Cubs Ask Permission To Talk To Theo Epstein
by Al Yellon on Oct 4, 2011 7:10 PM CDT
in Chicago Cubs News
Email
Print
This was already being discussed in this FanShot but I thought I'd make a front-page post with some more information, as well as a few thoughts.
Here's a good summary from my colleagues at Baseball Nation, including the three possible scenarios that could result:
(1) The Red Sox deny the Cubs' request
(2) Epstein denies the Cubs' request
(3) The Red Sox grant the Cubs' request under the condition that they are compensated if Epstein is hired away
On the surface, hiring Epstein looks like a good idea. He will cost a lot of money, and if you are concerned about a GM who hands out long-term deals to players who then don't produce, Epstein has had quite a number of those in recent years: Daisuke Matsuzaka, John Lackey, Carl Crawford, among others. The problem of possible compensation is also an issue; presumably the Red Sox would ask for quite a bit, since Epstein is under contract for another year.
This is far from the end of this story; it may not even be a beginning if Boston says no. But yes, this is worth discussing. Have at it.
357 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Those three scenarios are about only things that could happen.....??
Guys, hitting is not about muscle. It's simple physics. Calculate the velocity, v, in relation to the trajectory, t, in which g, gravity, of course remains a constant.... It's not complicated. - George Costanza
Well, not the ONLY things.
But the most likely, I’d think.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
How about
the Red Sox throwing cows over the castle walls at us while insulting us with a fake French accent? How likely is that?
3 scenarios for the Cubs
Other teams could talk to him. Question is, besides the Angels, what other teams need/want a GM?
by ddoubleheader on Oct 4, 2011 10:36 PM CDT up reply actions
Baltimore
Although most people assume that Buck Showalter is going to take that job.
by Josh Timmers on Oct 4, 2011 10:44 PM CDT up reply actions
Too bad- sons of a silly person........
GO HAWKS! Beat.........Tenn. Tech?
by tommy veryzer on Oct 4, 2011 7:53 PM CDT up reply actions
Interesting thought, but probably unlikely
Then again, I’m sure the British thought it was highly unlikely a bunch of Bostonians would dress up like Native Americans and toss tea into the Harbor.
by Mulhollandmania on Oct 4, 2011 8:43 PM CDT up reply actions
In my opinion
calling them “Indians” is less politically incorrect and more perpetuating ignorance and arrogance.
Calling them Native Americans is kind of ignorant too, imo. They each come from a very distinct tribe.
DEJESUS!!!
Well,
many were ‘native’ Americans at the time. They were just called subjects of the British empire and America was just a place, not a country, just like people were Hamburgers or Frankfurters or Cheddar cheeseheads.
Is all this Theo Epstein talk substantive for the Cubs, or is it just a tempest in the blogosphere teacup? Will the Red Sox ice the Cubs’ tea? Or are we reading into the tea leaves of this topic too much?
by ddoubleheader on Oct 4, 2011 10:40 PM CDT up reply actions
Yeah
Well a lot of things in your history books were wrong. For example, did you know that the Tea Act that they were protesting actually lowered the duties on imported tea?
This upset the merchants of Boston because it meant their smuggled tea could no longer be sold below cost of the British East India Company’s tea.
Bet that wasn’t in your history book either.
by Josh Timmers on Oct 4, 2011 10:50 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
So then, the only ones who should have been rightly upset...
were the Boston merchants. Otherwise, cheaper commodities would have been a blessing (not a source of irritation) to the average Bostonian in those days (much like today).
Funny, that no one talks about that.
If you think you've seen it all...just wait!
by CubFanSince1970 on Oct 5, 2011 8:16 AM CDT up reply actions
It was a little bit more complicated than angry smugglers though
The East India Trading company had basically been giving a legal monopoly over tea trade to the colonies and that also caused a negative reaction. Britain also attempted unsuccessfully to hide the taxes from the cost of the tea by enforcing them before the tea crossed the Atlantic, which also angered the colonies. No doubt that smugglers were a part of the unrest though.
Yes
There are lots of factors going into these things. You could write a book about it. Many people have.
But without getting too far into it and without getting too political, I find throughout history (and I did teach history at Iowa for several years) that people pretty much never protest over their perceived “rights” being infringed upon unless they perceive that those losses of rights will hit their pocketbook.
by Josh Timmers on Oct 5, 2011 12:33 PM CDT up reply actions 2 recs
Or if it threatens their existence
Like the racial protests. I guess you could technically say it was about their pocketbook. But I don’t think dollars were the primary concern there.
Sure
If it threatens their existence, that’s another point. But they are rarely over abstract principles. Some elites think that way—or at least convince themselves they do. The masses never do.
That's a pretty cynical POV
Many of the people that made up the colonies at the time were descendants of or were people that escaped persecution at the hands of British rule. Many of them made up of the lower class of English society. To say that those who fought and died for independence or who those who partook in the precursory events leading up to the revolution did it over money is ludicrous. To go against British authority was treason, punishable by death. I’m sure many of the people involved in the revolution certainly didn’t risk their lives or their families lives over a couple of pennies.
In fact, look at the history of the signers, many of them lost their homes, fortunes, family members and their lives because they put ink to paper.
Guys, hitting is not about muscle. It's simple physics. Calculate the velocity, v, in relation to the trajectory, t, in which g, gravity, of course remains a constant.... It's not complicated. - George Costanza
More of them
were people looking to make a better life for themselves. Financially, that is. If you’re oppressed because of your religion, it hits you in the pocketbook too. And the whole Jamestown colony was a bunch of venture capitalists, to use a modern and somewhat ahistorical term.
It’s not cynical to think that people are more concerned about things that affect them personally than they do abstract principles of liberty. Did some people involved from the revolution not suffer? Of course. Some did. But no one knew who would profit and who wouldn’t. And the vast majority of the founding fathers did OK for themselves and their families
Do I think the signers of the Declaration sat around and said “Boy, I’m going to make a killing on this”? Of course not. That’s not how it works. Most of them saw continued British rule as harmful to the interests of America. They started down that road because they saw America going to hell in a handbasket. Read Gary Nash’s “The Urban Crucible” which is one of the canonical works on this period. Boston was a complete economic wasteland in the late 1760s and early 1770s. Those wars against the French devastated the New England economy. These people turned to revolution because the crown was doing nothing to alleviate their misery.
The fact that these people put profits over principle can be seen in the whole slavery debate. All men are created equal and we’re fighting over life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but we’re not going to upset the plantation economy of the South over it. And yes, there were abolitionist movements well before the Revolution, so it wasn’t like no one thought of it.
I don't know if they were putting profits over principle.
I wouldn’t say that, not to diminish the stain of slavery but the nations economy at the time relied on slave labor for about 80% of it’s income in foreign trade. Again this might sound callous but to completely and entirely put an end to slavery at that time would have been the equivalent of banning the gas powered engine today. That was the predawn era of this country, still teetering in its existence. An economic failure or collapse would have resulted in our dependence upon the throne of England and quite possibly thwarted any chance at a revolution.
Jefferson advocated for an Agrarian Society that’s what we were, but the whole time he anguished over the dependence on slavery as did many of our forefathers.
Thanks for the book recommendation, I’ll check it out.
Guys, hitting is not about muscle. It's simple physics. Calculate the velocity, v, in relation to the trajectory, t, in which g, gravity, of course remains a constant.... It's not complicated. - George Costanza
This is a fascinating discussion.
Thanks. Very well spoken and interesting bits of history.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
I agree Al
I never thought I would receive a history lesson when reading BCB.
I don’t want to play golf. When I hit a ball, I want someone else to go chase it.
by cub in louies nest on Oct 6, 2011 8:06 AM CDT up reply actions
Indeed.
It was as surprising to me as this.
Dear Great Pumpkin, I am looking forward to your arrival on Halloween Night. I hope you will bring me lots of presents.
That's funny
I don’t want to play golf. When I hit a ball, I want someone else to go chase it.
by cub in louies nest on Oct 6, 2011 11:04 AM CDT up reply actions
There are plenty of things that are not in history books Josh
The pros and cons of the “Great Society”, the negative society impacts of “the war on poverty”
The Tea Party however was not about taxes that’s a simplistic view to a very complicated set of circumstances and it oversimplifies one of the greatest moments in this nations history. After the French Indian war, Britain gained control of vast regions in America. Britain had run-up huge debts(sound familiar) and decided to start taxing the colonies as a source of revenue. The Stamp act and Sugar Act were among the first imposed on the colonies. It wasn’t the amount that they were being taxed that was at issue, it was the fact that they were being taxed which was a direct violation of the “English Bill of Rights”, which had forbidden the imposition of taxes without legislative representation.
The Declaratory Act of 1766 was Britain’s response to the colonies cries for self governance. It stated absolute and full parliamentary control over the colonies and essentially threw out the “English Bill of Rights” . The British then passed the “Townshend Acts” (the acts over which the Tea Party was organized) the most flagrant part of that law was the “writs of assistance” which allowed the British courts to issue undefined and open ended search warrants of all goods pertaining to the “Townshend Acts”.
Virginia led a revolt among the Colonies which banned the importation of British goods, parliament eventually repealed the bulk of the taxes under the “Townshend Acts” except for the tax on tea.
Did “merchants” destroy what amounted to a $1,000,000 in tea because they were “sick of taxes”? Emphatically NO, they were fighting for the principles that were to be later outlined in the “Declaration of Independence”, self-governance and natural rights.
Guys, hitting is not about muscle. It's simple physics. Calculate the velocity, v, in relation to the trajectory, t, in which g, gravity, of course remains a constant.... It's not complicated. - George Costanza
by troutfishin on Oct 5, 2011 9:04 AM CDT up reply actions 3 recs
Sorry
if I offended you by getting off your simplistic, singular topic of baseball, now let’s get back to your regularly scheduled existence.
