Re: New GM/Cubs Future News Articles

[davearm2]

I think most would agree that exercising the nuclear option would hurt the Cubs in the long run far more than giving up the prospects the Red Sox want for Epstein.

 

That's possible, but 100% speculative.

Which do you think would hurt most?

 

It's possible either would hurt most, but 100% speculative.

I'm asking you to speculate.

[KingKongvs.Godzilla]

I know I'm putting myself in the position to be called a dick but what happens if this doesn't go through? I feel like so many people have set their hearts on Theo Epstein and his one of a kind ability to use scouting and numbers to build a farm system and consistent ML contender. Does anyone notice that Boston's farm system right now isn't anything special?

[ScrubMD]

If Boston decides to scare the [expletive] out of anybody that would ever consider working for them and hold Epstein hostage for a year, then the Cubs could keep all of their prospects and go after a similarly awesome candidate, like the Atlanta guy. They'd probably also save a couple million a year on GM salary. I wouldn't be too worried about Rickett's 2nd choice. Ricketts has proven to be very bad ass. Not a terrible position to be in.

 

Offer Boston someone like Jay Jackson and if they decide to shoot themselves in the foot, let them.

This leads us directly back to the question I've already asked, repeatedly.

 

If you're saying what I think you are, you're the first to argue the Cubs would be better off keeping their prospects and hiring another GM versus giving up their prospects and hiring Epstein.

 

I think I'm saying basically what a lot of other people are saying.

 

In a vacuum, I'd rather have Epstein than Jackson/McNutt/Szczur

 

But I'd rather have Atlanta guy/all of our prospects/$2m a year than Epstein without Jackson/McNutt/Szczur

[Sammy Sofa]

Of course not getting Epstein would "hurt" more than losing, say, Jackson and McNutt in the long run.

 

...

 

I'm dying to know what you think this proves.

 

You realize it only answered your silly little question of what was worse, losing Epstein or losing top prospects, right?

It's beyond obvious that if you choose to walk away from Epstein and keep the prospects, you hire someone else. Didn't think that needed to be spelled out for you. Not sure why I would assume such a thing.

 

...

 

You're making less and less sense.

 

Explain why you quoted my answer. You clearly thought it was some kind of trump card.

[Vinestal]

Jesus, he's free in a year, plus he can bring whoever the hell he wants with him at that point. Why do we have to hire someone else at all? Just wait it out with Bush or temporarily use someone that Theo would trust to run things for a year. We weren't going to be major players in FA this year or probably even be very competitive, why does it mater this year. You don't mortgage the future over one crappy pointless year.

[ScrubMD]

I know I'm putting myself in the position to be called a dick but what happens if this doesn't go through? I feel like so many people have set their hearts on Theo Epstein and his one of a kind ability to use scouting and numbers to build a farm system and consistent ML contender. Does anyone notice that Boston's farm system right now isn't anything special?

 

I wouldn't be all that disappointed if we lose out on Epstein. The main thing is that Ricketts really knows what he's doing. I'm sure his second choice would be just fine.

[Guest]

Let me see if I understand this. There's actually people suggesting that there's a situation where Theo stays in Boston, but is no longer the GM? And that Theo is just going to be okay with that? And not sue the pants off the Red Sox for breaching his contract, which assuredly is for him to be the General Manager for the duration, and not a special consultant whenever the organization gets pissed at him?

[Sammy Sofa]

I know I'm putting myself in the position to be called a dick but what happens if this doesn't go through?

 

Then they hire a different GM.

[Soul]

God. 1 hour and the whole thread goes into a convulsion of weirdness.

 

This is still likely just posturing, and will be worked out.

 

Let's not get all up in arms about ultimatums and speculation until we see how things actually work out. It's Friday night, obviously everyone has gone home to their families and not much is going to happen (in all likelihood) until next week.

 

I think the Cubs have the bulk of the options here. I'm sure we don't want to just stick the Red Sox with nothing -- so it becomes a matter of negotiation. I'm willing to let it play out.

[davearm2]

If Boston decides to scare the [expletive] out of anybody that would ever consider working for them and hold Epstein hostage for a year, then the Cubs could keep all of their prospects and go after a similarly awesome candidate, like the Atlanta guy. They'd probably also save a couple million a year on GM salary. I wouldn't be too worried about Rickett's 2nd choice. Ricketts has proven to be very bad ass. Not a terrible position to be in.

 

Offer Boston someone like Jay Jackson and if they decide to shoot themselves in the foot, let them.

This leads us directly back to the question I've already asked, repeatedly.

 

If you're saying what I think you are, you're the first to argue the Cubs would be better off keeping their prospects and hiring another GM versus giving up their prospects and hiring Epstein.

 

I think I'm saying basically what a lot of other people are saying.

 

In a vacuum, I'd rather have Epstein than Jackson/McNutt/Szczur

 

But I'd rather have Atlanta guy/all of our prospects/$2m a year than Epstein without Jackson/McNutt/Szczur

Fair enough. I disagree. Give me Epstein. You can have the prospects and the extra $2M and other dude can stay in Atlanta or go be someone else's GM.

