New GM/Cubs Future News Articles

[jersey cubs fan]

John Lackey isn't a crappy old player. He's been a pretty reliable good player and he's 31. I'd strongly consider taking him on.

 

He's also 32, 33 next year and just put up a 66 ERA+ over a full season....not to mention a 1.6 WHIP and a 1.93 K/BB ratio.

 

No, thank you.

 

I'd rather hire somebody else than take on "fixing" him.

 

Yes, he's 32 and coming off a bad year. That's one bad year in an otherwise stable career. He's not a crappy old player.

[Guest]

John Lackey isn't a crappy old player. He's been a pretty reliable good player and he's 31. I'd strongly consider taking him on.

 

He's also 32, 33 next year and just put up a 66 ERA+ over a full season....not to mention a 1.6 WHIP and a 1.93 K/BB ratio.

 

No, thank you.

 

I'd rather hire somebody else than take on "fixing" him.

 

Yes, he's 32 and coming off a bad year. That's one bad year in an otherwise stable career. He's not a crappy old player.

 

That one bad (and that's a friggin understatement if I've ever heard one) year happens to be his most recent and, thereby, also his oldest. And for all intents and purposes, he's basically 33 right now. His numbers have also consistently trended downward for the past few years.

[Guest]

I understand looking at 25 year olds who just had a disappointing season as buy low candidates... but pitchers on the wrong side of 30 who have racked up a ton of innings and whose numbers have been declining for a while now? Seriously?

[UMFan83]

John Lackey isn't a crappy old player. He's been a pretty reliable good player and he's 31. I'd strongly consider taking him on.

Seriously. I'd have no problem taking on Lackey. Move him to the NL and get the issues with his marriage resolved, and he could be a comeback player of the year candidate.

 

I kind of lean towards being willing to take him if that's what it took to get Theo. He's not a bad pitcher, or wasn't until last season when there was a highly documented personal issue going on with him. Maybe it didn't have anything to do with his performance, but maybe it did. Either way, he'd be moving to the NL Central from the AL East, so that right there should be good enought to see improvement to, at worst, a servicable 4th or 5th starter. Obviously he makes #1-2 starter money but that's a sunk cost at this point. If you truely believe Theo is going to be the GM that builds a championship ballclub, and he is ok with bringing Lackey and his contract with him to Chicago, then it's good enough for me. At least he's not bringing Badley with him.

[Guest]

John Lackey isn't a crappy old player. He's been a pretty reliable good player and he's 31. I'd strongly consider taking him on.

Seriously. I'd have no problem taking on Lackey. Move him to the NL and get the issues with his marriage resolved, and he could be a comeback player of the year candidate.

 

I kind of lean towards being willing to take him if that's what it took to get Theo. He's not a bad pitcher, or wasn't until last season when there was a highly documented personal issue going on with him. Maybe it didn't have anything to do with his performance, but maybe it did. Either way, he'd be moving to the NL Central from the AL East, so that right there should be good enought to see improvement to, at worst, a servicable 4th or 5th starter. Obviously he makes #1-2 starter money but that's a sunk cost at this point. If you truely believe Theo is going to be the GM that builds a championship ballclub, and he is ok with bringing Lackey and his contract with him to Chicago, then it's good enough for me. At least he's not bringing Badley with him.

 

 

There are good GM candidates out there that wouldn't require giving up significant compensation. Taking on a large chunk of Lackey's salary (which is what it would have to be for Boston to consider it compensation) is not worth it.

[UMFan83]

John Lackey isn't a crappy old player. He's been a pretty reliable good player and he's 31. I'd strongly consider taking him on.

Seriously. I'd have no problem taking on Lackey. Move him to the NL and get the issues with his marriage resolved, and he could be a comeback player of the year candidate.

 

I kind of lean towards being willing to take him if that's what it took to get Theo. He's not a bad pitcher, or wasn't until last season when there was a highly documented personal issue going on with him. Maybe it didn't have anything to do with his performance, but maybe it did. Either way, he'd be moving to the NL Central from the AL East, so that right there should be good enought to see improvement to, at worst, a servicable 4th or 5th starter. Obviously he makes #1-2 starter money but that's a sunk cost at this point. If you truely believe Theo is going to be the GM that builds a championship ballclub, and he is ok with bringing Lackey and his contract with him to Chicago, then it's good enough for me. At least he's not bringing Badley with him.

 

 

There are good GM candidates out there that wouldn't require giving up significant compensation. Taking on a large chunk of Lackey's salary (which is what it would have to be for Boston to consider it compensation) is not worth it.

