Re: New GM/Cubs Future News Articles

dew1679666265 · October 18, 2011

A transcript of the negotiations.

http://www.thesportsbank.net/core/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/tom_ricketts.jpg
Tom Ricketts: 'Sup Theo, do you like my brilliant plan for turning the Cubs into the NL's premiere franchise, beginning with doubling your salary?

http://bosoxinjection.com/files/2010/07/THEO.jpg
Theo Epstein: I'm not sure, lemme think.

http://www.thesportsbank.net/core/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/tom_ricketts.jpg
Tom: Have you considered my smile?

http://www.bleachernation.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/theo-epstein-smile-300x203.jpg
Theo: I'm in.

http://www.thesportsbank.net/core/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/tom_ricketts.jpg
Alright, lemme call your boss.

http://www.coolgadgetconcept.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/coolest-phones2.jpg

http://www.encouragedinheart.org/wp-content/uploads/hamb1.jpg
Larry Lucchino: *answers phone* Robble robble gimme?

http://www.thesportsbank.net/core/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/tom_ricketts.jpg
Tom: Larry, Theo wants to come work for us like we talked about. We'll throw you some cash to be cool. K?

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100410145138/uncyclopedia/images/0/07/Hamburglar.gif
Larry: Robble robble gimme Garza? Robble robble gimme Garza!

http://www.thesportsbank.net/core/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/tom_ricketts.jpg
Tom: That's ridiculous. I guess if you insist we could consider some low-level prospects, but realistically this is a non-lateral move that Theo has agreed to, and we have already offered you some cash.

http://edge.ebaumsworld.com/mediaFiles/picture/699509/80533077.jpg
Larry: Robble robble gimme McNutt and Szcur robble robble!

http://www.thesportsbank.net/core/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/tom_ricketts.jpg
Tom: That's absurd. What are you going to do if we don't agree?

http://saveud.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/money-burning-300x244.jpg
Larry: Robble robble leverage!

http://www.thesportsbank.net/core/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/tom_ricketts.jpg
Tom: I have a book that might help you out, Larry.

http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l89e35IfuZ1qdzrdwo1_250.gif
Larry: Robble robble gimme! Gimme gimme gimme robble!

http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/replicate/EXID16041/images/Six_Steps_in_the_Negotiation_Process_Mini_Poster.jpg

http://paxholley.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/hamburglar_stripes2.jpg?w=200
Larry: Robble robble gimme McNutt!

http://www.thesportsbank.net/core/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/tom_ricketts.jpg
Tom: This is getting us nowhere. Mr. Commissioner, can you step in?

http://blogs.ajc.com/jeff-schultz-blog/files/2010/05/bud-selig.jpg
Bud: What?

http://www.thesportsbank.net/core/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/tom_ricketts.jpg
Tom: I said can you help us come to something reasonable here.

http://luminousroc.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Bud_Selig.jpg
Bud: Sure thing, Tom.

....

http://sadhillnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/mcdonalds-grimace-character-hamburglar-mayor-mccheese-happy-meal-toy-sad-hill-news001.jpg

http://www.thesportsbank.net/core/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/tom_ricketts.jpg
Tom: I don't see how that helps, bud.

http://blogs.ajc.com/jeff-schultz-blog/files/2010/05/bud-selig.jpg
Bud: What?

http://www.thesportsbank.net/core/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/tom_ricketts.jpg
Tom: Cubs fans, are you cool if I just go hire Rick Hahn and still spend a billion dollars a year in the draft and international free agency?

http://mlblogsvineline.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/rally11.jpg?w=432&h=288
Cubs fans: We love you, Tom!

http://www.thesportsbank.net/core/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/tom_ricketts.jpg
Tom: Suck it, Larry. *click*

This is one of the funniest things I've read on here. Ever. Good job.

Mr.X · October 18, 2011

A transcript of the negotiations.

http://www.thesportsbank.net/core/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/tom_ricketts.jpg
Tom Ricketts: 'Sup Theo, do you like my brilliant plan for turning the Cubs into the NL's premiere franchise, beginning with doubling your salary?

http://bosoxinjection.com/files/2010/07/THEO.jpg
Theo Epstein: I'm not sure, lemme think.

http://www.thesportsbank.net/core/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/tom_ricketts.jpg
Tom: Have you considered my smile?

http://www.bleachernation.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/theo-epstein-smile-300x203.jpg
Theo: I'm in.

http://www.thesportsbank.net/core/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/tom_ricketts.jpg
Alright, lemme call your boss.

http://www.coolgadgetconcept.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/coolest-phones2.jpg

http://www.encouragedinheart.org/wp-content/uploads/hamb1.jpg
Larry Lucchino: *answers phone* Robble robble gimme?

http://www.thesportsbank.net/core/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/tom_ricketts.jpg
Tom: Larry, Theo wants to come work for us like we talked about. We'll throw you some cash to be cool. K?

