Re: New GM/Cubs Future News Articles

[XZero771679666304]

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.

 

I really don't have a problem with them asking. They had to know they had no chance in hell of actually getting him, and you should start with a really high asking price in a negotiation, just as the Cubs should have started low.

 

The issue here is where each side perceives the middle ground to be.

[Rob]

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.

 

Thank you for not only taking the time to come in and express your opinion, but also for doing it in such a well thought out manner. I almost hate to tell you that one of the central tenets of your argument is incomplete.

 

You admit that the Cubs have at least some degree of leverage purely from a PR standpoint (you may even ascribe more leverage to that angle than I do). You admit that the Cubs have some leverage simply because there are other options. But you have completely omitted the single most important piece of leverage the Cubs have.

 

Money.

 

More precisely, the Red Sox are on the hook for somewhere in the realm of $6,500,000 if this deal falls through, due to the nature of his Theo's contract and the conclusion bonus. Yeah, the Red Sox can afford to eat that, but try thinking of it another way. That's what, 3-5 excellent superslots in the draft? More?

 

The Cubs are basically already offering the equivalent of about 1/3 ~ 1/4 of your draft budget next year. You could bring Theo back, but you'd lose far more than most I've seen at SoSH are willing to admit.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

*tries to recall something he said earlier about Machiavellian foolishness and something someone said on BBTF about Gordan Gekko fantasies.*

 

I don't recall, but it was really clever. Anyway, just saying it's "negotiation" is still a silly argument.

[Mr.X]

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.

 

Well it gets a pulse on the situation, I never said that I would expect the Cubs for it...but you can't fault the Sox for trying. As far as negotiating in good faith, we are all getting 2nd 3rd and 10th hand information from beat writers that ironically enough neither city respects. Truth is once again if you are not in the room for these talks then we all truly do not know what is going on. McNutt may not even be on the table, so lets wait and see.

[MSG T]

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 agree, but in this case McNutt or B. Jackson is starting high. Starting at Garza is stupid.

[SouthSideRyan]

He later said it wasn't actually his son but his stepson

 

Makes sense, no woman would want to have sex with him.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Well it gets a pulse on the situation, I never said that I would expect the Cubs for it...but you can't fault the Sox for trying.

 

Sure I can fault them. I just did, and I intend to continue doing so for several more pages and anytime the subject comes up again in the future.

 

 

As far as negotiating in good faith, we are all getting 2nd 3rd and 10th hand information from beat writers that ironically enough neither city respects. Truth is once again if you are not in the room for these talks then we all truly do not know what is going on. McNutt may not even be on the table, so lets wait and see.

 

Okay, stipulated. Given that, the proper thing to do would be to stop talking about it at all because we have no real information to discuss.

 

That's boring, though, so I'm going to pretend like the information we have is at least worth discussing.

[UMFan83]

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...

 

First of don't ever call them the Cubbies. Most Cubs fans hate that. The Sox and Marlins were talking about Stanton last year when Ozzie still had 2 years left on his deal and the Sox had no reason to let him go. The alleged tampering was obviously not something that was public knowledge at the time, and the compensation was offered to ignore any instances of tampering and so that the Sox did not look further into it. The fact that there were reports of Ozzie getting a 4 year deal from the marlins circulating at the exact same time Ozzie was meeting to discuss his status tells me that there was tampering.

 

In all of those other examples you mention (including Ozzie), you are talking about managers leaving to become managers. Regardless of what Theo's roles are compared to Boston, this is a promotion that comes with a better title, less people to report to and challenge his decisions, and oh yeah a hefty pay raise. There is no precedent for this situation, so the Sox and Cubs are essentially setting the market for this, despite the fact that the Cubs have already "given" the Red Sox 3.5 million to pay for the contract temination or whatever it is that the Red Sox would have to pay next year. It can be argued that the Cubs shouldn't have to give Boston any other compensation, but the Cubs none the less have agreed to compensate the Red Sox further.

