Re: New GM/Cubs Future News Articles

[Tracer Bullet]

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.

It's more than a title. I don't care what his title is. If you answer to someone other than the owner, your power is more limited than someone who answers to the owner.

[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.

 

 

I have no problem viewing it as a 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.

 

And I see a black-and-white area that allows me (well, Ricketts) to slap that argument down like it doesn't even matter.

[SouthSideRyan]

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.

 

The fact the would answer to one owner rather than one crazyface who reports to the owner(s) certainly is. relevant.

[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?

 

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.

Wouldn't want this thread to get side-tracked by discussions that aren't relevant.

[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 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.

 

And I see a black-and-white area that allows me (well, Ricketts) to slap that argument down like it doesn't even matter.

 

 

Either way, the use of precedent is not a clear-cut trump card. We can implore Boston to follow precedent all we want and they can continue to be Richards and demand the moon and see if we'll budge.

 

Hopefully we won't (and I don't expect us to).

[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.

 

The fact the would answer to one owner rather than one crazyface who reports to the owner(s) certainly is. relevant.

Sure. Having someone between you and the owner is less desirable than not having that. Having the middle man be psychotic is presumably worse yet.

[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.

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.

 

The fact the would answer to one owner rather than one crazyface who reports to the owner(s) certainly is. relevant.

Sure. Having someone between you and the owner is less desirable than not having that. Having the middle man be psychotic is presumably worse yet.

I don't think he's psychotic, but he and the ownership group seem to be very vindictive.

[EpsteinCubs]

This has probably been mentioned but there is no way Jed Hoyer is leaving San Diego and taking a job demotion here. Hoyer is more than likely Ricketts' back-up option should these Theo talks break off. Josh Byrnes is probably a lock to come here though,

[Epsteenie]

This has probably been mentioned but there is no way Jed Hoyer is leaving San Diego and taking a job demotion here. Hoyer is more than likely Ricketts' back-up option should these Theo talks break off. Josh Byrnes is probably a lock to come here though,

 

That's a lot of speculation right there

[Guest]

This has probably been mentioned but there is no way Jed Hoyer is leaving San Diego and taking a job demotion here. Hoyer is more than likely Ricketts' back-up option should these Theo talks break off. Josh Byrnes is probably a lock to come here though,

 

 

That's what I thought. Some would have you believe that he'd rather work under his buddy Theo (who knows, he could be Gar Foreman to Theo's John Paxson here - which would suck because I want Theo to be handing the GM stuff) than be a GM in San Diego.

 

Either way, we'd run into the compensation thing all over again if we had to get a GM to be a GM or, somehow, a GM to be something less than GM.

[SouthSideRyan]

You know all these Theo related screen names are going to be hard to differentiate when it comes time to committing to memory what to make fun of people for.

[Scotti]

Of course you're wrong. Epstein signed a contract with the Red Sox to be their GM. He can't turn around and sue them for asking him to honor that contract.

 

The Sox also have a contractual obligation to Epstein--he is their GM. If they tried to make him the "co-GM" or demote him to scout or even "promote" him to Special Assistant to the President in Charge of Pencil Sharpening (or whatever) THEN he would have a contractual beef (and win in any court).

The specific language of the contract may or may not permit the Red Sox to reassign Epstein. We don't know.

 

I am positive that Theo didn't allow any "reassignment" language in his contract when he re-signed with them. Given the begging and pleading that the Rox had to go through to get him to come back I am positive that they didn't even try.

 

"Please, please, please come back--we promise to stay out of your way. And, oh, by the way--we want the right to demote you at any point during the contract without breaking it." That just did not happen.

 

Sans any such language, standard rules apply. He is signed to be GM and NOT Special Assistant to the President in Charge of Pencil Sharpening. The reason that guys like Ed Lynch take on such roles when they have years left on their contracts is that they can't get another MLB gig and being currently employed keeps them rubbing elbows with other orgs who may develop interest (out of sight, out of mind). If Lynch wanted to walk away from being Special Assistant to the GM in Charge of Pencil Sharpening for any other gig he could have done so.

 

But clearly that's not the situation we're in. The Sox have made no effort to get out of their contractual obligation to Epstein, so I'm not sure where you're going with this.

 

The "situation we're in" is one where the Red Sox are in a very goofy place if they keep Theo for next year:

 

They have moved on from Theo (Cherington). Their fanbase has moved on from Theo (and the fanbase knows Theo would rather be in Chicago). The Sox brass is trying to erase any real (and any imaginary) vibes from a team that crumbled worse than the '69 Cubs. Yet they are going to keep a guy running the show when their fans know his heart isn't in it??? No.