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100410145138/uncyclopedia/images/0/07/Hamburglar.gif
Larry: Robble robble gimme Garza? Robble robble gimme Garza!

http://www.thesportsbank.net/core/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/tom_ricketts.jpg
Tom: That's ridiculous. I guess if you insist we could consider some low-level prospects, but realistically this is a non-lateral move that Theo has agreed to, and we have already offered you some cash.

http://edge.ebaumsworld.com/mediaFiles/picture/699509/80533077.jpg
Larry: Robble robble gimme McNutt and Szcur robble robble!

http://www.thesportsbank.net/core/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/tom_ricketts.jpg
Tom: That's absurd. What are you going to do if we don't agree?

http://saveud.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/money-burning-300x244.jpg
Larry: Robble robble leverage!

http://www.thesportsbank.net/core/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/tom_ricketts.jpg
Tom: I have a book that might help you out, Larry.

http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l89e35IfuZ1qdzrdwo1_250.gif
Larry: Robble robble gimme! Gimme gimme gimme robble!

http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/replicate/EXID16041/images/Six_Steps_in_the_Negotiation_Process_Mini_Poster.jpg

http://paxholley.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/hamburglar_stripes2.jpg?w=200
Larry: Robble robble gimme McNutt!

http://www.thesportsbank.net/core/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/tom_ricketts.jpg
Tom: This is getting us nowhere. Mr. Commissioner, can you step in?

http://blogs.ajc.com/jeff-schultz-blog/files/2010/05/bud-selig.jpg
Bud: What?

http://www.thesportsbank.net/core/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/tom_ricketts.jpg
Tom: I said can you help us come to something reasonable here.

http://luminousroc.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Bud_Selig.jpg
Bud: Sure thing, Tom.

....

http://sadhillnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/mcdonalds-grimace-character-hamburglar-mayor-mccheese-happy-meal-toy-sad-hill-news001.jpg

http://www.thesportsbank.net/core/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/tom_ricketts.jpg
Tom: I don't see how that helps, bud.

http://blogs.ajc.com/jeff-schultz-blog/files/2010/05/bud-selig.jpg
Bud: What?

http://www.thesportsbank.net/core/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/tom_ricketts.jpg
Tom: Cubs fans, are you cool if I just go hire Rick Hahn and still spend a billion dollars a year in the draft and international free agency?

http://mlblogsvineline.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/rally11.jpg?w=432&h=288
Cubs fans: We love you, Tom!

http://www.thesportsbank.net/core/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/tom_ricketts.jpg
Tom: Suck it, Larry. *click*

This is one of the funniest things I've read on here. Ever. Good job.

I can appreciate something that's pretty funny, good job

XZero771679666304 · October 18, 2011

I have to say I'm not sold on McNutt. I don't want to give him up, but he came out of nowhere and regressed a bit (somewhat due to injury, given). I think it's just as likely he drops back off the map as becomes a middle of the rotation starter.

I applaud Ricketts for taking the hard line, but if we end up with Hahn/Coppolella/etc. when we could have had Theo, Byrnes and Co. because Ricketts wouldn't include Trey McNutt...well I don't think that could be looked at as a good or justified outcome.

Not a disaster by any means, but not something that would sit well with me at all.

UMFan83 · October 18, 2011

First off I would like to say I like this board and I like the fact that there are a lot of people on here with strong opinions about this topic on here as well. I'm a member over at SoSH, this whole thing is making my head spin on one hand Cubs fans believe that they have the leverage in the deal because, Theo agreed to a deal and "he can't go back to Boston". Sox fans believe that they have leverage because of the fact that they have a GM that has won two world series titles and has built a strong nucleus of talent. From an unbiased opinion I actually think both teams have leverage in the matter.

The Cubs have leverage because, the reality is this the media and fan perception of this team as of right now is addition by subtraction. Anyone who had anything to do with this whole season needs to be fired, etc... The Cubs also have options outside of Epstein that are fairly workable, such as Hahn and others.

The Sox have leverage due to the fact that Epstein is their property, he can come back (happened in 2005 and Hoyer/Cherrington became Co-GM's, although I would probably chuckle a little bit if Epstein snuck out of Yawkey Way this time in a Cubbies Mascot Suit), and the fact that he is the man in charge of Baseball Operations in Boston...not Lucchino (as part of the agreement to bring him back the first time was to give him control over this aspect of the team...this is why its not a lateral move...but more on this in a second).

The Cubs had to ask the Red Sox for permission based on the fact that Epstein was in fact the property of the Red Sox for one more year. It is in the Red Sox right to ask for appropriate compensation regarding this matter (Not Garza, but you can't blame them for trying), and I'm positive that this was brought up before permission was even granted and the Cubs agreed to that. So the fact that it is coming across as Ricketts doing the Sox a spade for taking off of their hands a "disgruntled employee" is far from the truth. All parties as in any negotiation know the parameters of what it will take before getting the parameters of a contract in place. They could have easily denied the Cubs permission because of the contract, regardless of promotion or not. For example, the Marlins have Dan Jennings and they routinely deny him opportunities to interview for GM positions, same with the Tigers and Al Avila. However, a team like the Blue Jays will allow their guys to go without too much of a fight, unless its someone like AA.

So all of this leads to the compensation piece, for which you have Billy Beane, Lou Piniella, Chuck Tanner, and Ozzie Guillen to use as a barometer for. Beane the Sox would have given a mid level project (probably not Youk, despite popular thought), Chuck Tanner fetched an all star, Ozzie fetched two top prospects who were coming off down years, and Lou Piniella fetched Randy Winn. Using Guillen as a comparison since he was the most recent, a guy like McNutt would be comparable to what the Marlins gave up to Chicago in this case. Jackson would be too much, Sczuzr probably would be also, although I would welcome that return with open arms as I myself, am not that high on McNutt to begin with. The likely outcome is the same with each of these deals, a top 5 prospect. Now there's a difference between one of those in a system like Kansas City/Tampa and one in a system like Boston's, Chicago's etc...Chicago's system is like Boston's in the sense there is a lot of intriguing talent at the bottom such as Sczuzr/Candelario but the shelves are not stocked too well in AAA/AA overall.