[Sammy Sofa]

Let me see if I understand this. There's actually people suggesting that there's a situation where Theo stays in Boston, but is no longer the GM? And that Theo is just going to be okay with that? And not sue the pants off the Red Sox for breaching his contract, which assuredly is for him to be the General Manager for the duration, and not a special consultant whenever the organization gets pissed at him?

 

Yes, apparently MLB is just going to sit back and allow the Red Sox to operate with two GM's. But hey, it's just speculatin' on a hypothesis!

[ScrubMD]

God. 1 hour and the whole thread goes into a convulsion of weirdness.

 

This is still likely just posturing, and will be worked out.

 

Let's not get all up in arms about ultimatums and speculation until we see how things actually work out. It's Friday night, obviously everyone has gone home to their families and not much is going to happen (in all likelihood) until next week.

 

I think the Cubs have the bulk of the options here. I'm sure we don't want to just stick the Red Sox with nothing -- so it becomes a matter of negotiation. I'm willing to let it play out.

 

 

There's pretty much one person suggesting that it won't get worked out and everyone else saying how stupid he is.

Edited October 15, 2011 by ScrubMD

[KingKongvs.Godzilla]

I know I'm putting myself in the position to be called a dick but what happens if this doesn't go through? I feel like so many people have set their hearts on Theo Epstein and his one of a kind ability to use scouting and numbers to build a farm system and consistent ML contender. Does anyone notice that Boston's farm system right now isn't anything special?

 

I wouldn't be all that disappointed if we lose out on Epstein. The main thing is that Ricketts really knows what he's doing. I'm sure his second choice would be just fine.

 

Nice, that's pretty much where I am. There's plenty of people I'd like to see get the job. The most important thing is who else comes along too, as we'll learn and follow all those names and the roles they take on.

[WilcoFan]

Let me see if I understand this. There's actually people suggesting that there's a situation where Theo stays in Boston, but is no longer the GM? And that Theo is just going to be okay with that? And not sue the pants off the Red Sox for breaching his contract, which assuredly is for him to be the General Manager for the duration, and not a special consultant whenever the organization gets pissed at him?

 

Let ME see if I understand this. People seem to think there's this "gunfight at the OK Corral" going on between the Cubs and Red Sox right now?

 

It is a negotiation. They're working through details. The only people in this whole situation that are being obstinate are on message boards.

[ScrubMD]

If Boston decides to scare the [expletive] out of anybody that would ever consider working for them and hold Epstein hostage for a year, then the Cubs could keep all of their prospects and go after a similarly awesome candidate, like the Atlanta guy. They'd probably also save a couple million a year on GM salary. I wouldn't be too worried about Rickett's 2nd choice. Ricketts has proven to be very bad ass. Not a terrible position to be in.

 

Offer Boston someone like Jay Jackson and if they decide to shoot themselves in the foot, let them.

This leads us directly back to the question I've already asked, repeatedly.

 

If you're saying what I think you are, you're the first to argue the Cubs would be better off keeping their prospects and hiring another GM versus giving up their prospects and hiring Epstein.

 

I think I'm saying basically what a lot of other people are saying.

 

In a vacuum, I'd rather have Epstein than Jackson/McNutt/Szczur

 

But I'd rather have Atlanta guy/all of our prospects/$2m a year than Epstein without Jackson/McNutt/Szczur

Fair enough. I disagree. Give me Epstein. You can have the prospects and the extra $2M and other dude can stay in Atlanta or go be someone else's GM.

 

I don't really know anything about the Atlanta guy. I'm just sure Ricketts has more than one guy in mind and with what we've discovered so far, I wouldn't be worried about his 2nd choice.

[Sammy Sofa]

Let me see if I understand this. There's actually people suggesting that there's a situation where Theo stays in Boston, but is no longer the GM? And that Theo is just going to be okay with that? And not sue the pants off the Red Sox for breaching his contract, which assuredly is for him to be the General Manager for the duration, and not a special consultant whenever the organization gets pissed at him?

 

Let ME see if I understand this. People seem to think there's this "gunfight at the OK Corral" going on between the Cubs and Red Sox right now?

 

It is a negotiation. They're working through details. The only people in this whole situation that are being obstinate are on message boards.

 

No. There's one guy here right now.

[davearm2]

Of course not getting Epstein would "hurt" more than losing, say, Jackson and McNutt in the long run.

 

...

 

I'm dying to know what you think this proves.

 

You realize it only answered your silly little question of what was worse, losing Epstein or losing top prospects, right?

It's beyond obvious that if you choose to walk away from Epstein and keep the prospects, you hire someone else. Didn't think that needed to be spelled out for you. Not sure why I would assume such a thing.

 

...

 

You're making less and less sense.

 

Explain why you quoted my answer. You clearly thought it was some kind of trump card.

I quoted your answer because I foolishly assumed you grasped the fact that if the Cubs lose Epstein, they will hire someone else to be their GM.

