involved...almost as bad as Lawyers. pittmike is right-no concerts, events, ballgames, nothing but a shuttered ballpark. With bars/resturants and other businesses going belly up all over the neighborhood. Sure some would survive (though far less profitable), many would not. The economic impact of the Cubs leaving Chicago would be considerable. It would cost Mayor Emmanuel a lot....maybe his job even. To lose a huge moneymaking (and iconic) team like the Cubs, which would result in many lost businesses and jobs as well as tax dollars. He might lose his gig.



The Cubs aren't an iconic team. They're a fuckin' loser. Wrigley is an iconic ballpark.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Matthew, Tulsi, and Don


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 02, 2013 11:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 11:46 am
Posts: 26636
Location: NW SUBURBS OF CHICAGO
pizza_Place: any from anywhere
Could Chicago handle 3 ML Teams? I could see the Miami Marlins moving into a vacant Wrigley.

_________________
favrefan said:"Chris Coghlan isn't gonna pay your rent, Jimmy."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 02, 2013 11:23 am 
Online
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 79455
Location: Ravenswood Manor
pizza_Place: Pete's
jimmypasta wrote:
Could Chicago handle 3 ML Teams? I could see the Miami Marlins moving into a vacant Wrigley.


:lol: Over Reinsdorf's dead body.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Matthew, Tulsi, and Don


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 02, 2013 11:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81625
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Elmhurst Steve wrote:
Frank Coztansa wrote:
Then the lawers would get involved. The law would require him to maintain the building in good order as I pointed out above.



I hate when Lawers get involved...almost as bad as Lawyers. pittmike is right-no concerts, events, ballgames, nothing but a shuttered ballpark. With bars/resturants and other businesses going belly up all over the neighborhood. Sure some would survive (though far less profitable), many would not. The economic impact of the Cubs leaving Chicago would be considerable. It would cost Mayor Emmanuel a lot....maybe his job even. To lose a huge moneymaking (and iconic) team like the Cubs, which would result in many lost businesses and jobs as well as tax dollars. He might lose his gig.



The Cubs aren't an iconic team. They're a fuckin' loser. Wrigley is an iconic ballpark.

Way overstated

Wrigley is a big part of WHY they became an Iconic team, but what's done is done.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 02, 2013 11:28 am 
Online
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 79455
Location: Ravenswood Manor
pizza_Place: Pete's
rogers park bryan wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Elmhurst Steve wrote:
Frank Coztansa wrote:
Then the lawers would get involved. The law would require him to maintain the building in good order as I pointed out above.



I hate when Lawers get involved...almost as bad as Lawyers. pittmike is right-no concerts, events, ballgames, nothing but a shuttered ballpark. With bars/resturants and other businesses going belly up all over the neighborhood. Sure some would survive (though far less profitable), many would not. The economic impact of the Cubs leaving Chicago would be considerable. It would cost Mayor Emmanuel a lot....maybe his job even. To lose a huge moneymaking (and iconic) team like the Cubs, which would result in many lost businesses and jobs as well as tax dollars. He might lose his gig.



The Cubs aren't an iconic team. They're a fuckin' loser. Wrigley is an iconic ballpark.

Way overstated

Wrigley is a big part of WHY they became an Iconic team, but what's done is done.


I so hope we get to see them move or they ruin the vibe of that park so we can find out that I'm right.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Matthew, Tulsi, and Don


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 02, 2013 4:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 7:42 pm
Posts: 1631
Location: Hinsdale
pizza_Place: Lugi's of Hong Kong
Pretty sure I know the answer to this question but.....
Do the residents of Cellyville have any say into anything the White Sox do to "their" stadium?

This entire situation is insane.
Had this been a debate about public $ I get it.
Just because the Bears and Sox and most teams receive public money doesn't make it ok.

Assuming Rahm is over his Democratic revenge fantasy, he should tell the Cubs go ahead with your plan and we won't stop you but be aware the rooftops will take this to court.
This is the point where Ricketts chuckles and says "I got this" and either pays them a small one time fee or says good luck in court the next 10 years you parasites.

George Lucas (owner of multiple rooftops, Cubbie Bear, Sports Corner.....) really deserves a chance to see how his business thrives with the Cubs in the burbs.
A little birdy says Naperville will blow Rosemonts offer away if the Cubs seek bidders.

_________________
Kenny Williams fell for the banana in the tailpipe


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 02, 2013 5:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 40610
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
Good point about see you in court for 10 years. Roof tops owners sue and cry about their contract. Rickett's really smart lawyers counter and get an injunction or something preventing the rooftops from operating during dispute in a crooked county court. For the next 10 years their wither and die with their contract.

_________________
Elections have consequences.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 03, 2013 10:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 2:35 pm
Posts: 82149
8675309 wrote:
Pretty sure I know the answer to this question but.....
Do the residents of Cellyville have any say into anything the White Sox do to "their" stadium?