Again nothing that I mention here is too insane as all I am using is the Guillen comp and others to make this determination. Do I think the Sox will get an all star out of this? Absolutely not, the guy that we get will be at best a solid contributor at the major league level someday, with maybe the outside chance of making an all star team or two. The deal that would match up numbers wise is McNutt, which from what I've read on here is 50/50 on if people would give him up in a deal, which is understandable, however hes not a blue chip prospect, IF everything falls into place correctly then he will be a middle of the rotation arm. For a 22 year old pitcher in the minors, this is a crap shoot.

Which leads me to my next point, everything I have posted above is why Ricketts should do this, you get the sure thing in Theo, rebuild the operations department and quite frankly reunite the team of Theo and Byrnes which shouldn't be understated at all as a major coup. Byrnes made some bad deals in hindsight when he was running AZ, but the guy is a good talent evaluator. If McNutt turns into a number 3-4 in 2-3 years this means nothing if the Cubs are putting up a banner in that time period. Young talent is very hard to find, and especially if its cost controlled, and that's where I can see the Cubs balking. But here's the truth, unless if you are in on those meetings it doesn't matter who is reporting what, everything could be further from the truth.

My prediction: Theo returns to the Sox with the title of Co-CEO or something of that ilk (the relationship can be repaired and has been before), Cherington becomes GM, and The Cubs...they do already for themselves with new GM Thad Levine and hires Ryan Sandberg to be the manager. I just think that Larry's hard line negotiations will force Ricketts to look elsewhere and Levine would be a fine choice based on what Texas has done in the last few years.

Couple of things. The last one of you SoSH's who came by earlier in the thread said the same stuff about using Guillen as a basis for compensation, and this is faulty logic for a couple of reasons (and I hope you address them as the other guy continually ignored them):

1) Theo is being offered a promotion. This isn't manager in Chicago becomes manager in Miami, it is VP of baseball ops/GM becoming President of baseball operations and reporting to only the owner. It's a promotion and a raise, and if you want to talk about precedent, there is plenty of precedent out there of front office guys moving to other organizations for a promotion and compensation is never discussed.

2) The are multiple sources that say that the return that the Sox got for Ozzie was due to alleged tampering by the Marlins for over a year. If you recall there were rumors about this move last season as well. Also, there were rumors of Ozzie signing a 4 year contract with Miami at the same exact time Guillen was in Reinsdorf's office "asking for an extension" aka getting out of his contract so he could go to Florida. There was no permission granted and no known interview for the position. This was worked out behind the scenes, and because of this the Marlins felt obligated to compensate the Sox.

I personally don't think that Theo can come back to the Red Sox and co-exist at this point. I am not sure that the relationship is as frayed as its suggested, but the facts are that Epstein has chosen to join the Cubs over the Red Sox. He would rather work some place else. Also, Theo has 1 year left on his contract and reports are out there that Theo already told the Red Sox before the Cubs situation came up that he would be leaving Boston after his contract is up. Maybe it was a negotiating ploy by Theo, who knows. But all the signs point to a reunion between the Red Sox and Theo being short lived at best. Do the Red Sox really want to pay $7 million for a GM that won't be there after this year. Wouldn't the Red Sox rather move on and let the new GM take over with his plan and vision instead of waiting to do it a year from now?

That brings me to another point, that there are reports that the Red Sox have already informed Cherington that he will be the new GM. If Theo comes back for this year, Cherington will become a popular candidate to interview for other GM positions, namely Baltimore or Anaheim. Given that he would be interviewing for a promotion, I doubt the Red Sox will stand in his way. I think they'd owe it to him after giving him the GM role twice only to take it back from him. So you risk losing Theo AND Cherington within a year. It's a possibility that with Theo saying he won't be back that Cherington will sit patiently and wait for another season, but its also possible that he wants to make his next career move sooner rather than later, and if that's the case he's gone this offseason most likely.

So, on one side you gain $7 million, keep Cherington and get a mid level prospect from the Cubs. On the other you lose $7 million, possibly lose Cherington and get no compensation for Theo. Is that worth taking a hard stance based on principle?

I don't mind if the only thing we give up is McNutt and cash, that is fine. But I trust Ricketts' judgement in the matter, and the fact is, we have no idea what the Red Sox are really asking. If Kraplan is right about the Red Sox offer still being insane, its much more than McNutt and cash.

Brett · October 18, 2011

The Sox have leverage due to the fact that Epstein is their property.

Dred Scott is no longer the law, sir.

If he wasn't under their control then he would be a free agent and wouldn't need permission from the Sox to interview. My point stands, if the Sox allowed Theo to interview under the premise that they would be compensated then why should this come as a surprise to anyone?

...? Just a joke, homey.

Hairyducked Idiot · October 18, 2011

The Sox have leverage due to the fact that Epstein is their property.

Dred Scott is no longer the law, sir.