 

I understand that the Red Sox can say no to teams asking about Cherington, but you are not really addressing my points. First of all, Henry went on the radio 10 days ago and said it is their position that they do not stand in the way of teams interviewing their employees when a promotion is on the table. It stands to reason that Cherington would not be exempt from that as well regardless of the state the Sox are in, assuming they are not giving him the GM position because Theo comes back. You mention examples of other teams but the only thing we "know" about the Red Sox stance is what Henry said on the radio the other day. If Theo comes back, you are talking about a guy who twice has been given the GM role and had it taken away from him shortly after. You cannot presume to know how he feels about that or whether he is willing to wait another year to have a shot at the GM position. It's not unreasonable to say that he could very well pursue the same position in another organization this offseason.

[Exile on Waveland]

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.

 

Starting high is one thing. That's why you ask for, say, Brett Jackson. Starting absurdly, irrationally high is another thing. Doing that garners no benefit and often leads to anger and intransigence from the other party. The other side, which perhaps was very willing initially to give up Trey McNutt, may now be annoyed and want to give up Koyie Hill.

[UMFan83]

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.

 

There's a difference between starting negotiations by asking for something unreasonable and asking for something on the highest end of reasonable. Asking for a proven major league #2 starter on a cheap contract is unreasonable and is a rather odd way to set the tone for your negotiations.

[Mr.X]

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.

 

Thank you for not only taking the time to come in and express your opinion, but also for doing it in such a well thought out manner. I almost hate to tell you that one of the central tenets of your argument is incomplete.

 

You admit that the Cubs have at least some degree of leverage purely from a PR standpoint (you may even ascribe more leverage to that angle than I do). You admit that the Cubs have some leverage simply because there are other options. But you have completely omitted the single most important piece of leverage the Cubs have.

 

Money.

 

More precisely, the Red Sox are on the hook for somewhere in the realm of $6,500,000 if this deal falls through, due to the nature of his Theo's contract and the conclusion bonus. Yeah, the Red Sox can afford to eat that, but try thinking of it another way. That's what, 3-5 excellent superslots in the draft? More?

 

The Cubs are basically already offering the equivalent of about 1/3 ~ 1/4 of your draft budget next year. You could bring Theo back, but you'd lose far more than most I've seen at SoSH are willing to admit.

 

Ha, problem is when I was doing P.R. I had my ex as my copy writer...she always caught my errors :). The PR Standpoint? Well lets see...they have been getting roasted to a degree to say the least in the media. No matter what they do it probably couldn't make it any worse.

 

I'm not necessarily trying to discount the 6.5 million dollars, however JWH owns a racing team and liverpool, so it comes in this situation that I don't think 6.5 million is a huge loss. Especially since they've eaten more just to get rid of Renteria and Lugo. I think they would be fine, obviously though its better to gain 6.5 million then lose it, that's just good business, however if one or two of those players turn into 4 million dollar a year players then you make your profit back. That's just my opinion in the matter. I don't lie to get my point across and I try not to pull punches, I think both teams are in a rare situation in which no matter the outcome they could both win, or they could both lose. I personally don't think its lose lose for either side if this doesn't get done.

[treebird]

He later said it wasn't actually his son but his stepson

 

Makes sense, no woman would want to have sex with him.

 

on the other hand the fact that he has a step son suggests that he may have a wife, which is horrifying. just when i think we're making inroads against human trafficking, this comes out.

[SouthSideRyan]

 

I would disagree with this as both guys were pretty well thought of before a setback this year, McNutt had a similar set back this year as well. If he had progressed then I would absolutely be in agreement with you. Like I said I'm not hoping for the guy by any means, however McNutt would be proper compensation. I don't know how you can say that both guys are less valuable than McNutt after all 3 didn't really do that well this year. Kind of a bold statement, no?

 

McNutt was a top 50 prospect according to BA. The Marlins prospects didn't crack the top 100.

[Mr.X]

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 agree, but in this case McNutt or B. Jackson is starting high. Starting at Garza is stupid.