This entire situation is insane.
Had this been a debate about public $ I get it.
Just because the Bears and Sox and most teams receive public money doesn't make it ok.

Assuming Rahm is over his Democratic revenge fantasy, he should tell the Cubs go ahead with your plan and we won't stop you but be aware the rooftops will take this to court.
This is the point where Ricketts chuckles and says "I got this" and either pays them a small one time fee or says good luck in court the next 10 years you parasites.

George Lucas (owner of multiple rooftops, Cubbie Bear, Sports Corner.....) really deserves a chance to see how his business thrives with the Cubs in the burbs.
A little birdy says Naperville will blow Rosemonts offer away if the Cubs seek bidders.


You mean that business with units throughout Lincoln Park? You mean that business where he had the foresight to buy land for so little that even had he sold at the bottom of the worst real estate crises in the nation's history, he would have realized huge profits? You mean the business where he owns thousands of units in a market where it is recognized that current supply does not meet demand throughout the north side of the city?

Yeah, I think he'll do ok.

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 03, 2013 10:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 2:35 pm
Posts: 82149
pittmike wrote:
Good point about see you in court for 10 years. Roof tops owners sue and cry about their contract. Rickett's really smart lawyers counter and get an injunction or something preventing the rooftops from operating during dispute in a crooked county court. For the next 10 years their wither and die with their contract.


ooofah

I don't mean this specifically for you but there seems to be a certain fundamental ignorance of the world in just about all the discussions I read, hear or see on this topic.

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 03, 2013 11:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81625
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:


The Cubs aren't an iconic team. They're a fuckin' loser. Wrigley is an iconic ballpark.

Way overstated

Wrigley is a big part of WHY they became an Iconic team, but what's done is done.


I so hope we get to see them move or they ruin the vibe of that park so we can find out that I'm right.

You dont think that there is a possibility that you are biased on this?
You're a fan of the team who has played second fiddle to the Cubs for most of your life.



Can you give me an example of an iconic team that faded into obscurity?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 03, 2013 11:09 am 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 6:17 pm
Posts: 102657
pizza_Place: Vito & Nick's
Almost the entire NHL in the 2000's

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
It's more fun to be a victim
Caller Bob wrote:
There will never be an effective vaccine. I'll never get one anyway.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 03, 2013 10:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 7:42 pm
Posts: 1631
Location: Hinsdale
pizza_Place: Lugi's of Hong Kong
If you think McDonalds wouldn't still be a very wealthy company if they lost their ability to do business in the USA you're dumb. The guy was smart enough to start with one burger joint and now has them all over the world. So even though this has nothing to do with the original point I thought I would point this out....jeez some people.
Signed President of the Rooftop Owners Fan Club,
Below Average Porpoise

_________________
Kenny Williams fell for the banana in the tailpipe


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 04, 2013 6:27 am 
Online
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 79455
Location: Ravenswood Manor
pizza_Place: Pete's
rogers park bryan wrote:
You dont think that there is a possibility that you are biased on this?
You're a fan of the team who has played second fiddle to the Cubs for most of your life.



Can you give me an example of an iconic team that faded into obscurity?


I think if I'm biased at all it isn't because I dislike the Cubs; it's because I like Wrigley Field. That's where I went to my first game. I grew up going to games there far more than I ever went to Sox games.

I don't know what you mean by "iconic team". If the Cubs are iconic, it comes from their long history of futility. I think you're seeing the Cubs fade right now in spite of having a cash cow of a ballpark. You can only slap people in the face and feed them a shit sandwich for so long. But as long as they have Antique Field over there on Clark and Addison, when the weather warms up, they're probably always gonna do okay.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Matthew, Tulsi, and Don


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 11, 2013 7:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 1:39 am
Posts: 13303
pizza_Place: Lanny Poffo's Sausage and More
Sullivan has been pissing me off lately. There's your money Cubs! Now go sign Robinson Cano to a stupid contract! Bad thinking.

@PWSullivan Jumbotron and signage approval means the Cubs have no excuse not to spend some money this offseason.

_________________
Telegram Sam wrote:
I would cover for SHARK, Drop In, Dave in Champaign, my Mom, and Urlacher's Missing Neck. After that, the list gets pretty thin. There are a few people about whom I would definitely fabricate charges.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 11, 2013 8:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 5:02 pm
Posts: 11735
pizza_Place: Angelo's Pizza in Downers Grove
Drop In wrote:
Sullivan has been pissing me off lately. There's your money Cubs! Now go sign Robinson Cano to a stupid contract! Bad thinking.

@PWSullivan Jumbotron and signage approval means the Cubs have no excuse not to spend some money this offseason.


If they sign anyone, I would imagine it would be Ellsbury. Maybe try to get Lincecum on the cheap and use him as a closer for a year.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 64 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group