If he wasn't under their control then he would be a free agent and wouldn't need permission from the Sox to interview. My point stands, if the Sox allowed Theo to interview under the premise that they would be compensated then why should this come as a surprise to anyone?

It's not a surprise to anyone. The Cubs offering to pick up his $3.5 million conclusion bonus is compensation.

What's surprising here is that the Red Sox are actually, possibly dumb enough to think that by leaking the Epstein news, they can somehow pressure Ricketts into giving up insane value.

Epstein is a nice GM that I'd be excited to have. I had him listed fourth in my "awesome pile" of potential GMs. But that's also all he is: one of a pile. If the Cubs don't get him, they could do just as well picking from the large pile of saber-savvy, young, well-educated, driven executives out there. Some have more experience and track record, some don't, but personally I don't think that matters. The marginal value of Epstein, the difference between Epstein and the next-best pick, is not huge.

We talked earlier in the thread about the value of prospects who are nearing the major leagues. It's pretty big, something in the low 8 figures. If the Cubs have a choice between Epstein minus a near-ready prospect and another GM from the awesome pile while keeping the near-ready prospect, then they'd be fools to take the former choice.

So as far as I can see, there's no incentive for the Cubs to give the Red Sox any significant compensation. The only reason anyone can come up with why they would is the idea that Cubs fans are somehow going to pressure Ricketts into doing it because we are so orgasmic at the idea of Epstein. That's asinine, and it's a theory that could only be advanced by fools and people who are very far removed from the pulse of Cubs fans. We don't want an owner who caves in negotiations and overpays for things that he wants. Owners who insist on paying whatever it takes to get things they want saddled us with the Soriano contract.

And even if we believe that the pressure to pay up for Epstein is being exerted by Cubs fans, only someone who hasn't actually been paying attention to Ricketts would think that would work. When Ricketts bought the team, the immediate pressure was to be a Mark Cuban-style owner who would ride into town and start throwing around piles of money to make the team competitive. Instead, he froze payroll and put all the extra money into the draft. The next thing everyone wanted to see him do was fire Hendry, and he waited over a year. Then, when he finally did, he didn't tell anyone for a month (and that's how I know these leaks about Epstein didn't start with the Cubs). Many Cubs fans were furious that the team didn't hire Sandberg, and he didn't care. Ricketts is not going to cave to imaginary fan pressure, even if it were to become real.

So even if we ignore the absurd assertion that the Red Sox somehow benefit from threatening to throw $6.5 million into a pile and burn it, even if we put aside the damage to their reputation it does for other potential executives to see what sort of an organization the Red Sox are (one that will hold you back if they feel like it), then just looking at it from a Cubs perspective, it makes no sense to be giving anything significant in compensation. If the Red Sox are that determined to burn their pile of money, and if they were so crazy and stupid as to ask for Garza with a straight face, then I'm perfectly happy to see the Cubs move on to the next choice.

Edited October 18, 2011 by Hairyducked Idiot

UMFan83 · October 18, 2011

+1

Butterscup1679666578 · October 18, 2011

I have to say I'm not sold on McNutt. I don't want to give him up, but he came out of nowhere and regressed a bit (somewhat due to injury, given). I think it's just as likely he drops back off the map as becomes a middle of the rotation starter.

I applaud Ricketts for taking the hard line, but if we end up with Hahn/Coppolella/etc. when we could have had Theo, Byrnes and Co. because Ricketts wouldn't include Trey McNutt...well I don't think that could be looked at as a good or justified outcome.

Not a disaster by any means, but not something that would sit well with me at all.

This is kind of where I'm at. I'm pretty much all-in on Theo. Do I want to give up McNutt for him? Absolutely not, but if it's going to keep us from getting Theo, I don't feel like it's worth losing out on him for a pitcher like McNutt (who could end up being a very good 2/3 starter, but isn't a guarantee).

Butterscup1679666578 · October 18, 2011

That said I still don't think it'll take that much to get him.

XZero771679666304 · October 18, 2011

I have to say I'm not sold on McNutt. I don't want to give him up, but he came out of nowhere and regressed a bit (somewhat due to injury, given). I think it's just as likely he drops back off the map as becomes a middle of the rotation starter.

I applaud Ricketts for taking the hard line, but if we end up with Hahn/Coppolella/etc. when we could have had Theo, Byrnes and Co. because Ricketts wouldn't include Trey McNutt...well I don't think that could be looked at as a good or justified outcome.

Not a disaster by any means, but not something that would sit well with me at all.

This is kind of where I'm at. I'm pretty much all-in on Theo. Do I want to give up McNutt for him? Absolutely not, but if it's going to keep us from getting Theo, I don't feel like it's worth losing out on him for a pitcher like McNutt (who could end up being a very good 2/3 starter, but isn't a guarantee).

It's not necessarily that I'm all in for Theo, but I think it's iffy that McNutt retains any real value going forward. If it McNutt or a guy like Szczur, I give up Trey in a cold second.

Sammy Sofa · October 18, 2011

I have to say I'm not sold on McNutt. I don't want to give him up, but he came out of nowhere and regressed a bit (somewhat due to injury, given). I think it's just as likely he drops back off the map as becomes a middle of the rotation starter.

I applaud Ricketts for taking the hard line, but if we end up with Hahn/Coppolella/etc. when we could have had Theo, Byrnes and Co. because Ricketts wouldn't include Trey McNutt...well I don't think that could be looked at as a good or justified outcome.

