News:

OK A-holes.  It's fixed.  Enjoy the orange links, because I have no fucking idea how to change them.  I basically learned scripting in four days to fix this damned thing. - Andy

Main Menu

Author Topic: Reasonable Trade Discussion  ( 77,070 )

World's #1 Astros Fan

  • Johnny Evers Fan Club
  • Posts: 5,089
  • Location: Hoffman Estates, IL
Re: Reasonable Trade Discussion
« Reply #180 on: June 30, 2015, 01:41:37 PM »
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on June 30, 2015, 01:34:09 PM
Quote from: Bort on June 30, 2015, 11:26:18 AM
Quote from: ChuckD on June 30, 2015, 10:35:25 AM
Quote from: Brownie on June 30, 2015, 09:45:24 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on June 30, 2015, 09:01:41 AM
Quote from: ChuckD on June 29, 2015, 04:07:42 PM
Quote from: Powdered Toast Man on June 29, 2015, 04:02:59 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on June 29, 2015, 03:13:30 PM
Quote from: Eli on June 29, 2015, 03:08:31 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on June 29, 2015, 02:31:21 PM
Quote from: Eli on June 29, 2015, 01:53:36 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on June 29, 2015, 01:04:38 PM
I don't think acquiring Hamels (who makes sense because he's more than a rental, when by all accounts this team will be better going forward) and signing a FA pitcher this offseason are mutually exclusive.

They're not going to have Lester, Hamels AND another big-name FA pitcher. That'd be about $75-80 million a year tied up for three pitchers.

Why not if they can afford it (and they absolutely can)?  Isn't that the whole point of amassing an army of cost-controlled talent everywhere else on the roster?

"Can" afford it and "willing to pay" are totally different. Even with a $200 million payroll (which is double their current payroll), that's still a pretty unbalanced use of resources.

They could afford it were this 2019 and they had a new TV deal in place. They don't and there's no guaranty they will.  I'd still bet they get a few billion for the broadcast / streaming rights, but 4 years is an eternity in this media environment.

Are you spelling guarantee like that to be different or is that a real thing?

It's a banking/finance thing. But Chuck never misses an opportunity to Chuck.

Yeah, I don't get "guarantee." It's not "warrantee." I do use guaranty and guarantee interchangeablee.

But they're not interchangeable. Guaranty is a very specific contract/covenant to pay a debt in the case of the debtor not being able to pay, where guarantee is a pledge or contract to perform as stated, including paying a debt.

Guarantee can also be used as a verb. I don't believe guaranty is.


Forget it, Merriam-Webster says they can be used interchangeably. Chuck is right. Broken clocks and all that?

Mike Olt and Kris Bryant can be used interchangeably, too. But if using one of them rustles so many jimmies, why not use the perfectly non-jimmie-rustling alternative?

Octopodes is a technically correct plural for octopuses, but I don't use it because I'm not a common Chuck.

I almost always use "guaranty" when I'm talking singular because you have to use "guarantees" when going with the plural.

Not "guaranties"?
Just a sloppy, undisciplined team.  Garbage.

--SKO, on the 2018 Chicago Cubs

ChuckD

  • Johnny Evers Fan Club
  • Posts: 2,502
Re: Reasonable Trade Discussion
« Reply #181 on: June 30, 2015, 01:45:15 PM »
Quote from: PANK! on June 30, 2015, 01:41:37 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on June 30, 2015, 01:34:09 PM
Quote from: Bort on June 30, 2015, 11:26:18 AM
Quote from: ChuckD on June 30, 2015, 10:35:25 AM
Quote from: Brownie on June 30, 2015, 09:45:24 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on June 30, 2015, 09:01:41 AM
Quote from: ChuckD on June 29, 2015, 04:07:42 PM
Quote from: Powdered Toast Man on June 29, 2015, 04:02:59 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on June 29, 2015, 03:13:30 PM
Quote from: Eli on June 29, 2015, 03:08:31 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on June 29, 2015, 02:31:21 PM
Quote from: Eli on June 29, 2015, 01:53:36 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on June 29, 2015, 01:04:38 PM
I don't think acquiring Hamels (who makes sense because he's more than a rental, when by all accounts this team will be better going forward) and signing a FA pitcher this offseason are mutually exclusive.