Guys, hitting is not about muscle. It's simple physics. Calculate the velocity, v, in relation to the trajectory, t, in which g, gravity, of course remains a constant.... It's not complicated. - George Costanza
Nicely and clearly stated history Troutfish!
I love history (particularly American history). Just wish I had more time to spend in it.
If you think you've seen it all...just wait!
by CubFanSince1970 on Oct 5, 2011 11:21 AM CDT up reply actions
Thanks Cubfan,
I love history as well. Since you don’t have a lot of time check out the HBO epic of John Adams, one of the best movies of his life and of the period probably ever made.
Guys, hitting is not about muscle. It's simple physics. Calculate the velocity, v, in relation to the trajectory, t, in which g, gravity, of course remains a constant.... It's not complicated. - George Costanza
I'm a history buff as well.
The biography of John Adams is well worth reading.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
Adams and Jefferson
How ironic is it that Thomas Jefferson and John Adams died on the same day at almost the same time. Almost seems providential, doesn’t it.
Adams' last words reportedly were
“Thomas Jefferson still lives.” Of course, he would have had no way of knowing that Jefferson had died the same day.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
This is what is going to happen with Dan and I.
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Oct 5, 2011 4:42 PM CDT up reply actions
THE POLITICAL DISCUSSION ENDS NOW!
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Oct 5, 2011 4:54 PM CDT up reply actions
What a kill joy!!
Guys, hitting is not about muscle. It's simple physics. Calculate the velocity, v, in relation to the trajectory, t, in which g, gravity, of course remains a constant.... It's not complicated. - George Costanza
It can only end...
when Grover Cleveland sings! The question is, which one will it be, the first term one or the second term one? The real one or the clever impostor?
by ddoubleheader on Oct 5, 2011 6:17 PM CDT up reply actions
And they also died on Independence day, providential....
….indeed.
Guys, hitting is not about muscle. It's simple physics. Calculate the velocity, v, in relation to the trajectory, t, in which g, gravity, of course remains a constant.... It's not complicated. - George Costanza
Simple coincidence?
Guys, hitting is not about muscle. It's simple physics. Calculate the velocity, v, in relation to the trajectory, t, in which g, gravity, of course remains a constant.... It's not complicated. - George Costanza
Don't think it was a coincidence
Although I reject the idea that some people see some sort of Divine Hand involved. Dying people often seem to be able to choose when they die. I know it was that way for both my Dad and my Aunt.
"Don't Know Much About History" is a great read
Very enlightening but fun book that dispels myths (Pocohantas wasn’t a hottie like in the Disney movie) while also explaining things you’ve heard about but what sure what they were (the XYZ Affair, the Kansas-Nebraska Act).
Fortunately, Abner Doubleday invented baseball 73 years later,
so as to have something other than history to talk about on the not yet invented sports blog.
by South Side Expat on Oct 5, 2011 11:41 AM CDT up reply actions
Was hoping I wasn't going to have to explain it.
by South Side Expat on Oct 5, 2011 9:56 PM CDT up reply actions
Yep, wasn't Doubleday.
It was a man named Singlenight. But it wasn’t invented in one night… it was invented in a fortnight.
by ddoubleheader on Oct 6, 2011 3:05 PM CDT up reply actions
I had no idea guys named Rahul and Sanjay taught the Pilgrims how to plant corn.
by Ozzie Montana on Oct 4, 2011 11:49 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
The European settlers brought cows to America
I hope you were joking that Indians (actual Indians, not American continent natives) brought the cows.
Naughty Americans are more fun.
If the Cubs still have a chance, no matter how small, it’s still Go Cubs, damn the math and pass the KoolAid.
I also saw a shirt that was hilarious
It said “Fighting Terrorism since 1492”
Then had a few Indians with Guns.
The one I've owned
is Crazy Horse, Sitting Bull, and a third one I forget right now
reads “Department Of Homeland Security”.
Someone stole mine.
[...]when Giants coach Steve Owen, a certified defensive genius, was asked how he planned to stop Nagurski, he said: "With a shotgun, as he’s leaving the dressing room."
by NobodySpecial on Oct 6, 2011 2:55 AM CDT up reply actions
I trying to be nice in saying that your colleagues are masters of the obvious.
Guys, hitting is not about muscle. It's simple physics. Calculate the velocity, v, in relation to the trajectory, t, in which g, gravity, of course remains a constant.... It's not complicated. - George Costanza
was
Guys, hitting is not about muscle. It's simple physics. Calculate the velocity, v, in relation to the trajectory, t, in which g, gravity, of course remains a constant.... It's not complicated. - George Costanza
I give credit to Ricketts for trying to get the best GM out there.
Even if he’s unsuccessful in getting Epstein, at least it shows that the Cubs are going for it.
by jeffmills1972 on Oct 4, 2011 9:46 PM CDT up reply actions
As I posted over in the fan shot-
I worry about the compensation part. When the Sox went for Beane, they were set to send Youkilis to Oakland. If you look at his numbers in 2005 in AAA, I would think Brett Jackson would only be the starting point of the discussion.
Eamus Ursuli!
Youkilis
was the #3 prospect in the Red Sox organization according to BA when Beane agreed, for a few hours, to be the Red Sox GM, behind Hanley Ramirez and Kelly Shoppach. Our #3 prospect is probably Javier Baez, who can’t be traded yet. Our #2 is Matt Szczur.
I don’t think it would be Jackson. Might be Szczur. Might be two prospects like the White Sox got for Ozzie.
#3 =/= #3
Of course though not all #3 prospects are created equal. My point isn’t that it would be Brett Jackson. But, rather, to put into perspective what the Red Sox were willing to give up for a comparable situation. And that price is pretty darn steep.
Eamus Ursuli!
I said that
Ramirez and Shoppach. No, all #3 are not created equal. But a team’s #1 prospect, especially one who is ready to play int the majors next year, seems a little steep. That’s why I said it might be Szczur.
True...
That said, Youkilis was even more ML ready that Jackson is right now.
Either way, even a Szczur would be a pretty steep price to pay. I am not saying I am opposed to Epstein, just that the compensation piece makes me nervous.
Eamus Ursuli!
I think we get nervous because the Cubs haven't had much success
in bringing up Major League ready players. We want to hang onto who we have because we are accustomed to working from a position of poverty. I think Epstein could put an end to the poverty. A GM who makes intelligent moves , who can build the system should be worth a top level prospect.
I don’t want to play golf. When I hit a ball, I want someone else to go chase it.
by cub in louies nest on Oct 4, 2011 7:48 PM CDT up reply actions
I realize this is just stupid sportswriters
But in the Boston Globe, they don’t want Szczur or even Jackson. They’re demanding Castro or Garza for Theo Epstein.
If that’s your price, keep him.
by Josh Timmers on Oct 4, 2011 11:41 PM CDT up reply actions
Yes.
Here’s the full article — the other link was to the second page only.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
Don't give the Red Sox anything,
force them to keep Epstein as a lame duck GM who doesn’t want to be there anymore.
"You've got to get your damn shirts rolled up and go out and kick somebody's ass. That's what you've got to do. Period." -- Lou Piniella
by tripdenten on Oct 5, 2011 8:53 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Again, please not the GM who hand out long term, non-productive deals
Those deals were given the green light with John Henry’s refusal to close his checkbook. It comes with the territory when you have to compete with the Yankees. Epstein knows what he’s doing.
Guys, hitting is not about muscle. It's simple physics. Calculate the velocity, v, in relation to the trajectory, t, in which g, gravity, of course remains a constant.... It's not complicated. - George Costanza
Yes, but the point isn't the money.
The point is who he gave it to.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
That's disingenuous on anyone that would point the finger at Daisuke or Crawford
First off, how many teams were in on the Dice K sweepstakes? Was it only Boston? Weren’t you even pining for a chance a Dice K? How about Crawford, I don’t care what Brian Cashman says, the Yankees made a play for Crawford and Boston out bid them. That’s what happens when you’re trying to keep up with the Yankees. Look at Cashman’s track record he’s had as just many duds.
Guys, hitting is not about muscle. It's simple physics. Calculate the velocity, v, in relation to the trajectory, t, in which g, gravity, of course remains a constant.... It's not complicated. - George Costanza
Your Dice K argument can be made for Fukudome with the Cubs...
doesn’t make the pill any easier to swallow when it happens to your team. I think plenty of people were pointing pictures at Hendry for that one.
Blame it on auto-correct
I don’t want to play golf. When I hit a ball, I want someone else to go chase it.
by cub in louies nest on Oct 4, 2011 7:50 PM CDT up reply actions
With a 3 month old at home I don't know where my brain is for at least half the day...
If that’s the worst mistake I make I consider it a successful evening.
Congrats...enjoy it while you can, you blink and the next thing you know...
…they’re 16. Oh for the good old days.
Guys, hitting is not about muscle. It's simple physics. Calculate the velocity, v, in relation to the trajectory, t, in which g, gravity, of course remains a constant.... It's not complicated. - George Costanza
I agree with this but again...it's hard to judge Epstein on free agent signings when...
…you’re trying to compete with the yanks. His Farm System and the types of players he likes fit the mold for championship teams.
Guys, hitting is not about muscle. It's simple physics. Calculate the velocity, v, in relation to the trajectory, t, in which g, gravity, of course remains a constant.... It's not complicated. - George Costanza
I just feel like you're letting Epstein off too easily or being too hard on Hendry
Don’t get me wrong, I would love Epstein to take this GM position, but I’m certainly not going to allow him a free pass simply because he has to compete against the Yankees. Although they are not major spenders, the Cubs still have the Cardinals in the division and they aren’t exactly lacking success as an organization either.
No but being in the national league central, it would allow Epstein a little...
…more time to do his thing with the farm system. The problem with the RedSox and I think Epstein might acknowledge this if he leaves, is that there was going to never be a time and place where they get to “reset” their system. Every year with Boston for about the last decade it seems to be a perpetual arms race between them and the Yankees which probably makes it a little difficult in doing the things that support Epsteins strong suits.