Not a disaster by any means, but not something that would sit well with me at all.

This is kind of where I'm at. I'm pretty much all-in on Theo. Do I want to give up McNutt for him? Absolutely not, but if it's going to keep us from getting Theo, I don't feel like it's worth losing out on him for a pitcher like McNutt (who could end up being a very good 2/3 starter, but isn't a guarantee).

Same here, but I doubt the Red Sox are just asking for McNutt and cash right now. If it was just that I think this would be done.

Mr.X · October 18, 2011

First off I would like to say I like this board and I like the fact that there are a lot of people on here with strong opinions about this topic on here as well. I'm a member over at SoSH, this whole thing is making my head spin on one hand Cubs fans believe that they have the leverage in the deal because, Theo agreed to a deal and "he can't go back to Boston". Sox fans believe that they have leverage because of the fact that they have a GM that has won two world series titles and has built a strong nucleus of talent. From an unbiased opinion I actually think both teams have leverage in the matter.

The Cubs have leverage because, the reality is this the media and fan perception of this team as of right now is addition by subtraction. Anyone who had anything to do with this whole season needs to be fired, etc... The Cubs also have options outside of Epstein that are fairly workable, such as Hahn and others.

The Sox have leverage due to the fact that Epstein is their property, he can come back (happened in 2005 and Hoyer/Cherrington became Co-GM's, although I would probably chuckle a little bit if Epstein snuck out of Yawkey Way this time in a Cubbies Mascot Suit), and the fact that he is the man in charge of Baseball Operations in Boston...not Lucchino (as part of the agreement to bring him back the first time was to give him control over this aspect of the team...this is why its not a lateral move...but more on this in a second).

The Cubs had to ask the Red Sox for permission based on the fact that Epstein was in fact the property of the Red Sox for one more year. It is in the Red Sox right to ask for appropriate compensation regarding this matter (Not Garza, but you can't blame them for trying), and I'm positive that this was brought up before permission was even granted and the Cubs agreed to that. So the fact that it is coming across as Ricketts doing the Sox a spade for taking off of their hands a "disgruntled employee" is far from the truth. All parties as in any negotiation know the parameters of what it will take before getting the parameters of a contract in place. They could have easily denied the Cubs permission because of the contract, regardless of promotion or not. For example, the Marlins have Dan Jennings and they routinely deny him opportunities to interview for GM positions, same with the Tigers and Al Avila. However, a team like the Blue Jays will allow their guys to go without too much of a fight, unless its someone like AA.

So all of this leads to the compensation piece, for which you have Billy Beane, Lou Piniella, Chuck Tanner, and Ozzie Guillen to use as a barometer for. Beane the Sox would have given a mid level project (probably not Youk, despite popular thought), Chuck Tanner fetched an all star, Ozzie fetched two top prospects who were coming off down years, and Lou Piniella fetched Randy Winn. Using Guillen as a comparison since he was the most recent, a guy like McNutt would be comparable to what the Marlins gave up to Chicago in this case. Jackson would be too much, Sczuzr probably would be also, although I would welcome that return with open arms as I myself, am not that high on McNutt to begin with. The likely outcome is the same with each of these deals, a top 5 prospect. Now there's a difference between one of those in a system like Kansas City/Tampa and one in a system like Boston's, Chicago's etc...Chicago's system is like Boston's in the sense there is a lot of intriguing talent at the bottom such as Sczuzr/Candelario but the shelves are not stocked too well in AAA/AA overall.

Again nothing that I mention here is too insane as all I am using is the Guillen comp and others to make this determination. Do I think the Sox will get an all star out of this? Absolutely not, the guy that we get will be at best a solid contributor at the major league level someday, with maybe the outside chance of making an all star team or two. The deal that would match up numbers wise is McNutt, which from what I've read on here is 50/50 on if people would give him up in a deal, which is understandable, however hes not a blue chip prospect, IF everything falls into place correctly then he will be a middle of the rotation arm. For a 22 year old pitcher in the minors, this is a crap shoot.

Which leads me to my next point, everything I have posted above is why Ricketts should do this, you get the sure thing in Theo, rebuild the operations department and quite frankly reunite the team of Theo and Byrnes which shouldn't be understated at all as a major coup. Byrnes made some bad deals in hindsight when he was running AZ, but the guy is a good talent evaluator. If McNutt turns into a number 3-4 in 2-3 years this means nothing if the Cubs are putting up a banner in that time period. Young talent is very hard to find, and especially if its cost controlled, and that's where I can see the Cubs balking. But here's the truth, unless if you are in on those meetings it doesn't matter who is reporting what, everything could be further from the truth.

My prediction: Theo returns to the Sox with the title of Co-CEO or something of that ilk (the relationship can be repaired and has been before), Cherington becomes GM, and The Cubs...they do already for themselves with new GM Thad Levine and hires Ryan Sandberg to be the manager. I just think that Larry's hard line negotiations will force Ricketts to look elsewhere and Levine would be a fine choice based on what Texas has done in the last few years.