They're not going to have Lester, Hamels AND another big-name FA pitcher. That'd be about $75-80 million a year tied up for three pitchers.

Why not if they can afford it (and they absolutely can)?  Isn't that the whole point of amassing an army of cost-controlled talent everywhere else on the roster?

"Can" afford it and "willing to pay" are totally different. Even with a $200 million payroll (which is double their current payroll), that's still a pretty unbalanced use of resources.

They could afford it were this 2019 and they had a new TV deal in place. They don't and there's no guaranty they will.  I'd still bet they get a few billion for the broadcast / streaming rights, but 4 years is an eternity in this media environment.

Are you spelling guarantee like that to be different or is that a real thing?

It's a banking/finance thing. But Chuck never misses an opportunity to Chuck.

Yeah, I don't get "guarantee." It's not "warrantee." I do use guaranty and guarantee interchangeablee.

But they're not interchangeable. Guaranty is a very specific contract/covenant to pay a debt in the case of the debtor not being able to pay, where guarantee is a pledge or contract to perform as stated, including paying a debt.

Guarantee can also be used as a verb. I don't believe guaranty is.


Forget it, Merriam-Webster says they can be used interchangeably. Chuck is right. Broken clocks and all that?

Mike Olt and Kris Bryant can be used interchangeably, too. But if using one of them rustles so many jimmies, why not use the perfectly non-jimmie-rustling alternative?

Octopodes is a technically correct plural for octopuses, but I don't use it because I'm not a common Chuck.

I almost always use "guaranty" when I'm talking singular because you have to use "guarantees" when going with the plural.

Not "guaranties"?

Guarantodes

Chuck to Chuck

  • Johnny Evers Fan Club
  • Posts: 4,831
Re: Reasonable Trade Discussion
« Reply #182 on: June 30, 2015, 01:49:01 PM »
Quote from: PANK! on June 30, 2015, 01:41:37 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on June 30, 2015, 01:34:09 PM
Quote from: Bort on June 30, 2015, 11:26:18 AM
Quote from: ChuckD on June 30, 2015, 10:35:25 AM
Quote from: Brownie on June 30, 2015, 09:45:24 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on June 30, 2015, 09:01:41 AM
Quote from: ChuckD on June 29, 2015, 04:07:42 PM
Quote from: Powdered Toast Man on June 29, 2015, 04:02:59 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on June 29, 2015, 03:13:30 PM
Quote from: Eli on June 29, 2015, 03:08:31 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on June 29, 2015, 02:31:21 PM
Quote from: Eli on June 29, 2015, 01:53:36 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on June 29, 2015, 01:04:38 PM
I don't think acquiring Hamels (who makes sense because he's more than a rental, when by all accounts this team will be better going forward) and signing a FA pitcher this offseason are mutually exclusive.

They're not going to have Lester, Hamels AND another big-name FA pitcher. That'd be about $75-80 million a year tied up for three pitchers.

Why not if they can afford it (and they absolutely can)?  Isn't that the whole point of amassing an army of cost-controlled talent everywhere else on the roster?

"Can" afford it and "willing to pay" are totally different. Even with a $200 million payroll (which is double their current payroll), that's still a pretty unbalanced use of resources.

They could afford it were this 2019 and they had a new TV deal in place. They don't and there's no guaranty they will.  I'd still bet they get a few billion for the broadcast / streaming rights, but 4 years is an eternity in this media environment.

Are you spelling guarantee like that to be different or is that a real thing?

It's a banking/finance thing. But Chuck never misses an opportunity to Chuck.

Yeah, I don't get "guarantee." It's not "warrantee." I do use guaranty and guarantee interchangeablee.

But they're not interchangeable. Guaranty is a very specific contract/covenant to pay a debt in the case of the debtor not being able to pay, where guarantee is a pledge or contract to perform as stated, including paying a debt.