Guys, hitting is not about muscle. It's simple physics. Calculate the velocity, v, in relation to the trajectory, t, in which g, gravity, of course remains a constant.... It's not complicated. - George Costanza
Honestly, when the Red Sox farm system is at its strongest,
it seems Epstein has made deals, whether it be for Beckett or Gonzalez. They have developed solid players, dealt some, kept others to build around.
Yes, Lackey was a bad signing, but Dice-K gave them some good work, albeit he was extremely overpaid, and I think the jury is still out on Crawford.
"You've got to get your damn shirts rolled up and go out and kick somebody's ass. That's what you've got to do. Period." -- Lou Piniella
The Cards don't spend like the Yankees
The Sawks were in a position where they were forced to outspend the Yankees. Epstein spent the money he had to in order to attract the players he wanted. Crawford was a bad signing because Cashman drove up the price. Epstein won’t face that as much in the NL Central. The Yankees will always be there and always be able to control the price, but they won’t be deliberately outbidding the Cubs to intentionally drive up prices.
I don’t want to play golf. When I hit a ball, I want someone else to go chase it.
by cub in louies nest on Oct 4, 2011 8:02 PM CDT up reply actions
I did mention the Cards don't spend like the Yankees
But neither do the Red Sox. A good GM should not spend more money than a player would be worth to the organization, and should know when they are overpaying because other teams are bidding up the price.
I simply can’t believe how quickly people here are willing to give him a pass on this stuff because he worked in the AL East after the crap that was flung about Hendry here for 2+ years.
Every GM makes mistakes.
The Red Sox, while having a high payroll, still were able to be contenders. Some of their signings/moves didn’t work out, others did.
The Cubs finished in fifth place for the second straight year for with a high payroll. Not Red Sox high, but ‘higher than everyone else in their division’ high. That’s why the crap was flung, and continues to be.
Seeya Jimbo! Good job, Tommy Boy!
Jim did that sort of crap for a few years in a row....
Theo’s done it once?
So i you can give you can take it.
And that once...
came with 90 wins on a team that had constant injury problems, after 2 World Series wins and a constantly stocked farm system.
--------------------------------
Just North of Wrigley Field
by jameslcrockett on Oct 5, 2011 11:47 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Epstein knew...
…he was over-paying for Crawford. As it’s been stated, he had to. The Yanks were driving up the price. When you have Mr. Henry’s checkbook, it’s ok to do that.
A lot of GMs are guilty of paying more than a player’s worth.
Hendry’s signings weren’t the only reason I grew to dislike him as GM. There was always an excuse with that guy. Plus, he loathed sabremetrics. Or if he didn’t loathe it, he sure as heck didn’t believe in it.
Epstein trumps Hendry in every way. Especially with thsoe TWO big WS rings.
MAKE THE ADJUSTMENT ALREADY. THIS GAME IS ABOUT ADJUSTMENTS.
by MaTheMeatloaf on Oct 5, 2011 4:06 PM CDT up reply actions
None of his deals were ridiculous
It’s not like any of his large contracts were Hendry-esque. I think his FEW bad deals get way too much attention around here. No one expected Lackey to blow up like he has. Prior to coming to Boston, he pitched at a near ace level in the AL. No one saw that coming. Not his fault. Crawford was given too much money in my opinion, but again….nothing like the soriano contract. This one should turn around. He’s also made SEVERAL great signings. Signings that lead to two world championships. I find it perplexing that your opening paragraphs to this post include only negatives. No mention of all the good he has done, which by itself is more than almost any GM in the game can can own. We get it; Epstein is NOT PERFECT. The point is, he has done a whole lot more than most GM’s and most importantly, he’s had SUCCESS with a LARGE MARKET ORGANIZATION (that prior to his arrival had trouble wining anything.)
I REALLY don't understand your fascination
with this area of his background. Epstein made moves that were consistent with the Red Sox way of doing business, and his teams during this period were by and large all winners. I don’t recall an instance where he really paid above market in free agency, and rarely bidded against himself, although I guess I might give you Dice-K. I understand this critique on principle, but I hope that you’d appreciate that not every signing works out (for any front office), and these moves are only of note due to the money. Which is to be expected as the Red Sox stay in the top five in payroll. It makes their misses more notable, but no more frequent than say, the A’s, Tigers, or even the Cubs.
by Damen Jackson on Oct 5, 2011 12:41 PM CDT up reply actions
Who cares how much money
Epstein makes? Even if it’s 5 million a year (which it won’t be), that is nothing compared to the money he’ll be controlling.
The prospect sent back could be an issue, but again, I’d rather have one of the top guys making the calls than a single prospect.
And yes, he has missed on some free agents. But EVERY GM has misses, the larger the job and payroll, the larger the misses will be. Friedman and Beane don’t have big misses because they don’t have big signings, but they do have misses.
DEJESUS!!!
The prospect issue
You do realize the prospect would come from the Cubs organization don’t you? And by and large, the only folks that really believe there is even average talent in the organization reside here on this board. No matter what you read or hear otherwise as opposing views.
This is absolutely ridiculous
The system will have at least 2 players unanimously in the top 100 in baseball, possibly 3. Nobody thinks the system is full of superstars. What the system IS full of, however, is guys that will contribute in some fashion to an MLB roster. Maybe bullpen arms and bench players, but they are still there.
by RynoRooter on Oct 5, 2011 10:29 AM CDT up reply actions 2 recs
30 teams, 100 players
Having 3 players in the top 100 prospects is pretty average and should be the baseline goal, not something to be lauding. Not bad, not great, but no bad
Eamus Ursuli!
Agreed
But you obviously missed krummy12’s post. He said that only fans on this board think there is even average talent in the organization. 3 prospects in the top 100 shows that others think there is at least average talent as well. I was praising the Cubs system; merely correcting ignorance about it.
I think we're still generally considered a below-average farm system
which is, I think, what krummy’s point was. Every system has at least someone who is above average. I don’t think he was suggesting that there isn’t anyone in the system who is at least average.
Yes, he has signed some poor free agent deals
however, half their 25 man roster is home grown talent that aren’t Darwin Barneys.
Come on Lisa, I'm trying to impress people here. You don't win friends with salad. ~ Homer J. Simpson
it shows how awesome the red sox farm system is
considering the cubs fell on their ass when FA signings collectively went down the toilet
I'm a happy panda.
by jesus christos on Oct 4, 2011 7:23 PM CDT up reply actions
How much of that is Epstein
and how much of it is their scouting department and farm department?
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
I might agree...
…to me, the RedSox scouting has been tremendous over the past decade.
Cherington
That, frankly, is a big reason why I would just assume see the Cubs hire someone like Cherington.
In my opinion, the GM is like a closer. Obviously important, obviously the best closers are among the most dominant relievers, but, they are also overrated.
Eamus Ursuli!
Probably closer to a #2 starter...
…difference between signing Dunn and Rios versus signing Ortiz and Drew is bigger than closer status.
Demp's status as a #2 starter
is an indictment of the Cubs
Eamus Ursuli!
Yes...
…need some new starting pitching. Really need to try Cashner/Smardjia/Marshall, need youth.
its a joke
but I am tired of the Cashner/Smardjia/Marshall, talk. Lets pick up C.J. Wilson and go from there
In the Cub's case...
…this GM hire will be more than a closer, because he will have to rebuild and define; the culture, organizational philosophy and make some shrewd roster moves to be competitive in the short term.
Although the Cubs have some money to spend, there will be considerable heavy lifting that will have to be accomplished by this GM hire. This is not a turn key role by any means.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
I think a lot of that
is that John Henry has been willing to dole out overslot draft signings repeatedly over the past decade. We’ve done a little of that, but we haven’t really done it on a Red Sox level until this past draft.
Epstein to Ricketts
One thing that gives me hope if we bring in Epstein is that he will level with Ricketts and let him know what he will need to succeed.
These guys are all ego driven. If Theo comes to Chicago and fails and Cherington wins another WS in Boston, Theo’s reputation is severely tarnished.
Eamus Ursuli!
This, I think, is the key.
If the Cubs continue to do this there will eventually be positive results.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
you have to know who you're doling money out to.
I’m not confident the Cubs are quite there yet, that’s where the new GM comes in.
Guys, hitting is not about muscle. It's simple physics. Calculate the velocity, v, in relation to the trajectory, t, in which g, gravity, of course remains a constant.... It's not complicated. - George Costanza
Agreed
I go back and forth on whether Epstein would be worth the price. However, the one thing that gives me the most hope, if he is signed, is what he would demand from the Ricketts clan. I doubt that Epstein comes to Chicago without assurances that the spending will continue at the minor league level and increase at the major league level.
Eamus Ursuli!
You describe...
…part of the story, the other crucial pieces are; the ability to judge talent properly and the ability to develop the talent once you sign players. Under Hendry (even going back to his farm days), the Cubs haven’t exactly thrived in these areas.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
Who built the scouting dept. Al? Most of the was all Epstein.
Guys, hitting is not about muscle. It's simple physics. Calculate the velocity, v, in relation to the trajectory, t, in which g, gravity, of course remains a constant.... It's not complicated. - George Costanza
And how much of the cubs "falling on their ass" was due to their scouting and farm department?
Because those guys are still here.
Seeya Jimbo! Good job, Tommy Boy!
You can be the best scout in the world
But if you’ve got pennies on the dollar to sign the top guys, you’re not going to find anyone worthwhile.
The Cubs were quite low on IFA and Draft bonuses until this most recent draft, especially considering how much they were putting into FA.
They were low, absolutely.
But still had very little to show for it.
Seeya Jimbo! Good job, Tommy Boy!
Thank you.
People on this site want to bring up Crawford, Lackey and Dice-K as examples, but Theo’s good has been better than his bad.