 

Hence, your saying "Of course not getting Epstein would "hurt" more than losing, say, Jackson and McNutt in the long run" is equivalent to saying "Of course not getting Epstein and hiring another GM instead would "hurt" more than losing, say, Jackson and McNutt in the long run".

[Hairyducked Idiot]

You have to apply the common sense test here.

 

Let's presume for a minute that the whole "Tarnishing their reputation" thing is a Cubs-fan concoction and future young, bright executives will have no problem with going to work for a team that will hold their career hostage if there were an opportunity for advancement.

 

The Red Sox would still have to eat $6.5 million to make Epstein sit out for a year. There are two options here:

 

1) The Red Sox are willing to eat $6.5 million over the difference between Josh Vitters and Brett Jackson

2) The Red Sox are posturing to try to squeeze whatever they can out of negotiations.

 

Unless the Red Sox are stupid and insane, No. 2 seems infinitely more likely than No. 1 to me. And I don't think the Red Sox are stupid or insane.

[davearm2]

God. 1 hour and the whole thread goes into a convulsion of weirdness.

 

This is still likely just posturing, and will be worked out.

 

Let's not get all up in arms about ultimatums and speculation until we see how things actually work out. It's Friday night, obviously everyone has gone home to their families and not much is going to happen (in all likelihood) until next week.

 

I think the Cubs have the bulk of the options here. I'm sure we don't want to just stick the Red Sox with nothing -- so it becomes a matter of negotiation. I'm willing to let it play out.

 

 

There's pretty much one person suggesting that it won't get worked out and everyone else saying how stupid he is.

Get a clue. I said I thought it would get worked out. More than once actually.

 

I'm disagreeing with the perception that the Cubs hold all the cards and the Red Sox hold none.

[Sammy Sofa]

I quoted your answer because I foolishly assumed you grasped the fact that if the Cubs lose Epstein, they will hire someone else to be their GM.

 

Hence, your saying "Of course not getting Epstein would "hurt" more than losing, say, Jackson and McNutt in the long run" is equivalent to saying "Of course not getting Epstein and hiring another GM instead would "hurt" more than losing, say, Jackson and McNutt in the long run".

 

No, you were trying to get people to pick between losing top prospects or "losing" Epstein for an indefinite period of time due to the stupid "nuclear option." If you meant otherwise you would have actually asked whether it "hurt" more to hire Epstein and lose top prospects or to hire a different GM candidate without giving up as much. It's not like that's some kind of cryptic, complicated question, or like it's the same as what you were actually trying to get people to answer. You were hung up on the dumb idea that the Red Sox could drag this out indefinitely.

Edited October 15, 2011 by Sammy Sofa

[imb]

what would hurt more losing epstein or if your dick got set on fire heh got you there

[davearm2]

Let me see if I understand this. There's actually people suggesting that there's a situation where Theo stays in Boston, but is no longer the GM? And that Theo is just going to be okay with that? And not sue the pants off the Red Sox for breaching his contract, which assuredly is for him to be the General Manager for the duration, and not a special consultant whenever the organization gets pissed at him?

 

Let ME see if I understand this. People seem to think there's this "gunfight at the OK Corral" going on between the Cubs and Red Sox right now?

 

It is a negotiation. They're working through details. The only people in this whole situation that are being obstinate are on message boards.

I hope you're right. Just seems like there's a little more smoke than you're seeing. Like I said, I'd rather you be right than me.

[Soul]

OK. The card they hold is that we want Epstein, and they know it.

 

But the reality is, we're in a position of being an unsuccesful baseball team. One more year of badness, in the face of a huge future boost, isn't out of the question for us.

 

Remember, they don't control him forever, and we know it. Also, he clearly doesn't want to be there anymore, and the whole Boston organization knows it.

 

Have you ever tried to work in a place where you didn't want to be, and everyone knew you didn't want to be there? Uncomfortable is an extreme understatement.

[davearm2]

I quoted your answer because I foolishly assumed you grasped the fact that if the Cubs lose Epstein, they will hire someone else to be their GM.

 

Hence, your saying "Of course not getting Epstein would "hurt" more than losing, say, Jackson and McNutt in the long run" is equivalent to saying "Of course not getting Epstein and hiring another GM instead would "hurt" more than losing, say, Jackson and McNutt in the long run".

 

No, you were trying to get people to pick between losing top prospects or "losing" Epstein for an indefinite period of time due to the stupid "nuclear option." If you meant otherwise you would have actually asked whether it "hurt" more to hire Epstein and lose top prospects or to hire a different GM candidate without giving up as much. It's not like that's some kind of cryptic, complicated question, or like it's the same as what you were actually trying to get people to answer. You were hung up on the dumb idea that the Red Sox could drag this out indefinitely.

You're wrong about what I was asking. The "nuclear option" I described would be telling the Red Sox to stick it, and move on to plan B.

[XZero771679666304]

This is like watching people scratch an infectious rash.