Guarantee can also be used as a verb. I don't believe guaranty is.


Forget it, Merriam-Webster says they can be used interchangeably. Chuck is right. Broken clocks and all that?

Mike Olt and Kris Bryant can be used interchangeably, too. But if using one of them rustles so many jimmies, why not use the perfectly non-jimmie-rustling alternative?

Octopodes is a technically correct plural for octopuses, but I don't use it because I'm not a common Chuck.

I almost always use "guaranty" when I'm talking singular because you have to use "guarantees" when going with the plural.

Not "guaranties"?

I never see it that way in the loan docs. Sometimes in boiler plate docs it's "Guarantor(s)," but that refers to the individuals, not the documentation.

CBStew

  • Most people my age are dead.
  • Johnny Evers Fan Club
  • Posts: 4,000
  • Location: Berkeley, California
Re: Reasonable Trade Discussion
« Reply #183 on: June 30, 2015, 02:04:54 PM »
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on June 30, 2015, 01:49:01 PM
Quote from: PANK! on June 30, 2015, 01:41:37 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on June 30, 2015, 01:34:09 PM
Quote from: Bort on June 30, 2015, 11:26:18 AM
Quote from: ChuckD on June 30, 2015, 10:35:25 AM
Quote from: Brownie on June 30, 2015, 09:45:24 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on June 30, 2015, 09:01:41 AM
Quote from: ChuckD on June 29, 2015, 04:07:42 PM
Quote from: Powdered Toast Man on June 29, 2015, 04:02:59 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on June 29, 2015, 03:13:30 PM
Quote from: Eli on June 29, 2015, 03:08:31 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on June 29, 2015, 02:31:21 PM
Quote from: Eli on June 29, 2015, 01:53:36 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on June 29, 2015, 01:04:38 PM
I don't think acquiring Hamels (who makes sense because he's more than a rental, when by all accounts this team will be better going forward) and signing a FA pitcher this offseason are mutually exclusive.

They're not going to have Lester, Hamels AND another big-name FA pitcher. That'd be about $75-80 million a year tied up for three pitchers.

Why not if they can afford it (and they absolutely can)?  Isn't that the whole point of amassing an army of cost-controlled talent everywhere else on the roster?

"Can" afford it and "willing to pay" are totally different. Even with a $200 million payroll (which is double their current payroll), that's still a pretty unbalanced use of resources.

They could afford it were this 2019 and they had a new TV deal in place. They don't and there's no guaranty they will.  I'd still bet they get a few billion for the broadcast / streaming rights, but 4 years is an eternity in this media environment.

Are you spelling guarantee like that to be different or is that a real thing?

It's a banking/finance thing. But Chuck never misses an opportunity to Chuck.

Yeah, I don't get "guarantee." It's not "warrantee." I do use guaranty and guarantee interchangeablee.

But they're not interchangeable. Guaranty is a very specific contract/covenant to pay a debt in the case of the debtor not being able to pay, where guarantee is a pledge or contract to perform as stated, including paying a debt.

Guarantee can also be used as a verb. I don't believe guaranty is.


Forget it, Merriam-Webster says they can be used interchangeably. Chuck is right. Broken clocks and all that?

Mike Olt and Kris Bryant can be used interchangeably, too. But if using one of them rustles so many jimmies, why not use the perfectly non-jimmie-rustling alternative?

Octopodes is a technically correct plural for octopuses, but I don't use it because I'm not a common Chuck.

I almost always use "guaranty" when I'm talking singular because you have to use "guarantees" when going with the plural.

Not "guaranties"?