'Never look down on anybody unless you're helping him up.'
rings are very good
Guys, hitting is not about muscle. It's simple physics. Calculate the velocity, v, in relation to the trajectory, t, in which g, gravity, of course remains a constant.... It's not complicated. - George Costanza
Obviously, the ring's the thing (err, rings')
His good has been better than his bad. The rings are the proof. Now as for McCourt, he can quote Oppenheimer who was paraphrasing the Bhagavad Vita: “I am become Death, the destroyer of baseball teams”.
Of course, does lightning strike twice? He got rings for one so-called bejinxed baseball team, but will he be able to do it again. Lou had 1 World Series ring and couldn’t turn the Cubs into the new Nasty Boys. LaRussa got 2 with 2 teams, but it took a decade for the Cardinals to get a ring with him. Tigers are still trying to get a ring from Leyland.
by ddoubleheader on Oct 4, 2011 10:48 PM CDT up reply actions
Leyland is too stubborn and too mossified to win another ring
His teams consistently lack fortitude and focus.
That and his rosters have been always strong.
He rarely keeps players when no longer useful. Also, it seems like the players to keep are very good at getting on base, among other things.
In other words, the opposite the types of players the Cubs have been typically attracted to in the past.
'Never look down on anybody unless you're helping him up.'
Nothing from nothing
But why not bring those up? Hendry got bashed for all his bad moves, why not Epstein? Lackey and Crawford seem to be what he’s done lately. Has he made good moves the last few years?
Help bring Boys of Spring The Movie to life!
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1742828131/boys-of-spring-the-movie
Adrian Gonzalez? Crawford is a very good player, he can be great at times
was he worth 142 million? no but that’s what happens when the Yankees are in your division. They both got into a bidding war for Crawford and that’s how it turned out.
Guys, hitting is not about muscle. It's simple physics. Calculate the velocity, v, in relation to the trajectory, t, in which g, gravity, of course remains a constant.... It's not complicated. - George Costanza
Gonzalez.....
…..while a good move, was practically gift wrapped. San Diego has a number of former Boston front office people now, Gonzalez was defintely leaving, and the new guys knew exactly who they wanted.No other team really had a chance at him.
Help bring Boys of Spring The Movie to life!
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1742828131/boys-of-spring-the-movie
And I'll point to the contract structure
it’s basically a flat rate for the next 7 years, by the end AGon will be 36. If it was Hendry it would have been an escalating contract which he probably would have been owned 32 million dollars in 2018.
Guys, hitting is not about muscle. It's simple physics. Calculate the velocity, v, in relation to the trajectory, t, in which g, gravity, of course remains a constant.... It's not complicated. - George Costanza
Escalating contracts, if controlled properly
are actually not a bad thing for the club. They should follow inflation to allow for market changes and allow more freedom up front.
Sure.
.. If it’s for a player like Albert Pujols. But more often times than not… those contracts ae suicide.
'Never look down on anybody unless you're helping him up.'
Again you're right but the way Hendry arranged these contracts, he had..
…them coming off the books at almost the same time which in turn created a bottle neck. It’s paralyzed the last two years because of these contracts.
Guys, hitting is not about muscle. It's simple physics. Calculate the velocity, v, in relation to the trajectory, t, in which g, gravity, of course remains a constant.... It's not complicated. - George Costanza
No, you're completely correct.
Hendry is a great example of how NOT to structure a deal. However, escalating contracts following inflation are not bad, but rather typically beneficial.
That's fine...
…. but if the Cubs get Epstein, I’d feel much better about it if he was just coming off a great triumph instead of overseeing an epic collapse. We already had a guy who could do that.
Help bring Boys of Spring The Movie to life!
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1742828131/boys-of-spring-the-movie
Epstein didn't collapse
the players did. Everyone thought that roster was one of the strongest in all of baseball.
Crawford fell on his face. Some people thought he was overpaid, and that they would regret the last few years of the deal, but nobody would have predicted he’d have the season he did.
Sometimes a GM just puts together a disaster of a roster. Sometimes a GM puts together a great team and the players just don’t get it done. I think this is much more than latter. I’d trade rosters with the Bosox in a heartbeat, and so would about 25 other teams (assuming they could afford the payroll).
DEJESUS!!!
And at one time this season the red sox roster was producing...
…they choked an entire month away. i’d trade the success they have had the past 10 years and where they are headed, for the entire Cubs’ history of choking and excuse making.
Crawford had a 7.6 WAR in 2010.
He should be at his peak. No one could of predicted him falling off a cliff like he has.
'Never look down on anybody unless you're helping him up.'
7.6 War, that's impressive
but still not worth 142 million. Crawford was the beneficiary of a week free agent class.
Guys, hitting is not about muscle. It's simple physics. Calculate the velocity, v, in relation to the trajectory, t, in which g, gravity, of course remains a constant.... It's not complicated. - George Costanza
Oh, I agree.
I just think those who make fun of Epstein because of that contract and compare it to Soriano’s deal couldn’t be more wrong.
'Never look down on anybody unless you're helping him up.'
Right, Crawford had some injuries this year but he got away from his game.
He stopped getting on base. I think as he gets more comfortable playing in that pressure cooker he’ll start earning some of that contract.
Guys, hitting is not about muscle. It's simple physics. Calculate the velocity, v, in relation to the trajectory, t, in which g, gravity, of course remains a constant.... It's not complicated. - George Costanza
We'll see.
Remember, his best asset is speed… and he’s getting older. That could be the first thing to go.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
Hopefully, yeah.
He just turned 30 so he should be able to squeeze some worth into that contract.
'Never look down on anybody unless you're helping him up.'
Actually, a 7.6 WAR is worth about $30+ million per year...
based on the estimated value of free agent WAR ($4-5 million per WAR). Of course, Crawford shouldn’t have been expected to produce 7.6 WAR for each of 7 years.
The contract was too big, but it’s not as ridiculous as it seems at first blush.
Exactly
Carl Crawford was a top 20 player in baseball in 2009 and 2010. He will probably also be one of the best again in 2012. He had a bad year – it happens
He had a awful year.
But hopefully he does rebound.
'Never look down on anybody unless you're helping him up.'
You can use whatever adjective you want to describe it
but it still doesn’t take away from the fact that for the two years prior to 2011, he was one of the best in baseball. I expected him to get $120 million+ during last offseason and I doubt that I’m the only one who thought so. I also doubt that he just simply lost it in his age 29 year.
Here's the thing.
When Soriano was signed, he was at least productive until the leg injuries. He almost singlehandedly led the Cubs to the playoffs in 2007.
Crawford was awful in 2011. I don’t see how you go from there to “he’ll be one of the best in baseball in 2012”.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
Because he was one of the best last year...
and is in his prime?
There was no reason to assume Crawford would be as bad as he was this year. There was no reason to assume he wouldn’t be one of the best in baseball again this year. He didn’t have any injuries, he isn’t old, and isn’t changing leagues. It makes much more sense that 2011 is an anomaly and he’ll return to the form he had prior to 2011.
It's possible, sure.
But man, did he have an awful year.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
Nobody sad that he had a good year
but history suggests that this year was the outlier – not the others. He had some injury issues this year right? Perhaps he was more injured than anyone thought he was? I don’t have an answer – all I know is that he is still in his prime and 2 of those 3 prime years thus far have been stellar.
Resolution
At least, with the Rays now out of the playoffs, we’re likely a bit closer to some sort of resolution… or at least an indication what direction the Cubs are moving. With the Rays and Red Sox seasons over, the Cubs are now officially investigating these candidates, and its pretty likely that those teams will want some resolution, too, so they can determine whether or not they need to hire new GMs. So its not out of the question that we’ll know within a handful of days whether or not Epstein and Friedman are realistic.
I didn’t see this article posted here, but Phil Rodgers claims that multiple sources have said that outside of Ricketts A List (Epstein, Friedman, Cashman, Beane), Ricketts has culled his B list down to Ben Cherington (Red Sox Assistant), John Coppolella (Braves director of pro scouting ) and Rick Hahn (White Sox assistant).
I would be very happy with anyone on that A list, and I'm fine with anyone on that B list.
Very happy to see those names, and very very very very happy Coletti isn’t anywhere near them.
I'd prefer the B list
and someone in place before the next round of playoffs – it’s two and a half months without a gm and counting
by doofus cubs guy on Oct 4, 2011 8:04 PM CDT up reply actions
Why do you prefer the B list, if I may ask?
Also, there was no way a GM was going to be in place before the end of the season, so this shouldn’t bee too surprising.
I agree with a B-lister
I would go with either of these guys. (Ben Cherington Rick Hahn)
I think that if we give it to an A-list type guy, they might think they know everything and just go on a spending spree. Look at Kenny Williams and The Epstien last year. neither team is in the playoffs.
The B-list guys have to make some smart decisions They just cant go by there instinct and add $60 Million to this roster. Their decisions are going to have to be well thought out.
That being said the A-list guys could work out, who knows. I just want one World Series then three or more years doing the road another one. Then in 30 years we can pass the Yankees for most WS titles I am not very greedy.
I think that if we give it to an A-list type guy, they might think they know everything and just go on a spending spree.
Based on what? He’ll get a budget and has to operate within those parameters.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
I am not saying they will
I just see a lot of guys that have succeeded in the past all of a sudden change they way they did things. This goes across all of sports and I may see it more in coaching then a GM.
Who was Theo Epstien and Francona before they won at Boston. They didn’t have the notoriety of Dusty Baker and Lou Pinella, and they won two world series.
This is just an opinion I have. I will be happy with whoever we get as long as Quaddy goes.
Only one I don't want is Hahn.
I don’t know anything about Coppolella, other than that the Braves seem to churn out talent with regularity, and he was the one overseeing it. But that’s a jump from director of scouting to GM, that makes me a little nervous.
I think there is too much smoke around Epstein for that not to happen.
DEJESUS!!!
I think there is too much smoke around Epstein for that not to happen.
Based on what? Asking permission which has not yet been given?