 

Jackson is high, McNutt is a pitcher who was drafted after the 30th or so round, came out of nowhere and regressed. I think again this type of player is fair compensation. If Hendry had the opportunity to include him over Archer for Garza then well...that's why he isn't the GM anymore. Plus I've met Hendry before...not a fan...although JP Riccardi is the biggest ahole I've met in the industry.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

 

I'm not necessarily trying to discount the 6.5 million dollars, however JWH owns a racing team and liverpool, so it comes in this situation that I don't think 6.5 million is a huge loss. Especially since they've eaten more just to get rid of Renteria and Lugo. I think they would be fine, obviously though its better to gain 6.5 million then lose it, that's just good business, however if one or two of those players turn into 4 million dollar a year players then you make your profit back. That's just my opinion in the matter. I don't lie to get my point across and I try not to pull punches, I think both teams are in a rare situation in which no matter the outcome they could both win, or they could both lose. I personally don't think its lose lose for either side if this doesn't get done.

 

There's a vast difference between eating a sunk cost and entering into a new cost.

 

The Red Sox aren't paying $6.5 million to get the prospects. They are threatening to burn their own $6.5 million if they don't get the prospects. That's also a vast difference.

[treebird]

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 agree, but in this case McNutt or B. Jackson is starting high. Starting at Garza is stupid.

 

Jackson is high, McNutt is a pitcher who was drafted after the 30th or so round, came out of nowhere and regressed. I think again this type of player is fair compensation. If Hendry had the opportunity to include him over Archer for Garza then well...that's why he isn't the GM anymore. Plus I've met Hendry before...not a fan...although JP Riccardi is the biggest ahole I've met in the industry.

 

you are literally the first person i have ever heard of who has met hendry and didnt say he was incredibly nice

[Guest]

I'm not necessarily trying to discount the 6.5 million dollars, however JWH owns a racing team and liverpool, so it comes in this situation that I don't think 6.5 million is a huge loss. Especially since they've eaten more just to get rid of Renteria and Lugo. I think they would be fine, obviously though its better to gain 6.5 million then lose it, that's just good business, however if one or two of those players turn into 4 million dollar a year players then you make your profit back.

 

It's not an either/or situation though. If Theo stays, they eat 6.5 million dollars on angry Theo and get nothing from the Cubs. The Cubs are willing to assume the 6.5 million, and the Sox are still(allegedly, whatever) making demands over players as compensation.

[minnesotacubsfan]

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 agree, but in this case McNutt or B. Jackson is starting high. Starting at Garza is stupid.

 

Jackson is high, McNutt is a pitcher who was drafted after the 30th or so round, came out of nowhere and regressed. I think again this type of player is fair compensation. If Hendry had the opportunity to include him over Archer for Garza then well...that's why he isn't the GM anymore. Plus I've met Hendry before...not a fan...although JP Riccardi is the biggest ahole I've met in the industry.

 

you are literally the first person i have ever heard of who has met hendry and didnt say he was incredibly nice

 

and the first to ever make the claim that he has made bad trade decisions.

 

oh wait

[Mr.X]

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...

 

First of don't ever call them the Cubbies. Most Cubs fans hate that. The Sox and Marlins were talking about Stanton last year when Ozzie still had 2 years left on his deal and the Sox had no reason to let him go. The alleged tampering was obviously not something that was public knowledge at the time, and the compensation was offered to ignore any instances of tampering and so that the Sox did not look further into it. The fact that there were reports of Ozzie getting a 4 year deal from the marlins circulating at the exact same time Ozzie was meeting to discuss his status tells me that there was tampering.

 

In all of those other examples you mention (including Ozzie), you are talking about managers leaving to become managers. Regardless of what Theo's roles are compared to Boston, this is a promotion that comes with a better title, less people to report to and challenge his decisions, and oh yeah a hefty pay raise. There is no precedent for this situation, so the Sox and Cubs are essentially setting the market for this, despite the fact that the Cubs have already "given" the Red Sox 3.5 million to pay for the contract temination or whatever it is that the Red Sox would have to pay next year. It can be argued that the Cubs shouldn't have to give Boston any other compensation, but the Cubs none the less have agreed to compensate the Red Sox further.