Couple of things. The last one of you SoSH's who came by earlier in the thread said the same stuff about using Guillen as a basis for compensation, and this is faulty logic for a couple of reasons (and I hope you address them as the other guy continually ignored them):
1) Theo is being offered a promotion. This isn't manager in Chicago becomes manager in Miami, it is VP of baseball ops/GM becoming President of baseball operations and reporting to only the owner. It's a promotion and a raise, and if you want to talk about precedent, there is plenty of precedent out there of front office guys moving to other organizations for a promotion and compensation is never discussed.
2) The are multiple sources that say that the return that the Sox got for Ozzie was due to alleged tampering by the Marlins for over a year. If you recall there were rumors about this move last season as well. Also, there were rumors of Ozzie signing a 4 year contract with Miami at the same exact time Guillen was in Reinsdorf's office "asking for an extension" aka getting out of his contract so he could go to Florida. There was no permission granted and no known interview for the position. This was worked out behind the scenes, and because of this the Marlins felt obligated to compensate the Sox.

I personally don't think that Theo can come back to the Red Sox and co-exist at this point. I am not sure that the relationship is as frayed as its suggested, but the facts are that Epstein has chosen to join the Cubs over the Red Sox. He would rather work some place else. Also, Theo has 1 year left on his contract and reports are out there that Theo already told the Red Sox before the Cubs situation came up that he would be leaving Boston after his contract is up. Maybe it was a negotiating ploy by Theo, who knows. But all the signs point to a reunion between the Red Sox and Theo being short lived at best. Do the Red Sox really want to pay $7 million for a GM that won't be there after this year. Wouldn't the Red Sox rather move on and let the new GM take over with his plan and vision instead of waiting to do it a year from now?

That brings me to another point, that there are reports that the Red Sox have already informed Cherington that he will be the new GM. If Theo comes back for this year, Cherington will become a popular candidate to interview for other GM positions, namely Baltimore or Anaheim. Given that he would be interviewing for a promotion, I doubt the Red Sox will stand in his way. I think they'd owe it to him after giving him the GM role twice only to take it back from him. So you risk losing Theo AND Cherington within a year. It's a possibility that with Theo saying he won't be back that Cherington will sit patiently and wait for another season, but its also possible that he wants to make his next career move sooner rather than later, and if that's the case he's gone this offseason most likely.

So, on one side you gain $7 million, keep Cherington and get a mid level prospect from the Cubs. On the other you lose $7 million, possibly lose Cherington and get no compensation for Theo. Is that worth taking a hard stance based on principle?

I don't mind if the only thing we give up is McNutt and cash, that is fine. But I trust Ricketts' judgement in the matter, and the fact is, we have no idea what the Red Sox are really asking. If Kraplan is right about the Red Sox offer still being insane, its much more than McNutt and cash.

First to get something out of the way, the Sox would still have to allow Cherrington to interview with another team, as anyone under contract has to get permission for. The chances of them doing this would be remote as I had mentioned before hes going to be the Sox GM, regardless. The Guillen comparison is actually I think spot on, because of two issues.

1)This is a "promotion" but its not...Theo will still be doing the same job duties as he has since 2006. This was taken care of when Lucchino was moved over to more of the business side of the house, and Theo was given virtual control over the Baseball side of the house.

2)Teams control their employees regardless of if it will be a promotion or not. I used an example in my post about Dan Jennings and Al Aliva as examples, they can absolutely block someone from taking a job elsewhere. Now the Red Sox usually do not do this, however since Epstein is running the department (Baseball Ops) they view this move as a lateral one, this is why they asked for compensation. If they laid this out for the Cubbies on the front end then this is absolutely valid, once again none of us really know what either team is asking for. In fact here's the time line

-Heyman reports Sox prefer cash

-Kaplan comes out and says the Sox want prospects

...now after a bunch of back and forth we're at this point.

I wouldn't rule out Larry attempting to get every last dime out of the Cubbies, and if you are responsible for the overall business aspects of running a team, why wouldn't you? If you were the Sox and didn't at least ask for Garza then what is that saying to your fan base? You never know until you ask, as with everything in life. As I mentioned before the Sox would usually not stand in the way of a promotion, however like with Chris Antonelli in Cleveland he turned down loads of interviews since he knew that Shapiro would be moving up and he would be next in line. Cherrington knows that hes next in line, and if Epstein stays...hell they make him the Co-CEO and he doesn't have to deal with the day to day GM duties...hes Mark Shapiro in this scenario pretty much.

-I'm not sure about the Marlins "tampering" with Ozzie, however the fact that they were talking names like Mike Stanton last year tells me that this is probably BS, again I could be wrong but usually when tampering is involved, Selig gets involved (chuckle) or the offending team gives up compensation, however since this has been going on for 2 years now I would believe that its a trade...pure and simple.

-If you throw out Ozzie you still have...Chuck Tanner for an all star, Lou Piniella for a starting CF, and Billy Beane for a 3-5 prospect in the Sox system (Youkilis or someone else depending on who you actually believe)...so I would say the Ozzie comparison would actually strengthen the argument for the Cubs faithful as opposed to the other 3. Someone who runs baseball operations and will bring a staff such as Byrnes and others with him (they'll let him bring 1 or 2 people, probably Baird too) is much more valuable than what a manager can bring to the table, as that person is responsible for the health of the entire system, the manager effects the major league product. The GM is the one who can put people into spots in the minors and develop the entire system from the ground up. Much more valuable, and the impact shows on the field.

Hope I answered your questions...