 

Theo has moved on from them. They would be preventing Theo from making significantly more money. They would be preventing him from taking on a job that he wants with a direct line to an owner that deeply respects him. And the Sox are somehow going to be "good" with Theo running the Baseball Operations during a very crucial year for their relationship with their fanbase??? No.

 

The first time that the Sox deviate from Theo's contract (setting up a "co-GM" or even having Larry micro-manage the Baseball Operations) then they are in breach because Theo would no longer be allowed to perform the duties of his contract. It works the same way for Theo--if he just doesn't show up then he is in breach. Generally the only way around that is retirement (and that is what he was doing the last time). That is why, if you fire a guy with a contract, you still owe him the money. You (the company) are in breach. That is why, if you quit with time left on your contract, you cannot go work a similar job somewhere else. You (the employee) would be in breach.

[Guest]

Either way, the use of precedent is not a clear-cut trump card. We can implore Boston to follow precedent all we want and they can continue to be Richards and demand the moon and see if we'll budge.

 

Hopefully we won't (and I don't expect us to).

 

Well yeah, Boston isn't obligated to be reasonable. The point is that there are people saying their actions aren't being unreasonable, which is why this has continued on for dozens of pages.

[Guest]

You know all these Theo related screen names are going to be hard to differentiate when it comes time to committing to memory what to make fun of people for.

 

And they're definitely gonna end up being made fun of.

[E.J.]

Holy hell this thread is hot garbage.

 

 

Sent from my MOTWX435KT using Tapatalk

[Guest]

Either way, the use of precedent is not a clear-cut trump card. We can implore Boston to follow precedent all we want and they can continue to be Richards and demand the moon and see if we'll budge.

 

Hopefully we won't (and I don't expect us to).

 

Well yeah, Boston isn't obligated to be reasonable. The point is that there are people saying their actions aren't being unreasonable, which is why this has continued on for dozens of pages.

 

 

I do think that Theo has a bit more value than your typical executive. There haven't really been rock star executives in the past (Beane - but he didn't end up taking the job) and in that sense this is somewhat unprecedented. His name has a lot of value to the Cubs, especially in terms of getting the fan base excited and in terms of getting Rahm excited.

[PrimeTime]

Roto and everyone is running with Heymans story

 

The Cubs are aiming to add current Padres GM Jed Hoyer to Theo Epstein's new front office.

 

Hoyer is considering the offer, according to SI.com's Jon Heyman. It'd be odd for him to leave his post at the top of the San Diego organization, but if the money's right he might just embrace the challenge. Epstein is sure to have a star-studded group of executives around him no matter what.

[BCVM22]

Holy hell this thread is hot garbage.

 

141 pages ago, I had nothing against the Red Sox.

[Guest]

Funny that amidst all this debate, the possibility is being presented that Hoyer might be willing to take a "demotion" to work in what he might consider a better situation for more money....

[mul21]

Holy hell this thread is hot garbage.

 

 

Sent from my MOTWX435KT using Tapatalk

 

I have no idea what the Tapatalk crap is, but I hate it more every time I see it. Make it stop!

[MSG T]

Holy hell this thread is hot garbage.

 

141 pages ago, I had nothing against the Red Sox.

 

I actually kind of liked them...141 pages ago.

[EpsteinCubs]

Another thing about Hoyer, won't the Padres be looking for compensation as well since his contract doesn't expire for awhile. So we'd have to go through this same process again for a guy who aren't even using as our general manager. I just don't see it happening. The only way Hoyer comes here is if the Theo talks fall through. Then Hoyer becomes our general manager. Edited October 18, 2011 by EpsteinCubs

[Guest]

Holy hell this thread is hot garbage.

 

 

Sent from my MOTWX435KT using Tapatalk

 

I have no idea what the Tapatalk crap is, but I hate it more every time I see it. Make it stop!

 

 

It's an app for smart phones that makes it way easier to browse/post on message boards.

 

From what I understand, it's awesome.

 

Not sure why every post needs to be tagged, though.

[circlecitycub]

Holy hell this thread is hot garbage.

 

141 pages ago, I had nothing against the Red Sox.

 

Yeah, there will probably be a little buzz of animosity during that series next June.

[Guest]

Another thing about Hoyer, won't the Padres be looking for compensation as well since his contract doesn't expire for awhile. So we'd have to go through this same process again for a guy who aren't even using as our general manager. I just don't see it happening. The only way Hoyer comes here is if the Theo talks fall through. Then Hoyer becomes our general manager.

 

GJ repeating what I just said while replying to you/quoting you.