 

I understand that the Red Sox can say no to teams asking about Cherington, but you are not really addressing my points. First of all, Henry went on the radio 10 days ago and said it is their position that they do not stand in the way of teams interviewing their employees when a promotion is on the table. It stands to reason that Cherington would not be exempt from that as well regardless of the state the Sox are in, assuming they are not giving him the GM position because Theo comes back. You mention examples of other teams but the only thing we "know" about the Red Sox stance is what Henry said on the radio the other day. If Theo comes back, you are talking about a guy who twice has been given the GM role and had it taken away from him shortly after. You cannot presume to know how he feels about that or whether he is willing to wait another year to have a shot at the GM position. It's not unreasonable to say that he could very well pursue the same position in another organization this offseason.

 

Okay fine...THE CUBS...this is true what Henry said, however logic would dictate that if they have something in Cherrington's contract that says "GM in waiting" he would stay. I don't attempt to presume anything except that if the Cubs KNEW about what it would take (IE Players) then they shouldn't complain about it, which I'm not saying that they are at all. If the stipulation ahead of time was players then your argument about the Cubs doing this out of the kindness of their hearts is baseless.

 

The Title comes with the same role though, not just one or two more duties but its the same role, unless he hires Byrnes or another "GM" to oversee the duties after all of this. Again though, this is not the Sox problem...the problem is obviously figuring out fair compensation for an employee that would like to move on. I do think your feelings on Theo is a valid concern, but at the same time you're ignoring my point about that the Sox could just throw more money at him, make him Co-CEO or something of that nature and just promote Cherrington similar to an Antonelli/Shapiro deal.

[XZero771679666304]

The fact that this is such a high profile issue and next to no actual news is leaking out is pretty astounding.

 

It's also keeping me a prisoner to my computer.

[KingKongvs.Godzilla]

That Robble Robble Gimme post is hilarious.

 

Once again I'm going to say the magic words to make this deal hurry up:

 

This Theo Epstein to the Cubs sounds alot like Billy Beane to the Red Sox.

 

Expect it done tomorrow.

[Mr.X]

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.

 

Starting high is one thing. That's why you ask for, say, Brett Jackson. Starting absurdly, irrationally high is another thing. Doing that garners no benefit and often leads to anger and intransigence from the other party. The other side, which perhaps was very willing initially to give up Trey McNutt, may now be annoyed and want to give up Koyie Hill.

 

But cooler heads prevail and you give up something in the middle that both parties can be amicable to doing.

[Mr.X]

 

I would disagree with this as both guys were pretty well thought of before a setback this year, McNutt had a similar set back this year as well. If he had progressed then I would absolutely be in agreement with you. Like I said I'm not hoping for the guy by any means, however McNutt would be proper compensation. I don't know how you can say that both guys are less valuable than McNutt after all 3 didn't really do that well this year. Kind of a bold statement, no?

 

McNutt was a top 50 prospect according to BA. The Marlins prospects didn't crack the top 100.

 

They were close to that, the issue I had was with the combined remark...never did I say McNutt wasn't more valuable than either one.

[dew1679666265]

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 agree, but in this case McNutt or B. Jackson is starting high. Starting at Garza is stupid.

 

Jackson is high, McNutt is a pitcher who was drafted after the 30th or so round, came out of nowhere and regressed. I think again this type of player is fair compensation. If Hendry had the opportunity to include him over Archer for Garza then well...that's why he isn't the GM anymore. Plus I've met Hendry before...not a fan...although JP Riccardi is the biggest ahole I've met in the industry.

 

you are literally the first person i have ever heard of who has met hendry and didnt say he was incredibly nice

 

That was the first thought I had when I read his post. I've never heard anything negative about Hendry's personality before that post.

[Exile on Waveland]

Why start with hotter heads?

 

Anyway, what I really want answered is if the Red Sox should initially have asked for Wrigley Field as compensation?