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
No
I think that the permission-asking wouldn’t have been leaked to the Boston press if there wasn’t something to it. I think a lot has been made about Cherrington being at the late-season meetings, as though that was outside the norm, and as though he is being prepared to take over. I think Ricketts wouldn’t have asked permission to interview Epstein unless he had some inkling that Henry would say yes. I think Epstein wouldn’t have told friends he’d be interested in the Chicago job if he got the president title if there wasn’t serious interest there.
I think it’s pretty hard to have Epstein go back to Boston after so much has been made about him possibly leaving, and with such a big opportunity waiting in Chicago. Not to say he couldn’t go back (Beane walked in a similar situation), but I think it’s hard to put the toothpaste back in that tube.
DEJESUS!!!
Of course the Boston press
was also reporting that there’s a 75% chance he stays in Boston.
Obviously there is something to the story and that there is a chance that Theo Epstein is the next Cubs GM. But that’s a long way from what you said in that “there’s too much smoke . . .for that not to happen.”
by Josh Timmers on Oct 4, 2011 10:58 PM CDT up reply actions
That's 2 great lists
Credit to Ricketts. Really, they are exactly the lists he should’ve made.
The sun is up. They sky is blue. It's beautiful, and so are you. Dear Prudence, won't you come out to play? ~Lennon & McCartney
by SouthWabashSoul on Oct 4, 2011 10:52 PM CDT up reply actions
I'll take Coppolella.
Then Ricketts needs to get on the phone and call Bobby Cox to see if he’s interested in becoming a team President or Senior Advisor.
"You've got to get your damn shirts rolled up and go out and kick somebody's ass. That's what you've got to do. Period." -- Lou Piniella
Silly me....
…. I always thought requests to speak with another team’s employee were supposed to be done quietly so as not to put either team or person in a potentially sticky situation. It certainly puts Boston in an awkward position. If they deny it, we all know it, and what if Epstein was interested? It could make for some hard feelings. And since this was sloppily leaked somewhow, wouldn’t Boston have a tampering charge available to them?
Help bring Boys of Spring The Movie to life!
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1742828131/boys-of-spring-the-movie
Which reminds me...
why was Ozzie recruiting Zambrano? Sadly, he is under contract to us.
I'm a Cubs fan. The Jaded Bitterness comes as a Standard Feature.
I wondered the same thing.
Just because they are friends, doesn’t mean Ozzie can approach Z about coming to Miami.
I don’t want to play golf. When I hit a ball, I want someone else to go chase it.
by cub in louies nest on Oct 4, 2011 7:52 PM CDT up reply actions
It would be hilarious...
… if the Cubs cried tampering. They’d help him pack, as would I.
Help bring Boys of Spring The Movie to life!
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1742828131/boys-of-spring-the-movie
I'm sure they won't.
For all we know, they have already given permission for Z to try to go elsewhere.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
Ozzie, Big Z, Loria all under one retractable roof
Makes for a great (or mediocre) baseball sitcom. Maybe they can hire John Rocker as a hitting coach. Who else is a volatile hothead? Ah! Milton Bradley and that a-hole Mets player who threw the fireworks from the team bus, injuring some fans.
by ddoubleheader on Oct 4, 2011 10:54 PM CDT up reply actions
Teams typically wont stop an employee that is interested in another team from interviewing...
They hardly want someone running their baseball operations that isn’t 110% dedicated to the team. It’s just logical to allow it at that point.
This isn’t tampering, they didn’t approach Epstein, they approached the Boston FO exactly as they are supposed to do.
Whoa.....
…. my point was that normally things like this aren’t leaked all over the place. By being so sloppy about it, it’s tantamount to tampering.
Help bring Boys of Spring The Movie to life!
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1742828131/boys-of-spring-the-movie
We don't know that it was leaked from the Cubs side.
This has been speculated by east coast media for several days. Chances are, it was leaked by Boston’s FO.
I don’t want to play golf. When I hit a ball, I want someone else to go chase it.
by cub in louies nest on Oct 4, 2011 8:09 PM CDT up reply actions
Since the report
came from the Boston Globe, wouldn’t that suggest which side the leak was on?
DEJESUS!!!
Epstein for Quade
the red sox need a manager and the cubs need a gm. unicorns and rainbows
"A dream you dream alone is only a dream. A dream you dream together is reality." John Lennon
"My favorite food is Macaroni and Cheese, from the blue box." Geovany Soto
If you're going to mention the bad contracts,
go ahead and mention the 2 championships, too.
"The riches of the game are in the thrills, not the money." --Ernie Banks
Lately?
4 out of the last 5 years they’e had 90+ wins in the toughest, most-competitive division in all of sports. So competitive, they’ve only made the playoffs in 3 of those years.
They’ve also kept their farm system well stocked and productive both for their major-league team and in making trades.
They won 90 games this year while constantly besieged by injuries.
Discredit them for “bad contracts” and “collapsing”, but give them a lot of credit for what they’ve done “lately”.
--------------------------------
Just North of Wrigley Field
by jameslcrockett on Oct 5, 2011 12:08 PM CDT up reply actions 8 recs
Not a big fan
It’s one thing to have a payroll over $200 million and find good free agents. Does Epstein have a track record working for lesser payrolled teams?
[...]when Giants coach Steve Owen, a certified defensive genius, was asked how he planned to stop Nagurski, he said: "With a shotgun, as he’s leaving the dressing room."
Do we have
a lesser payroll team? We should be at our near the top of the NL every year. He won two championships within an even more difficult environment.
DEJESUS!!!
The financial reality of the team
is that we’ll be nowhere near $200M payroll, nor is Chicago North a prized FA destination.
So I’ll ask the question again, in a different form – does he have ANY KIND of track record saying that he’ll do ok with a smaller payroll?
[...]when Giants coach Steve Owen, a certified defensive genius, was asked how he planned to stop Nagurski, he said: "With a shotgun, as he’s leaving the dressing room."
by NobodySpecial on Oct 4, 2011 9:18 PM CDT up reply actions
He won't have a smaller payroll
here. He will have one of, if not the highest payroll in the league (national league). He always had the second-highest payroll in Boston. His payroll will be incrementally smaller here, but it will be much, much higher relative to the competition. There isn’t anyone in the National League like the Yankees.
DEJESUS!!!
He WILL have a smaller payroll than he had in Boston
by about $30-40 million.
And actually, there is a team in the NL that spends like the Red Sox: the Phillies. Both are in the $165 million range, both about $30 million more than the Cubs this year.
Then you could argue with a 125-130 million payroll
He’ll have the exact same % of money less than the #1 spending team in the league to compete with. Whether it’s 165M vs 205M or 130M to 165M, it’s not massively different.
Yes, we have a lesser payroll team
The Red Sox have a $160+ million payroll.
I don’t know where NobodySpecial is coming up with the $200 million discussion (that’s Yankee payroll, not Red Sox). But Epstein has typically had $30-40 million more per year to spend than the Cubs.
Same thing I was thinking.
I don’t recall the Red Sox having a 200 million dollar payroll ever.
'Never look down on anybody unless you're helping him up.'
Yabbut
He had to spend $12mm of that on a position we don’t fill: DH.
This payroll discussion is a sidebar. Yes, it’s numerically lower. No that’s not a significant hurdle for Epstein considering that it’s still one of the highest in all of baseball; it’s probably second highest in the NL; and it’s easily the highest in his division. Can he spend what he did with the Red Sox? No. Almost, but not quite. Can he spend what he needs to in order to compete with the likes of Milwaukee, St. Louis, and Houston, and then mount a playoff challenge? Yes, absolutely.
by Orval Overall on Oct 5, 2011 8:16 AM CDT up reply actions
I was simply clarifying a misstatement
I wasn’t suggesting he could or could not succeed.
The payroll difference is equivalent to two upper-tier free agents per year ($30-40 million). It’s a bigger difference than you suggest, but it’s probably not so significant to say he can’t succeed in Chicago.
It's really closer to $20 million difference
Cubs can handle a $140 million payroll. Red Sox are around $160 million. Subtract the $14 million or so given to Ortiz the DH, and you’re looking at essentially the same payroll. Slightly less, true, but not much at all.
Epstein has developed a solid system
He has also surrounded himself with quality people. It says a lot that his possible successor is in-house & supposedly a top potential GM candidate himself.
I don’t want to play golf. When I hit a ball, I want someone else to go chase it.
by cub in louies nest on Oct 4, 2011 8:54 PM CDT up reply actions
So now the question is how much Kenney hamstrings him.
[...]when Giants coach Steve Owen, a certified defensive genius, was asked how he planned to stop Nagurski, he said: "With a shotgun, as he’s leaving the dressing room."
by NobodySpecial on Oct 4, 2011 9:19 PM CDT up reply actions
In fairness, the Red Sox payroll has never been $200 million
that’s Yankee territory. It HAS been much higher than the Cubs’ payroll though.
Not if you look back a couple of years
If you combine the payroll numbers from 2008-2009 listed on Cot’s, the Red Sox contracts total $255M, while the Cubs total $252M.
The payrolls split in 2010, as the Cubs began to pull in ($ went up, but no big new contracts) and the Red Sox added Lackey and Beltre, and gave Papelbon a raise.
The divergence is probably the product of differing TV deals. The Cubs should gain more revenue when they get the chance to rationalize their cable contracts.
Honestly, if you are going to nitpik Theo Epstein as the next Cubs GM, there is just no pleasing you. He is one of, if not the most highly regarded GMs in the game. He won two championships coming out of a division with the Yankees. What more do people want?
DEJESUS!!!
I wanted an iPhone 5, tomas, I wanted an iPhone 5.
"The riches of the game are in the thrills, not the money." --Ernie Banks
An S kind of looks like a 5 if you're not paying attention.
You can get an iPhone 45!
But the 4s has Siri!
What more do you want Dan? Katie Holmes?
DEJESUS!!!
...
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Oct 5, 2011 10:50 AM CDT up reply actions 5 recs
Siri Charley, only the best.....
