Re: New GM/Cubs Future News Articles

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Not every organizational hierarchy is the same. We can make up all kinds of titles and consider them "promotions" compared to other teams. This is highly subjective.

 

Being at the top or not being at the top is pretty binary and not hard to measure across diverse hierarchies.

[Guest]

the question here is are the cubs inventing a position that's not really a promotion, but sounds like a promotion for the sake of calling it a promotion?

 

Theo isn't interested for no reason

 

 

Can't he just be interested because he wants to get away from the lunacy in Boston, make a lot more money, and take on a new challenge?

 

Part of the lunacy is meddling from President and Owner, things Ricketts has explicitly said will not be the case, partially as a result of the org structure(reporting only to Ricketts, etc).

[Magnetic Curses]

And the answer is clearly no. Epstein reports to someone who reports to the owner right now. He will not under the Cubs.

 

but his job duties will remain pretty much the same. boston could argue that ricketts is essentially the team president AND owner.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

And the answer is clearly no. Epstein reports to someone who reports to the owner right now. He will not under the Cubs.

 

but his job duties will remain pretty much the same. boston could argue that ricketts is essentially the team president AND owner.

 

And I could argue that Fenway Park is essentially a sewage factory. That argument won't get me very far, because it isn't true.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

And the answer is clearly no. Epstein reports to someone who reports to the owner right now. He will not under the Cubs.

 

but his job duties will remain pretty much the same. boston could argue that ricketts is essentially the team president AND owner.

That argument would be almost as ridiculous as someone arguing that Brandon Marshall is better than Megatron.

[Magnetic Curses]

And the answer is clearly no. Epstein reports to someone who reports to the owner right now. He will not under the Cubs.

 

but his job duties will remain pretty much the same. boston could argue that ricketts is essentially the team president AND owner.

 

And I could argue that Fenway Park is essentially a sewage factory. That argument won't get me very far, because it isn't true.

 

now that's just silly.

[Magnetic Curses]

And the answer is clearly no. Epstein reports to someone who reports to the owner right now. He will not under the Cubs.

 

but his job duties will remain pretty much the same. boston could argue that ricketts is essentially the team president AND owner.

That argument would be almost as ridiculous as someone arguing that Brandon Marshall is better than Megatron.

 

somebody's a cranky ginger today.

[davearm2]

 

Theo was allowed to interview with the Cubs in the first place because the Red Sox were persuaded by Ricketts that the Cubs were offering a promotion.

 

In no way, shape, or form does promotion = no compensation. Both the Cubs and the Red Sox have understood all along that compensation is required, and I think everyone here understands that as well.

 

 

Typically, promotion absolutely does = no compensation.

 

Whether this is really a clear cut promotion is highly questionable, though.

It was clear to everyone involved that compensation was going to be required.

 

That's why all of this talk of "is it a promotion or isn't it" is a colossal waste of time.

 

What that compensation will be is not tied to if it's a promotion, how big a promotion, or anything related to the job title, responsibilities, etc. etc.

 

The compensation is tied to what will make the Red Sox okay with releasing their asset from his contract.

[Guest]

Would you guys or would you not agree that this "promotion" wouldn't be clear cut in nature in the way that assitant GM to GM would be?

[Tracer Bullet]

Now we're arguing whether having a person between you and the owner is different than not?

 

Just hire someone, anyone to end this madness.

[Magnetic Curses]

i still don't think it's a clear-cut promotion. ricketts is very involved with the team and i'm sure will continue to be, the things he says about keeping out of the way remain to be seen, which is fine by me, i like him.

 

theo will be performing the exact same duties with the cubs, it's just that he technically reports to one person who reports to his ownership group.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Would you guys or would you not agree that this "promotion" wouldn't be clear cut in nature in the way that assitant GM to GM would be?

 

It's not as large of a promotion. But whether or not it is on the right side of some imaginary "promotion/not a promotion" line is not reasonably in question.

[Tracer Bullet]

Would you guys or would you not agree that this "promotion" wouldn't be clear cut in nature in the way that assitant GM to GM would be?

 

I don't know which answer is which, but this is a clear cut promotion. He would answer to no one but the owner. That's higher than answering to someone other than the owner.

[jersey cubs fan]

i still don't think it's a clear-cut promotion. ricketts is very involved with the team and i'm sure will continue to be, the things he says about keeping out of the way remain to be seen, which is fine by me, i like him.

 

I have no idea how you could possibly say that.

[Tracer Bullet]

i still don't think it's a clear-cut promotion. ricketts is very involved with the team and i'm sure will continue to be, the things he says about keeping out of the way remain to be seen, which is fine by me, i like him.

 

theo will be performing the exact same duties with the cubs, it's just that he technically reports to one person who reports to his ownership group.