 

See I disagree. I think Theo is the best fit, and if the Cubs feel the same way, I think it's worth picking up Lackey. Theo wouldn't decide to come here if he knew he also had to bring a hopeless John Lackey with him.

 

We need starting pitching, Lackey has been at worst a 4.50 ERA pitcher in the AL except last year when there was documented personal issues. Maybe the personal issues didn't have anything to do with his ERA jumping up 2 runs per game (his FIP was something like 4.67 this year). But I think its more likely that had something to do with it than a 31 year old pitcher declining randomly.

[Guest]

We need starting pitching, Lackey has been at worst a 4.50 ERA pitcher in the AL except last year when there was documented personal issues. Maybe the personal issues didn't have anything to do with his ERA jumping up 2 runs per game (his FIP was something like 4.67 this year). But I think its more likely that had something to do with it than a 31 year old pitcher declining randomly.

 

 

He's not 31. He's 33 in 18 days. It's not a random decline, either. He has been steadily declining the past 3-4 years and this year, which also happens to be when he's oldest (duh), was awful.

[Brett]

John Lackey isn't a crappy old player. He's been a pretty reliable good player and he's 31. I'd strongly consider taking him on.

Seriously. I'd have no problem taking on Lackey. Move him to the NL and get the issues with his marriage resolved, and he could be a comeback player of the year candidate.

 

I kind of lean towards being willing to take him if that's what it took to get Theo. He's not a bad pitcher, or wasn't until last season when there was a highly documented personal issue going on with him. Maybe it didn't have anything to do with his performance, but maybe it did. Either way, he'd be moving to the NL Central from the AL East, so that right there should be good enought to see improvement to, at worst, a servicable 4th or 5th starter. Obviously he makes #1-2 starter money but that's a sunk cost at this point. If you truely believe Theo is going to be the GM that builds a championship ballclub, and he is ok with bringing Lackey and his contract with him to Chicago, then it's good enough for me. At least he's not bringing Badley with him.

 

 

There are good GM candidates out there that wouldn't require giving up significant compensation. Taking on a large chunk of Lackey's salary (which is what it would have to be for Boston to consider it compensation) is not worth it.

 

I keep coming back to the thought that Epstein's value isn't just his past success or the fact that he's done it with a franchise very similar (in a number of ways) to the Chicago Cubs (thus, I "trust" him a bit more than Friedman, for example). A huge part of Epstein's value is that the cream of the crop up-and-comers - genius types whom we've never even heard of - are going to be banging down Epstein's door to work for him. He'll have his pick of the little. I'm not sure the same is true if the Cubs hire Hahn, Cherington, Coppolella, or Levine - as great of candidates as they might otherwise be.

[Brett]

Also, on the compensation point: Bruce Levine was on Waddle and Silvy this morning, and he discussed the compensation the White Sox got for Guillen, which is frequently used as a comparison to what the Sawx should be able to get for Epstein.

 

Levine basically said it's not a fair comparison because built into the Fish/Sox negotiations was apparently a tampering claim the Sox could have levied against the Marlins, going all the way back to mid-season. He suggested they used that to get a little more value from the Marlins.

 

In the case of the Cubs/Epstein, that kind of black-hat leverage doesn't exist (as far as we know).

[Guest]

Also, on the compensation point: Bruce Levine was on Waddle and Silvy this morning, and he discussed the compensation the White Sox got for Guillen, which is frequently used as a comparison to what the Sawx should be able to get for Epstein.

 

Levine basically said it's not a fair comparison because built into the Fish/Sox negotiations was apparently a tampering claim the Sox could have levied against the Marlins, going all the way back to mid-season. He suggested they used that to get a little more value from the Marlins.

 

In the case of the Cubs/Epstein, that kind of black-hat leverage doesn't exist (as far as we know).

 

Interesting.

 

On the other hand, Epstein's true value is far greater than Ozzie's.

[Guest]

I keep coming back to the thought that Epstein's value isn't just his past success or the fact that he's done it with a franchise very similar (in a number of ways) to the Chicago Cubs (thus, I "trust" him a bit more than Friedman, for example). A huge part of Epstein's value is that the cream of the crop up-and-comers - genius types whom we've never even heard of - are going to be banging down Epstein's door to work for him. He'll have his pick of the little. I'm not sure the same is true if the Cubs hire Hahn, Cherington, Coppolella, or Levine - as great of candidates as they might otherwise be.

 

You're getting me all hot and bothered over here.

[Brett]

Also, on the compensation point: Bruce Levine was on Waddle and Silvy this morning, and he discussed the compensation the White Sox got for Guillen, which is frequently used as a comparison to what the Sawx should be able to get for Epstein.