If the Cubs still have a chance, no matter how small, it’s still Go Cubs, damn the math and pass the KoolAid.
There's no 'ideal' candidate
Since ‘ideal’ to some means a GM who was won multiple pennants without a high payroll. Sorry folks, that guy doesn’t exist.
Instead, we have the Cubs pursuing Theo Epstein, one of the most well regarded GM’s in the game. These are the candidates the Cubs should be involved with. Yes, it’s been a dark time to be a Cubs fan the past couple years, but moving forward, it appears the Cubs are finally taking necessary steps to be one of the top teams in the NL.
Seeya Jimbo! Good job, Tommy Boy!
Just curious Al
how come you didn’t just move the fanshot over to the front page? I’ve seen some other SB Nation blogs do that when someone posts something big as a fan shot or fan post.
DEJESUS!!!
Yes, I know that.
I wanted to write something, so I linked to the fanshot and posted a full story, with a photo.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
I think it's a nice gesture by the admin to move the first post to the front page.
It credits the OP that broke the story, and as we all know, the post that’s on the front is the one where all the discussion moves to.
"The riches of the game are in the thrills, not the money." --Ernie Banks
I have done that a few times.
I did link to the original fanshot.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
this has a picture of epstein staring awkwardly into the sun
I'm a happy panda.
by jesus christos on Oct 4, 2011 9:13 PM CDT up reply actions
I prefer to think of it as looking ahead into the future.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
He's thinking
“Cripes. If I take the Cubs job, I’ll never have to listen to ‘Sweet Caroline’ again.”
by Josh Timmers on Oct 4, 2011 9:28 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Thoughts
Willing to think that Ricketts has Epstein, Cherington, or both on his short list. So, Ricketts would be talking with one of them if this is true. He has to get permission to talk with Epstein and I don’t know what the code is for talking with Cherington.
Getting permission to talk with Epstein is an important thing. Both the Red Sox and Epstein would have thought about it. Of interest, the Red Sox would think about having to offer Epstein more “job security” in years beyond 2012 and of course more money. After all, Billy Beane is already signed through 2014. The Red Sox would have an opinion about Cherington and whether he could be their next GM, be paid less, perhaps be just as good as Epstein, and overall think they shouldn’t stand in the way of Epstein pursuing greener pastures. Maybe Red Sox owners are sore about the collapse and are willing to blame Epstein too, but this would be baked into the rest of their thinking. So, it would be meaningful if Ricketts talks with Epstein, and it would mean that Epstein agrees to talk. I think the Red Sox owners hold the cards because there is no known reason why Epstein would rather work elsewhere if the Red Sox come through with the “job security”. It wouldn’t necessarily mean that Epstein is offered the job or would accept an offer.
It doesn’t make that much sense that Ricketts would talk with both Epstein and Cherington. I suppose if the Red Sox owners don’t want either of them, then they could sit by and let that happen. That scenario doesn’t seem likely. Assume Ricketts is amenable to a mucher higher salary category in talking with Epstein. There has yet to be any big money dished-out for anybody under the Ricketts regime unless Fleita got big money.
As far as player compensation for Epstein, the Cubs would probably have to give-up a good prospect and it wouldn’t necessarily be the best one they have. There is only one year on Epstein’s contract and the Red Sox would be off the hook for it.
Even though I would personally love
.. if Epstein is hired, we all can agree that Ricketts would please alot of people with his intentions of hiring such a highly regarded general manager.
'Never look down on anybody unless you're helping him up.'
Just read
Just read that Ricketts has requested to talk with Epstein. Hope that’s true.
I think the Cubs are better off with an experienced GM. If they just make a good choice, then it might only matter in the beginning with being able to hit the ground running.
That's what this whole thread has been about.
Let’s hope the Red Sox give him permission and that Epstein is actually interested.
'Never look down on anybody unless you're helping him up.'
by Unique on Oct 4, 2011 10:33 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
The Globe
First ESPN and later the Globe. I was posing the question of who Ricketts really asked to talk with seeing as nobody seems to be acknowledging what the team source said.
by AboutTheCubs on Oct 4, 2011 11:35 PM CDT up reply actions
option 1b
Red Sox deny the Cubs the option, the Cubs talk to him anyway, get detention notice for talking during class. Cubs also still have detention to serve from being caught smoking in the bathroom.
I happen to think
there are several good candidates available.
In the playoffs this fall are one team that went from crap to best in a short time frame with youngsters.
One GM who followed Jocketty, with a Pujols, LaRussa, and Duncan.
Friedman was in the playoffs owing it all to Sam Fuld.
Seriously, though, I have a slight reservation about Friedman in that The cultures if the Rays and Cubs are polar opposite. I don’t mean one team hasn’t even been in the Series si ce 1945, either.
It is well-known that both stooge Kenney, and Ricketts love all things Red Sox.
The cultures of the organization are much more similar, as well. If I was betting, I’d
put my money on one of the Boston gents. But, it would depend on just what compensation would be asked.
Other than the above, Rick Hahn is a very bright guy, understands the “Cub thing”, and at least was involved with a ahem World Series Champ.
I just don’t think Shipiro from Cleveland would be a serious candidate, and I think Billy Beane’s philosophies are now shared MLB-wide. His teams haven’t done much in the last five years either.
It is going to be an interesting time, for sure.
Hahn is my second choice.
I wonder if he has interviewed yet.
'Never look down on anybody unless you're helping him up.'
I always thought Dan Shaghnessy was a moron
But add one more to prove he doesn’t know what he’s talking about
If the Red Sox grant permission, it would be for a short window, and they would try to pry some players or draft picks from the Cubs.
Can’t trade draft picks in baseball, moron.
by Josh Timmers on Oct 4, 2011 11:49 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
Could we trade them some Bear's draft picks?
"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either
by Doggie Stalker on Oct 5, 2011 12:34 AM CDT up reply actions
Bulls/Celts tix
in the UC for this season.
I'm a Cubs fan. The Jaded Bitterness comes as a Standard Feature.
I'd give up the Charlotte pick for Epstein...
Could be gold!
Hmmm, a cross-sport trade
That would be complicated, though it only seems possible when 1 owner owns 2 teams from different sports. Reinsdorf (White Sox, Bulls) is one. Not sure if any other baseball team owners own another team, though before they became the Winnipeg Jets II, the Thrashers were owned by the Atlanta Falcons’ owners.
by ddoubleheader on Oct 5, 2011 6:26 PM CDT up reply actions
First time I've seen you say moron.
Which made me laugh hard.
"The riches of the game are in the thrills, not the money." --Ernie Banks
No real news
When the only sources being named are other sportswriters then you don’t really know what is going on with this, if anything. This is a bunch of speculation. If the Cubs really did ask to interview Epstein, then it would likely be a “yes, ok” or a “no”. I don’t know where any short window applies at that stage and certainly no compensation whatsoever at that stage.
by AboutTheCubs on Oct 5, 2011 11:10 AM CDT up reply actions
At first I thought it was a possibility, but
now I think this whole thing is getting blown out of proportion. Look at this tweet from John Henry 12 hours ago:
“Another productive day this week at Fenway. Tom, Larry and I were briefed by Theo and Ben on the managerial search. Due diligence this week.”
Seems to me like Theo is staying put. Also, just read in an article from the Boston Globe that the Red Sox are seeking compensation for just letting the Cubs talk to Theo, even if they don’t acquire him. Not knowing what that compensation would be, but that would definitely not be worth the risk.
I still say my first choice would be Friedman...
and my 2nd choice would be Theo Epstein.
the mere fact that Tampa seems to know how to draft effectively and develops star players quite regularly, all the while keeping their cost down. A lot to like there in how they run their organization.
Not sure I could handle Epstien throwing money around like the second coming of Jim Hendry! Tho I do like how the Red Sox grind it out every at-bat.
If you think you've seen it all...just wait!
But how will Friedman react to...
the money he can finally spend on his roster. In Tampa, the system has developed some serious talent no doubt but Friedman never had to make a decision on his vets. A world where he has the option to keep anyone on his team for as long as he wants is a completely new world. We don’t know what decisions he would have made on Crawford, Pena, Benoit, Soriano, etc… if he had the choice to keep them.
Having the flexibility to keep good players isn't a bad thing
It’s much harder to maintain a contender when you have to constantly restock the lineup. There’s no reason to assume that, with more resources, Friedman would do a worse job.
I didn't assume anything
No, flexibility isn’t a bad thing and I am sure he would love it. What I am saying is that he hasn’t shown the awareness to make the right long term decisions on players because he never had the chance to do so. It is clearly an unknown.
I'm not very concerned about that unknown
As long as he can continue to draft well, develop players well, and find good value in free agency, I’m less concerned with how successful he is in handling decisions on long-term contracts. I’d consider that to be the easiest part of a GM’s job, because it’s the part of the job with the most information available to assist in the decision.
For it being the easiest part of a GM's job
A lot of GM’s sink the future of their team.
Those GMs are typically bad at the other parts of the job
which puts more pressure on them to spend in free agency (see Hendry, Jim).
Teams that consistently produce from their farm system don’t get sunk by bad contracts.
I wonder how proprietary team secrets are handled when a GM switches teams
I know the Red Sox have built their own statistical metrics and methods of player evaluation that they would most certainly not want the Cubs to get a hold of if they hired Epstein away. I wonder if Theo has anything in his contract prohibiting him from sharing team secrets if he switches teams, similar to a trade secret clause.
A lot of the value Epstein brings is the system he’s constructed in Boston. I’ve never heard it brought up before, but I wonder if he would be free to utilize the same methods he in Boston, which seems to be much of what Ricketts covets.
That's a really good question.
I believe the Cubs still have Ari Kaplan in the fold. Would he and Theo have to develop an entirely new statistical analysis system?
Baseball is pitching, offensive production, baserunning and defense.
Cubs should use something like this for offensive metrics ..