I never see it that way in the loan docs. Sometimes in boiler plate docs it's "Guarantor(s)," but that refers to the individuals, not the documentation.
This is less fun than first year Contracts, which was my least favorite course.
If I had known that I was going to live this long I would have taken better care of myself.   (Plagerized from numerous other folks)

Saul Goodman

  • Not NOT Sterling
  • Johnny Evers Fan Club
  • Posts: 6,511
  • Location: California
Re: Reasonable Trade Discussion
« Reply #184 on: June 30, 2015, 02:18:11 PM »
Quote from: ChuckD on June 30, 2015, 01:45:15 PM
Quote from: PANK! on June 30, 2015, 01:41:37 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on June 30, 2015, 01:34:09 PM
Quote from: Bort on June 30, 2015, 11:26:18 AM
Quote from: ChuckD on June 30, 2015, 10:35:25 AM
Quote from: Brownie on June 30, 2015, 09:45:24 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on June 30, 2015, 09:01:41 AM
Quote from: ChuckD on June 29, 2015, 04:07:42 PM
Quote from: Powdered Toast Man on June 29, 2015, 04:02:59 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on June 29, 2015, 03:13:30 PM
Quote from: Eli on June 29, 2015, 03:08:31 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on June 29, 2015, 02:31:21 PM
Quote from: Eli on June 29, 2015, 01:53:36 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on June 29, 2015, 01:04:38 PM
I don't think acquiring Hamels (who makes sense because he's more than a rental, when by all accounts this team will be better going forward) and signing a FA pitcher this offseason are mutually exclusive.

They're not going to have Lester, Hamels AND another big-name FA pitcher. That'd be about $75-80 million a year tied up for three pitchers.

Why not if they can afford it (and they absolutely can)?  Isn't that the whole point of amassing an army of cost-controlled talent everywhere else on the roster?

"Can" afford it and "willing to pay" are totally different. Even with a $200 million payroll (which is double their current payroll), that's still a pretty unbalanced use of resources.

They could afford it were this 2019 and they had a new TV deal in place. They don't and there's no guaranty they will.  I'd still bet they get a few billion for the broadcast / streaming rights, but 4 years is an eternity in this media environment.

Are you spelling guarantee like that to be different or is that a real thing?

It's a banking/finance thing. But Chuck never misses an opportunity to Chuck.

Yeah, I don't get "guarantee." It's not "warrantee." I do use guaranty and guarantee interchangeablee.

But they're not interchangeable. Guaranty is a very specific contract/covenant to pay a debt in the case of the debtor not being able to pay, where guarantee is a pledge or contract to perform as stated, including paying a debt.

Guarantee can also be used as a verb. I don't believe guaranty is.


Forget it, Merriam-Webster says they can be used interchangeably. Chuck is right. Broken clocks and all that?

Mike Olt and Kris Bryant can be used interchangeably, too. But if using one of them rustles so many jimmies, why not use the perfectly non-jimmie-rustling alternative?

Octopodes is a technically correct plural for octopuses, but I don't use it because I'm not a common Chuck.

I almost always use "guaranty" when I'm talking singular because you have to use "guarantees" when going with the plural.

Not "guaranties"?

Guarantodes

Guarabanzo beanz
You two wanna go stick your wangs in a hornet's nest, it's a free country.  But how come I always gotta get sloppy seconds, huh?

CT III

  • Administrator
  • Johnny Evers Fan Club
  • Posts: 3,828
  • Location: NonDescript
Re: Reasonable Trade Discussion
« Reply #185 on: June 30, 2015, 02:31:19 PM »
Guarantee void in Tennessee

InternetApex

  • Still Diggin'
  • Johnny Evers Fan Club
  • Posts: 4,160
  • Location: Indiana
Re: Reasonable Trade Discussion
« Reply #186 on: June 30, 2015, 03:13:37 PM »
Nuke this fucking thread hard.
The 39th Tenet of Pexism: True in the game as long as blood is blue in my vein.

World's #1 Astros Fan

  • Johnny Evers Fan Club
  • Posts: 5,089
  • Location: Hoffman Estates, IL
Re: Reasonable Trade Discussion
« Reply #187 on: June 30, 2015, 03:16:46 PM »
Quote from: InternetApex on June 30, 2015, 03:13:37 PM
Nuke this fucking thread hard.

Seriously.  The most active discussion today has been about how to spell guaranty.

When I saw CT jumped in I thought for sure he was going to dull it down even further by adding "surety" (suretee?) to the conversation.  He spared us.

First pitch can't come soon enough tonight.
Just a sloppy, undisciplined team.  Garbage.