 

Levine basically said it's not a fair comparison because built into the Fish/Sox negotiations was apparently a tampering claim the Sox could have levied against the Marlins, going all the way back to mid-season. He suggested they used that to get a little more value from the Marlins.

 

In the case of the Cubs/Epstein, that kind of black-hat leverage doesn't exist (as far as we know).

 

Interesting.

 

On the other hand, Epstein's true value is far greater than Ozzie's.

Totally agree. Manager value seems to be overrated by most (not here, but elsewhere), and GM value underrated by most.

[Guest]

Gordon Edes is on Waddle and Silvy right now. Thinks the Red Sox will give permission...not because they want him to leave, but because they respect him so much and feel he has earned having the choice.

[Hollandsworths mug]

Edes said that by the end of the week, the Red Sox have to let the Cubs know. He also said that this is not a fishing expedition by Ricketts. Basically, he wants Theo here and will most likely make him a can't refuse offer.

[Banedon]

Gordon Edes is on Waddle and Silvy right now. Thinks the Red Sox will give permission...not because they want him to leave, but because they respect him so much and feel he has earned having the choice.

 

That's awesome, but that also leaves open the possibility of Theo deciding to stay to "clean up his mess".

[mookie]

We have to wait till the end of the week? No bueno.

[KingKongvs.Godzilla]

Gordon Edes is on Waddle and Silvy right now. Thinks the Red Sox will give permission...not because they want him to leave, but because they respect him so much and feel he has earned having the choice.

 

That's awesome, but that also leaves open the possibility of Theo deciding to stay to "clean up his mess".

 

A likely result of this whole situation IMO...He's just the one we're talking about the most right now because his team just epically collapsed so naturally his job must be in question one way or another.

[Guest]

We have to wait till the end of the week? No bueno.

 

It's already Wednesday.

[davearm2]

Isn't it at least a little bushleague to refuse to allow a guy to interview with another team?

 

I know it happens sometimes, but you'd think that would not sit well with either the requesting team, or the employee... especially the employee.

[Guest]

Isn't it at least a little bushleague to refuse to allow a guy to interview with another team?

 

I know it happens sometimes, but you'd think that would not sit well with either the requesting team, or the employee... especially the employee.

 

Depends if he's being interviewed for a promotion or a lateral move, I'd say.

[Hollandsworths mug]

Isn't it at least a little bushleague to refuse to allow a guy to interview with another team?

 

I know it happens sometimes, but you'd think that would not sit well with either the requesting team, or the employee... especially the employee.

 

My guess is that Red Sox brass is looking over who can replace Theo, should they ask for compensation and how to handle the obvious media circus this is sure to become should he leave to come here. Not an easy time for Red Sox ownership.

[Banedon]

Isn't it at least a little bushleague to refuse to allow a guy to interview with another team?

 

I know it happens sometimes, but you'd think that would not sit well with either the requesting team, or the employee... especially the employee.

 

My guess is that Red Sox brass is looking over who can replace Theo, should they ask for compensation and how to handle the obvious media circus this is sure to become should he leave to come here. Not an easy time for Red Sox ownership.

 

If Theo left, his replacement would be a no-brainer. It'd be Cherington, undoubtedly.

[davearm2]

Isn't it at least a little bushleague to refuse to allow a guy to interview with another team?

 

I know it happens sometimes, but you'd think that would not sit well with either the requesting team, or the employee... especially the employee.

 

My guess is that Red Sox brass is looking over who can replace Theo, should they ask for compensation and how to handle the obvious media circus this is sure to become should he leave to come here. Not an easy time for Red Sox ownership.

They're trying to decide whether or not to let him go, is all.

 

The rest is easily dealt with. Promote Cherington. Pick a dollar figure for compensation. Hold a back-slapping press conference for Epstein just like they did for Francona.

[Hollandsworths mug]

Isn't it at least a little bushleague to refuse to allow a guy to interview with another team?

 

I know it happens sometimes, but you'd think that would not sit well with either the requesting team, or the employee... especially the employee.

 

My guess is that Red Sox brass is looking over who can replace Theo, should they ask for compensation and how to handle the obvious media circus this is sure to become should he leave to come here. Not an easy time for Red Sox ownership.

 

If Theo left, his replacement would be a no-brainer. It'd be Cherington, undoubtedly.

 

I agree with that. I just think they are getting their ducks in a row. As I said, this is a tough spot for them. Will be real fun when we play them next year if Theo is here. Heck, ESPN Boston has it as the lead story: "The Cubs come calling" :twisted:

[Hollandsworths mug]

Brenly just tearing into ARam on Waddle and Silvy.