Overall: (((2*2b)(3*3b)(4*HR)+1B+BB+SB) – (SO-CS-(2*GDP)))/PA
Power: (((2*2b)(3*3b)(4*HR)+1B+BB) – (SO-(2*GDP)))/PA
.500+ = Elite
.400+ = Very Good / AS worthy.
.325+ = Good
Under .325 = Try to replace with better!
I was told there would be no math.
Baseball is pitching, offensive production, baserunning and defense.
I totally had some +/- switched around.
With my equation offensively this year using Pujols/Fielder/Castro/Cano/Arod/Berkman/Ellsbury/Aramis/Pena/Soriano I come up with:
Ellsbury: .447
Berkman: .422
Fielder: .418
Pujols: .409
Aramis: .380
Cano: .358
Castro: .284
Arod: .271
Pena: .257
Soriano: .213
To me this factors in a complete offense Total bases on stat sites don't include base on balls for some reason.
I wanted to include stolen bases and strikeouts along with GDP and caught stealing.
Looks pretty cool to me.
Somewhat like wOBA, no? I assume it includes walks, though probably not the other factors you mention.
Baseball is pitching, offensive production, baserunning and defense.
Mine includes walks, but not HBP.
It could probably use some tweaking, but interesting to see where Sori stands compared to others. I want an overall formula for offense and not just a power formula like OPS+. Really good lead off hitters don’t necessarily hit for power, but can take an extra base via stealing. So it would be a 1B+SB gets a runner in scoring position but not counted as “slugging” but just as good if done at a good enough rate.
It's very much like wOBA
just with simpler weights and inclusion of SB and CS. wOBA does largely the same calculations (includes both non-intentional BB and HBP), but doesn’t seem to include the baserunning stats.
Ugh! Math fart
Overall: (((2*2b)(3*3b)(4*HR)+1B+BB+SB) – (SO+CS+(2*GDP)))/PA
Power: (((2*2b)(3*3b)(4*HR)+1B+BB) – (SO+(2*GDP)))/PA
.400+ = Elite
.325+ = Very Good / AS worthy.
.250+ = Good
Under .250 = Try to replace with better!
ABC
Anybody but Castro to get Epstein.
This guy has done exactly what Cubs fans want, in extremely similar circumstances.
Do it yesterday, Mr. Ricketts.
by Not Bruce Froemming on Oct 5, 2011 9:37 AM CDT reply actions
I wonder if they'd want Marmol?
Marmol had a bad year. But a team like the Red Sox might be in a position to pay closer money for a top setup guy. I also think Marmol could benefit from a change of scenery.
Where have you gone, Kiko Calero. A nation turns its lonely eyes to you.
Perhaps
I guess you have to give up something to get something.
Upon further review, I’d also add Garza to the no-touch list. He could very well turn into a TOR starter.
by Not Bruce Froemming on Oct 5, 2011 10:40 AM CDT up reply actions
Would the Red Sox want Soto?
Where have you gone, Kiko Calero. A nation turns its lonely eyes to you.
Maybe
Their catching situation is in flux right now. I’d late to part with Geo, but …
by Not Bruce Froemming on Oct 5, 2011 11:11 AM CDT up reply actions
any GM who takes Marmol is an idiot, especially considering he just got real expensive.
Marmol’s control problems and all of his important stats have been trending down. MPH, K:BB rate, total hits allowed, opponent BA. With that said, I hope that they would take Marmol!
Obviously, Marmol does appear to have gained some pounds.
Putting that aside, I wonder if the more statistically inclined too often dismiss players after one down year, and prop up players after one good year (I’ve always thought that happened with Bradley after 2009). Marmol was lights out in 2010, and he’s still young. Now, if he were older and his numbers did what they did this year, I’d agree with you. But at his age (he’ll be 29 all of next season) he could easily bounce back.
Where have you gone, Kiko Calero. A nation turns its lonely eyes to you.
Bradley actually had several good years statistically
2003: .923 OPS
2005: .835 OPS
2006: .818 OPS
2007: .947 OPS
2008: .999 OPS
It wasn’t a one-year wonder for him. There was lots of evidence to suggest Bradley was a productive offensive player when healthy. The question (prior to the 2009 season) was always health and attitude. It’s surprising how far he fell off statistically from 2008 to 2010/2011.
Bradley WAS a productive offensive player...
the problem was that he wasn’t the kind of offensive the Cubs were looking for.
And he turned out to be an OFFENSIVE player.
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Oct 5, 2011 2:09 PM CDT up reply actions
He was a physically gifted player..
.. however he just didn’t have the mental aspect to be able to play with a big market team.
Bradley barely has the mental makeup to be a baseball player – nonetheless a player of a media market like Chicago and the Cubs.
'Never look down on anybody unless you're helping him up.'
He would NOT be happy with you for criticizing him like that.
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Oct 5, 2011 2:27 PM CDT up reply actions
Fair enough.
I think it’s pretty clear the Cubs overpaid after a career year.
Where have you gone, Kiko Calero. A nation turns its lonely eyes to you.
They certainly overpaid
But that had more to do with injury and personality issues rather than on-field ability.
They also got much less than what they should have expected. No one should have assumed that Bradley would be pretty healthy and yet put up such bad stats.
Its not just one down year
he’s always been wild, the problem is that Marmol is getting older and he’s clearly not taking care of himself physically, which raises questions about motivation and the influences of his lack of fitness on his performance. These issues are especially important given his lack of control. How does that extra 10-20 pounds influence his delivery and more importantly, influence his effectiveness.
Our last GM would have been wise to just go year to year with Mr. Wild Marmol. Marshall was and has always been the safer long-term investment. My hope is that Epstein (or another new GM) will realize that Marshall should be the closer and Marmol should be a setup guy (even if he manages to lose some weight!)
Ricketts IM to Epstein
Hey Theo – Thanks for the talk. Can you say you’re taking the job? We’re holding off on sending out our Season Ticket invoices. We have a paragraph reserved to say how glad we are to have you onboard (i.e. market you). If you’re not in, we’ll be touting Rodrigo Lopez and Jeff Samardzija. What do you say?
"Just shut up and play" - Matt Garza
Regarding compensation...
I disagree with the sentiment in the Globe article that the Red Sox hold all the leverage and can therefore ask for Castro/Garza — or even Sczuzr/B Jax for that matter. Imagine a scenario in which negotiation for Theo takes place. If the Cubs walked away from that, where would the Sox be? With a GM they tried to get rid of in a lame duck year, coming off an epic collapse and some really terrible signings. Cubs should be able to take Theo for a midlevel prospect.
Agreed,
at most a midlevel, maybe two prospects. If the Sox want more than that the Cubs should walk away.
"You've got to get your damn shirts rolled up and go out and kick somebody's ass. That's what you've got to do. Period." -- Lou Piniella
My guess is Theo stays in Boston.
I’m not saying any of the reports up until this point are wrong. It’s just that a LOT has to happen for Theo to end up here. I could see the compensation issue killing any deal.
I’m guessing Ricketts is looking at it like this: If he can get Theo at the right price, great. If he can’t — and he has to settle for a second-tier candidate — at least the STHs and diehard fans will see that he tried to get a top-tier guy. I doubt anybody will question Ricketts’ drive for a while, regardless of the outcome. However, they could well question his ability to make a deal.
I wouldn’t be amazed if the Boston columnist’s source came from the Chicago front office — though I have nothing to back that up.
Where have you gone, Kiko Calero. A nation turns its lonely eyes to you.
There's now some talk...
… that the Red Sox would ask for compensation just to let the Cubs talk to Theo.
With no guarantees he’d come.
If that’s the case, pass.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
by Al Yellon on Oct 5, 2011 10:34 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Whoah..slow down..
That post also says that any such transaction should be approved by MLB because it would be an unusual request. At this point this is all speculation.
Yeah. I saw that and almost mentioned it.
The tricky thing is that the Red Sox really hold a lot of cards here. Even if they don’t want to keep Epstein, they can pretend that they do to improve their bargaining position.
Theo’s role in all of this is fascinating. Does he want to go to the Cubs/leave Boston so much that he’d tell Ricketts how much the Red Sox want to keep him? Moreover, how does Theo negotiate compensation — or will he at all? Seems like a clear conflict of interest to me …
Where have you gone, Kiko Calero. A nation turns its lonely eyes to you.
One I've found said that they could want compensation for talking to Theo OR compensation later.
I would assume it would be two tier list. Before talking would be lessor and if Theo is hired it would be a higher tier list. At least that would be the only way to even think about making it worth it.
Epstein's not worth what the Boston press is asking
I don’t know what they actually want for compensation—if it’s Blake Lalli just to talk to Theo, fine. But somehow I doubt it’s Blake Lalli.
But this talk of Castro and Garza—even Jackson and Szczur, is getting ridiculous.
by Josh Timmers on Oct 5, 2011 10:53 AM CDT up reply actions
If Starlin or Garza,
Brett Jackson or any top prospect comes out of their mouth, personally, I would hang up right then.
I just think it’s unnecessary to trade significant pieces of a roster to acquire management.
'Never look down on anybody unless you're helping him up.'
It's starting to sound like...
… this is all leverage to try to get Theo a better deal in Boston.
I say he stays.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
I agree with you
I don’t think Boston is going to let him go.
by Josh Timmers on Oct 5, 2011 11:03 AM CDT up reply actions
But they don't want a GM who wants to leave either
You want someone in that job who wants to do it for your team. Is he trying to get a better deal in Boston, or is he burned out there?
"Just shut up and play" - Matt Garza
by RiskyBusiness on Oct 5, 2011 11:11 AM CDT up reply actions
Wait.
So far, the only thing that’s (reportedly) happened here is the Cubs asking permission to talk to Theo. At no time have we ever heard anything from Theo that he wants to leave.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
The assumption
is that if Epstein wasn’t interested, he’d make a statement that he wasn’t interested.