--SKO, on the 2018 Chicago Cubs

Chuck to Chuck

  • Johnny Evers Fan Club
  • Posts: 4,831
Re: Reasonable Trade Discussion
« Reply #188 on: June 30, 2015, 03:27:08 PM »
Quote from: PANK! on June 30, 2015, 03:16:46 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on June 30, 2015, 03:13:37 PM
Nuke this fucking thread hard.

Seriously.  The most active discussion today has been about how to spell guaranty.

When I saw CT jumped in I thought for sure he was going to dull it down even further by adding "surety" (suretee?) to the conversation.  He spared us.

First pitch can't come soon enough tonight.

Surety you can't be serious.

Eli

  • Johnny Evers Fan Club
  • Posts: 6,048
Re: Reasonable Trade Discussion
« Reply #189 on: June 30, 2015, 03:27:27 PM »
Quote from: PANK! on June 30, 2015, 03:16:46 PM
First pitch can't come soon enough tonight.

I dunno. Have you seen tonight's lineup?

Saul Goodman

  • Not NOT Sterling
  • Johnny Evers Fan Club
  • Posts: 6,511
  • Location: California
Re: Reasonable Trade Discussion
« Reply #190 on: June 30, 2015, 03:29:04 PM »
Quote from: Eli on June 30, 2015, 03:27:27 PM
Quote from: PANK! on June 30, 2015, 03:16:46 PM
First pitch can't come soon enough tonight.

I dunno. Have you seen tonight's lineup?

cf Fowler
1b Rizzo
3b Bryant
ss Castro
rf Denorfia
lf Szczur
c Ross
p Hendricks
2b Russell

Ok, that's ... not optimal.
You two wanna go stick your wangs in a hornet's nest, it's a free country.  But how come I always gotta get sloppy seconds, huh?

World's #1 Astros Fan

  • Johnny Evers Fan Club
  • Posts: 5,089
  • Location: Hoffman Estates, IL
Re: Reasonable Trade Discussion
« Reply #191 on: June 30, 2015, 03:50:11 PM »
Quote from: Sterling Archer on June 30, 2015, 03:29:04 PM
Quote from: Eli on June 30, 2015, 03:27:27 PM
Quote from: PANK! on June 30, 2015, 03:16:46 PM
First pitch can't come soon enough tonight.

I dunno. Have you seen tonight's lineup?

cf Fowler
1b Rizzo
3b Bryant
ss Castro
rf Denorfia
lf Szczur
c Ross
p Hendricks
2b Russell

Ok, that's ... not optimal.

Jesus Christ, Soler, get the fuck back NOW.  
Just a sloppy, undisciplined team.  Garbage.

--SKO, on the 2018 Chicago Cubs

Oleg

  • Johnny Evers Fan Club
  • Posts: 3,921
  • Location: Chicago
Re: Reasonable Trade Discussion
« Reply #192 on: July 01, 2015, 09:42:34 AM »
The Padres are 5 games under 500.  I would not object to Justin Upton in LF for The Cubs.

Slaky

  • Johnny Evers Fan Club
  • Posts: 7,883
  • Location: Bucktown
Re: Reasonable Trade Discussion
« Reply #193 on: July 01, 2015, 09:47:47 AM »
Quote from: Oleg on July 01, 2015, 09:42:34 AM
The Padres are 5 games under 500.  I would not object to Justin Upton in LF for The Cubs.

Weren't the Cubs explicitly on his No Thanks list?

Oleg

  • Johnny Evers Fan Club
  • Posts: 3,921
  • Location: Chicago
Re: Reasonable Trade Discussion
« Reply #194 on: July 01, 2015, 09:52:41 AM »
Quote from: Slaky on July 01, 2015, 09:47:47 AM
Quote from: Oleg on July 01, 2015, 09:42:34 AM
The Padres are 5 games under 500.  I would not object to Justin Upton in LF for The Cubs.

Weren't the Cubs explicitly on his No Thanks list?

I don't know.  But can't his brother just tell him how awesome Maddon is?