Hairyducked Idiot · October 18, 2011

Now that others have convinced me McNutt is better than I realized (sue me, I don't always keep up with the minors), then I'd have to say McNutt + $3.5 million is still too much, unless Epstein is getting to bring several key pieces with him. Even then, I'm not sure I'd do it.

XZero771679666304 · October 18, 2011

The title and the pay rate are what matters. Having "virtual" control is not having official control.

It IS a promotion.

Mr.X · October 18, 2011

The Sox have leverage due to the fact that Epstein is their property.

Dred Scott is no longer the law, sir.

If he wasn't under their control then he would be a free agent and wouldn't need permission from the Sox to interview. My point stands, if the Sox allowed Theo to interview under the premise that they would be compensated then why should this come as a surprise to anyone?

It's not a surprise to anyone. The Cubs offering to pick up his $3.5 million conclusion bonus is compensation.

What's surprising here is that the Red Sox are actually, possibly dumb enough to think that by leaking the Epstein news, they can somehow pressure Ricketts into giving up insane value.

Epstein is a nice GM that I'd be excited to have. I had him listed fourth in my "awesome pile" of potential GMs. But that's also all he is: one of a pile. If the Cubs don't get him, they could do just as well picking from the large pile of saber-savvy, young, well-educated, driven executives out there. Some have more experience and track record, some don't, but personally I don't think that matters. The marginal value of Epstein, the difference between Epstein and the next-best pick, is not huge.

We talked earlier in the thread about the value of prospects who are nearing the major leagues. It's pretty big, something in the low 8 figures. If the Cubs have a choice between Epstein minus a near-ready prospect and another GM from the awesome pile while keeping the near-ready prospect, then they'd be fools to take the former choice.

So as far as I can see, there's no incentive for the Cubs to give the Red Sox any significant compensation. The only reason anyone can come up with why they would is the idea that Cubs fans are somehow going to pressure Ricketts into doing it because we are so orgasmic at the idea of Epstein. That's asinine, and it's a theory that could only be advanced by fools and people who are very far removed from the pulse of Cubs fans. We don't want an owner who caves in negotiations and overpays for things that he wants. Owners who insist on paying whatever it takes to get things they want saddled us with the Soriano contract.

And even if we believe that the pressure to pay up for Epstein is being exerted by Cubs fans, only someone who hasn't actually been paying attention to Ricketts would think that would work. When Ricketts bought the team, the immediate pressure was to be a Mark Cuban-style owner who would ride into town and start throwing around piles of money to make the team competitive. Instead, he froze payroll and put all the extra money into the draft. The next thing everyone wanted to see him do was fire Hendry, and he waited over a year. Then, when he finally did, he didn't tell anyone for a month (and that's how I know these leaks about Epstein didn't start with the Cubs). Many Cubs fans were furious that the team didn't hire Sandberg, and he didn't care. Ricketts is not going to cave to imaginary fan pressure, even if it were to become real.

So even if we ignore the absurd assertion that the Red Sox somehow benefit from threatening to throw $6.5 million into a pile and burn it, even if we put aside the damage to their reputation it does for other potential executives to see what sort of an organization the Red Sox are (one that will hold you back if they feel like it), then just looking at it from a Cubs perspective, it makes no sense to be giving anything significant in compensation. If the Red Sox are that determined to burn their pile of money, and if they were so crazy and stupid as to ask for Garza with a straight face, then I'm perfectly happy to see the Cubs move on to the next choice.

I assume that you have never had to be apart of a negotiation, Garza is the high point, they knew they wouldn't get him, again you absolutely have to ask though. Think about this, and I think this is what is lost in all this...if your GM won two world series and built up a player development system that was responsible for a core group of players, and was used to grab multiple players in trades...would you sell that for 3.5 million? Both fan bases have a lot of broad ideas...some of them are foolish, but I'm fairly certain the Cubs knew the Sox were going to ask for prospects, otherwise they wouldn't have wasted their time in asking for permission and agreeing to a deal with Theo.

Mr.X · October 18, 2011

The title and the pay rate are what matters. Having "virtual" control is not having official control.

It IS a promotion.

Its a promotion in title, not however in duties and role, that is where the disconnect is coming in. If he had his original duties back when he was first hired then there would be no absolute grey area in this matter, it can be argued.

XZero771679666304 · October 18, 2011

Now that others have convinced me McNutt is better than I realized (sue me, I don't always keep up with the minors), then I'd have to say McNutt + $3.5 million is still too much, unless Epstein is getting to bring several key pieces with him. Even then, I'm not sure I'd do it.

The part of this that I'm thinking about is that Epstein will likely rope in Byrnes, and possibly bring a lower level guy or two with him. Would guys like Hahn/Coppolella/etc. be able to attract or draw in top supporting talent like Theo would? I'm not sure, and it's definitely a factor.

Butterscup1679666578 · October 18, 2011

I have to say I'm not sold on McNutt. I don't want to give him up, but he came out of nowhere and regressed a bit (somewhat due to injury, given). I think it's just as likely he drops back off the map as becomes a middle of the rotation starter.

I applaud Ricketts for taking the hard line, but if we end up with Hahn/Coppolella/etc. when we could have had Theo, Byrnes and Co. because Ricketts wouldn't include Trey McNutt...well I don't think that could be looked at as a good or justified outcome.