However, that’s probably not a safe assumption. As you’ve said, perhaps he’s just using it as leverage to get a better deal out of the Red Sox.
by Josh Timmers on Oct 5, 2011 12:28 PM CDT up reply actions
He'd be crazy NOT to use it.
It’s all politics… Red Sox are using the fact that they know the Cubs want Epstein to push the price to talk to him up. Epstein is using the fact that other teams want him to drive the price/years up for Boston, and the Cubs have no leverage.
AS USUAL
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Oct 5, 2011 4:37 PM CDT up reply actions
And we haven't heard that Theo's trying to get a better deal in Boston either.
And there is a big difference between “leverage to try to get Theo a better deal in Boston” vs. “I don’t think Boston is going to let him go.”
From ownership’s perspective, if Theo says “Yeah, I’d like to interview with the Cubs”, what should they think? “Sure, sounds great. Have a good time and I’ll see you when you get back.” Not likely.
And it’s doubtful that this rumored “player just to talk” is Theo just playing with the Cubs – “Boss, I want to stay but I think I can milk these guys of decent player.” That would not go over well in MLB.
"Just shut up and play" - Matt Garza
by RiskyBusiness on Oct 5, 2011 12:59 PM CDT up reply actions
That would be highly unethical.
I don’t quite understand why the compensation isn’t restricted to a cash fee. Putting players involved just seems to muddy the waters.
Baseball is pitching, offensive production, baserunning and defense.
This has never been done before.
Thus, we are in uncharted waters. They can pretty much set a precedent here.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
How about food substituted for the fee?
All the bigwigs in the Red Sox organization can be given free, genuine Wrigley undercooked hot dogs with drinks from the black slime ice machine.
by ddoubleheader on Oct 5, 2011 6:30 PM CDT up reply actions
A case of black slime in historic, retro-Wrigley glass bottles!
We shall spare no expense!
Baseball is pitching, offensive production, baserunning and defense.
How about the Cubs 'curse'?
It’s the gift that keeps on giving.
by ddoubleheader on Oct 6, 2011 3:08 PM CDT up reply actions
Remember any cash moving between clubs greater than $1M has to be approved by the commish
So it’s actually easier to send a player.
But that only applies to player deals, right?
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
I suppose it would be up to the commissioner.
This isn’t in the CBA.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
I wouldn't think the CBA would affect the $1M rule either
That’s likely a league rule. The union doesn’t have any influence on those kind of money issues.
Players for talks?
How about wagering Big Z or (gettin’ big) Marmol?
by ddoubleheader on Oct 5, 2011 6:31 PM CDT up reply actions
... except for
the team that loses to the Cubs in that world series.
by ddoubleheader on Oct 6, 2011 3:10 PM CDT up reply actions
That's a good point.
And it of course begs the question of, “How much money would a mere conversation with Theo Epstein be worth?” As much as I respect him — and I would be very excited to have him as the Cubs GM — a million dollars or more seems crazy.
Baseball is pitching, offensive production, baserunning and defense.
They can talk to me on the condition that they release Koyie Hill and Blake DeWitt.
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Oct 5, 2011 4:40 PM CDT up reply actions
I'll come in for an interview...
…for a $100 gift card to Chili’s.
Baseball is pitching, offensive production, baserunning and defense.
That's alot
of Molten Chocolate Cakes, still.
I will speak to them for two bison dogs with the freshly grilled onions.
Can you guys seriously stop undercutting me?
You’re killing my value here.
Also, you don’t want to know how awful those Molten Chocolate Cakes are for you.
Well
The boston press is probably focusing on the Cubs names they know. It is patriot’s season there.
"Just shut up and play" - Matt Garza
by RiskyBusiness on Oct 5, 2011 11:04 AM CDT up reply actions
It almost makes no sense.
So the Cubs significantly devalue their farm system or MLB team by giving up one of their best players…and then Epstein comes to work here? He’d only be making his prospective job harder.
Baseball is pitching, offensive production, baserunning and defense.
Well, he can turn water into wine...
"Just shut up and play" - Matt Garza
by RiskyBusiness on Oct 5, 2011 1:16 PM CDT up reply actions
I thought it was
he can turn water into clam chowder.
by ddoubleheader on Oct 5, 2011 6:32 PM CDT up reply actions
This is exactly what's been worrying me.
It sounds like the Cubs hand over a prospect just to talk with no guarantees that the negotiations actually go anywhere. That’s a huge risk.
Baseball is pitching, offensive production, baserunning and defense.
Yeah...forget that...
…I’d like Epstein as the GM here, too, but, without the little games and ass kissin’ that’s obviously required of Boston. Pass. Friedman will do. Or Beane. Or Cashman. Or Cherrington. One of those 4 will be fine by me.
"When I came up to bat with three men on and two outs in the ninth, I looked in the other team's dugout and they were already in street clothes." - Bob Uecker
That sounds like quite a racket
Charging for the ‘privilege’ of talking to Epstein. That’s how they’re going to boost their payroll for next season, by extorting it from teams to talk to Epstein, then decide to keep him.
by ddoubleheader on Oct 5, 2011 6:29 PM CDT up reply actions
Deal Epstein out
He’s not worth the price to just talk with him. There’s other prospective GM’s out there. In poker there’s a rime for a fold and asking for another deal.
So you're saying, in effect...
…you’ve got to know when to hold ’em and know when to fold ’em.
Baseball is pitching, offensive production, baserunning and defense.
Serious Question
Would you rather have a GM who hasn’t made big money mistakes or one that has?
My guess is that any GM who hasn’t made a big money mistake is one that’s probably hasn’t had any money to work with. Presumably, any GM that has made big mistakes would have learned from them, no?
by jerry morales rules on Oct 5, 2011 4:21 PM CDT reply actions
See Hendry, Jim
[...]when Giants coach Steve Owen, a certified defensive genius, was asked how he planned to stop Nagurski, he said: "With a shotgun, as he’s leaving the dressing room."
by NobodySpecial on Oct 5, 2011 5:39 PM CDT up reply actions
I wouldn't trade a prospect for Theo.
And the Cubs would have to be crazy to give up a player to simply talk to him. Would the Cubs have to add a prospect in order for Theo to listen as well? The Red Sox could fleece the Cubs out of a player or prospect by just flying Epstein to Chicago for a two hour meeting. Besides, Epstein’s value should be way down, it’s not like he really had all that great of a year. Pass, punt and kick on this one.
"I'd rather hit home runs you don't have to run as hard." -- Dave Kingman
by BucknerKongCardenal on Oct 5, 2011 11:35 PM CDT reply actions
Question I have is:
How would Theo build a WS champion for $50M less than the teams he won with in BeanTown in ’04 & ’07 ??
No doubt 2 WS titles in 4 seasons makes Cubs fans drool. But how much of that was he was allowed to spend far beyond the league median and some $25M higher than the highest Cubs payroll ever?
Just win the next game...!
50M less?? How much do you think the Red Sox spend yearly??
2007 was their 3rd highest payroll ever at 143 million, which is actually similar to the Cubs highest payroll ever. They’ve bumped up to the low to mid 160’s the last 2 years, however they also have a DH to pay. The salaries would be very similar between the two teams, and hardly need to discuss a difference of $50M…
Don't think the Cubs will be near $140M
In fact, even $126M from this year is higher than I think we’ll see in 2012: More like $110M.
Just win the next game...!
We won't be at $110 million unless we do next to nothing in free agency
Even re-signing Ramirez would put us at $110 million or more.
I think $125-130 million is about right.
I’d say the difference in payroll between the Red Sox and Cubs will be $25-40 million. Certainly not $50 million unless the Red Sox go wild this offseason.
I want everyone in the media
to just stop with this “Castro for Epstein” talk. Yes, it’s not going to happen. Ever. But it’s raising expectations to the point where the Red Sox are now going to demand Brett Jackson for Epstein.
Theo Epstein is not worth someone whom we project to be a major part of our future. There are other people who could do the job for less.
I would counter
that we might be able to get someone who MIGHT do as well as Epstein. I’d sacrifice just about any prospect for the guy who is going to have a say in every single player we get in the future. Particularly when that prospect is coming from a bottom-heavy system like ours.
If we pass on Epstein and hire, say, Rick Hahn, because we didn’t want to lose Jackson, that is over-valuing Jackson in my opinion. He is one player who MIGHT be good. Rick Hahn MIGHT be able to assemble a good team. We know Esptein can. We are jeopardizing our entire roster for one prospect.
I don’t want to give up a player of significance for Epstein. But I would if push came to shove.
DEJESUS!!!
Friedman
Sure he doesn’t have the 2 WS titles, but is that a pre-requisite ?
Look what Friedman did with such a low budget. Imagine what he’d do with double the Rays budget, which would still be $40M+ less than the Cubs this past season.
Just win the next game...!
He also wouldn't have
the Rays draft position of the last decade, the guy making the picks, or the guy making a lot of the personnel decisions (presumably). And he might not want to come.
I’d be happy with Friedman, but from what I’ve learned there is a LOT more to the Rays successes than Friedman. Sounds like he may be more than business guru, and less than baseball genius.
DEJESUS!!!
If the Cubs are required to give compensation for Epstein
Theo will have a say in who they give up for him and he’s not going to give anyone up that will have a major effect on the organization. Also, the Red Sox aren’t going to keep Theo around if he doesn’t want to be there. I doubt anything more than some mid level prospects are given up for him because of that reason.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bleed Cubbie Blue
Related FanShots on Bleed Cubbie Blue
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
Cubs By The Numbers
Cubs By The Numbers is a history of the ballclub by uniform number, but the biographies help trace the history of our beloved team in a new way. For everyone who's a Cubs fan, anyone who ever wore the uniform is like family. Cubs By The Numbers reintroduces readers to some of their long-lost ancestors, even ones they think they already know.
Click here to order your copy, available now!
Recent Stories in Chicago Cubs Game Threads
Recent Stories in Ticket Exchanges
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Eric Hosmer redefines the Baltimore chop with infield double (Video)
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