Tom's title is still owner. The fact that Theo would answer to one owner rather than the family of owners is irrelevant to the promotion question.

[MSG T]

Would you guys or would you not agree that this "promotion" wouldn't be clear cut in nature in the way that assitant GM to GM would be?

 

It depends.

 

I haven't seen a job description for either his current duties with the Red Sox or his future duties with the Cubs. If he has broader powers with the Cubs than he currently does with the Red Sox, it is most certainly as clear cut as moving from AGM to GM. I'm guessing no one here, on either side of this issue, has any idea how his duties are changing or remaining the same. From allusions made by both sides, it leads me to believe this is, in fact, a true promotion, with increased powers over what he currently has. However, until this comes to a conclusion and he starts working for the Cubs, I'm not sure anyone will really know.

[davearm2]

Would you guys or would you not agree that this "promotion" wouldn't be clear cut in nature in the way that assitant GM to GM would be?

 

It's not as large of a promotion. But whether or not it is on the right side of some imaginary "promotion/not a promotion" line is not reasonably in question.

Nor is it relevant.

[KingKongvs.Godzilla]

140 pages since I was told that Theo Epstein would be coming to the Cubs. Jeebus...at least there's time before FA.

[Guest]

 

Theo was allowed to interview with the Cubs in the first place because the Red Sox were persuaded by Ricketts that the Cubs were offering a promotion.

 

In no way, shape, or form does promotion = no compensation. Both the Cubs and the Red Sox have understood all along that compensation is required, and I think everyone here understands that as well.

 

 

Typically, promotion absolutely does = no compensation.

 

Whether this is really a clear cut promotion is highly questionable, though.

It was clear to everyone involved that compensation was going to be required.

 

That's why all of this talk of "is it a promotion or isn't it" is a colossal waste of time.

 

What that compensation will be is not tied to if it's a promotion, how big a promotion, or anything related to the job title, responsibilities, etc. etc.

 

The compensation is tied to what will make the Red Sox okay with releasing their asset from his contract.

This is correct. However, it doesn't mean that the Red Sox should get a way with robbery.

 

To me, most of the argument boils down to, the Red Sox let Theo interview for a bigger, better job so they have to let him go; that's just not the case. The second issue is that people seem to think one side or the other has mythical leverage. They don't. Both stand to lose greatly if this thing breaks down. Boston is in a no win situation, so they have nothing to lose.

 

This will ultimately be decided by the Ricketts family based on how much they are willing to give up to get Theo.

[Guest]

i still don't think it's a clear-cut promotion. ricketts is very involved with the team and i'm sure will continue to be, the things he says about keeping out of the way remain to be seen, which is fine by me, i like him.

 

theo will be performing the exact same duties with the cubs, it's just that he technically reports to one person who reports to his ownership group.

 

I agree.

 

The job description is essentially the same, regardless of who is above you.

 

This argument is like saying that going from GM of a team with one clear majority owner acting as CEO to being President of the Cubs in the Tribune-era would be a demotion because he'd have a whole bunch more levels on the organizational tree above him.

 

Whether it's a promotion or not is more about his actual job description/responsibilities than anything else - and I'll admit right now that that is also up for debate and not clear cut. It's just my opinion on it.

[Guest]

Clearly the disconnect here lies in the fact that some of us view the level of the job based on the title and the level thereof and some of us weigh the job description/responsibilities more heavily.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Clearly the disconnect here lies in the fact that some of us view the level of the job based on the title and the level thereof and some of us weigh the job description/responsibilities more heavily.

 

Both matter. An increase in either qualifies as a promotion. Think of non-promotion as the recessive gene.

[Guest]

Clearly the disconnect here lies in the fact that some of us view the level of the job based on the title and the level thereof and some of us weigh the job description/responsibilities more heavily.

 

And it's not irrelevant because of the precedent. For lateral moves, you have stuff like Randy Winn or the two Florida prospects going back in return. For promotions, you have Andy MacPhail going for a random A baller. Plus in this case you have the Cubs taking on a significant financial obligation for Theo that they don't have to.

[SouthSideRyan]

Not every organizational hierarchy is the same. We can make up all kinds of titles and consider them "promotions" compared to other teams. This is highly subjective.

 

How is there not a difference between being 2nd in command and 3rd in command?

[Guest]

Clearly the disconnect here lies in the fact that some of us view the level of the job based on the title and the level thereof and some of us weigh the job description/responsibilities more heavily.

 

Both matter. An increase in either qualifies as a promotion. Think of non-promotion as the recessive gene.

 

 

I have no problem viewing it as a legit promotion. I'm just saying that I see a gray area that gives Boston an opening to at least attempt to argue that it isn't really one of much substance.

Edited October 18, 2011 by David