Not a disaster by any means, but not something that would sit well with me at all.

This is kind of where I'm at. I'm pretty much all-in on Theo. Do I want to give up McNutt for him? Absolutely not, but if it's going to keep us from getting Theo, I don't feel like it's worth losing out on him for a pitcher like McNutt (who could end up being a very good 2/3 starter, but isn't a guarantee).

Same here, but I doubt the Red Sox are just asking for McNutt and cash right now. If it was just that I think this would be done.

You're right. I guess I just wonder what else they could be asking for if McNutt is the key focal point of this. It's all irritating and waiting another week for some resolution would suck.

Mr.X · October 18, 2011

Now that others have convinced me McNutt is better than I realized (sue me, I don't always keep up with the minors), then I'd have to say McNutt + $3.5 million is still too much, unless Epstein is getting to bring several key pieces with him. Even then, I'm not sure I'd do it.

The part of this that I'm thinking about is that Epstein will likely rope in Byrnes, and possibly bring a lower level guy or two with him. Would guys like Hahn/Coppolella/etc. be able to attract or draw in top supporting talent like Theo would? I'm not sure, and it's definitely a factor.

I don't think this would be a factor, consider the fact that a guy like Levine has done a tremendous job in Texas learning from Daniels and John Hart. That is the guy I go after, I think the big thing with Theo is that he knows how to build a proven winner and can handle the media pressure, I'll tell ya, he won't make a big deal just for the sake of making one or how much the radio callers bitch. That's a huge quality I think a lot of GM's or prospective ones do not have.

Exile on Waveland · October 18, 2011

No, you absolutely do not have to ask for Garza. It's ridiculous and the Sox know it. That's not playing hardball, it's being deliberately obtuse. That's not how professionals negotiate; it's how children negotiate.

XZero771679666304 · October 18, 2011

The title and the pay rate are what matters. Having "virtual" control is not having official control.

It IS a promotion.

Its a promotion in title, not however in duties and role, that is where the disconnect is coming in. If he had his original duties back when he was first hired then there would be no absolute grey area in this matter, it can be argued.

This isn't a virtual argument. MLB will look at it as a promotion, and that is all that matters in that regard. I could be assistant VP at a company and doing all the heavy lifting for my boss, but that doesn't confer to me the same status as he has, nor would it make a VP position at another company not a promotion.

In Chicago, Theo would be sole President of Baseball Ops, and get a raise. To argue that it could be legally construed that he has the same position in Boston because Lucchino lets him do his work and that the Chicago job is not actually a promotion is utterly ludicrous.

Hairyducked Idiot · October 18, 2011

I assume that you have never had to be apart of a negotiation, Garza is the high point, they knew they wouldn't get him, again you absolutely have to ask though. Think about this, and I think this is what is lost in all this...if your GM won two world series and built up a player development system that was responsible for a core group of players, and was used to grab multiple players in trades...would you sell that for 3.5 million? Both fan bases have a lot of broad ideas...some of them are foolish, but I'm fairly certain the Cubs knew the Sox were going to ask for prospects, otherwise they wouldn't have wasted their time in asking for permission and agreeing to a deal with Theo.

Would I sell the GM for $3.5 million? Depends on the situation. If he wanted to leave, had a year left on his contract, and would cost me an extra $3 million to keep (beyond forfeiting the $3 million I was being offered), then yes, I probably would.

Negotiation does not mean being insulting.

The Cubs presumably didn't open with Epstein + Ellsbury for $3.5 million.

Edited October 18, 2011 by Hairyducked Idiot

October 18, 2011

There is such a thing as negotiating in good faith. No one's going to offer Pujols 50k/year as a starting point. Likewise, it's borderline insulting to reach the point that this situation has reached(asking and receiving permission, offer accepted with Cubs handling his salary+bonuses, Cherington seemingly promoted, all with the understanding that Theo is not in Boston long term and will be owed 6.5 million for 2012) and then to ask for something as stupid as Garza under the guise of "well you can't blame them for trying" or "that's negotiation".

Mr.X · October 18, 2011

No, you absolutely do not have to ask for Garza. It's ridiculous and the Sox know it. That's not playing hardball, it's being deliberately obtuse. That's not how professionals negotiate; it's how children negotiate.

You start high and you work your way down, by asking for a Low A ball player with no ceiling in return, you're making the Cubs fan base do handstands, and probably leaving something on the table. I have to negotiate contracts every day...it can be annoying as hell but people understand parameters before speaking and then you work your way to a middle ground in which both parties can agree to.

Hairyducked Idiot · October 18, 2011

No, you absolutely do not have to ask for Garza. It's ridiculous and the Sox know it. That's not playing hardball, it's being deliberately obtuse. That's not how professionals negotiate; it's how children negotiate.

You start high and you work your way down, by asking for a Low A ball player with no ceiling in return, you're making the Cubs fan base do handstands, and probably leaving something on the table. I have to negotiate contracts every day...it can be annoying as hell but people understand parameters before speaking and then you work your way to a middle ground in which both parties can agree to.

I'd like to procure from you an invitation to the SoSH main board. I'm going to start the negotiations by asking for you to also include your wife.

Just startin' high.

Re: New GM/Cubs Future News Articles

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Member Statistics

Prospect News & Highlights

Recent News

Notes & Rumors

Recent Blogs