Re: New GM/Cubs Future News Articles

[Sammy Sofa]

Well, you're apparently banking on there being no legal repercussions, no effect from the internal strife this would cause and no impact on what is likely going to be a major offseason for them. Other than that, yeah, there's little reason they could let this drag out!

The point is, dragging it out impacts the Cubs more. If the Cubs do not have a new GM in place by the end of the World Series, that's a major problem for them.

 

Ergo, leverage Red Sox.

 

Well, no, because the reports seem to be indicating that Ricketts has had overtures out there to multiple candidates, so if they want to move on they can and could almost certainly have the position filled by one of their other top picks by the end of the WS.

Which would hurt the Cubs more in the long run: losing one or two prospects they wanted to keep, or losing Epstein?

 

If you say the former, you're lying.

 

We're talking about the bigger picture of whether or not the Cubs need to give in to the Sox or let them drag this out or deal with the asinine suggestion of the "nuclear option." If the Sox go nuts and dig in their heels then the Cubs move on.

Edited October 15, 2011 by Sammy Sofa

[davearm2]

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

 

That's possible, but 100% speculative.

Which do you think would hurt most?

[Magnetic Curses]

Well, you're apparently banking on there being no legal repercussions, no effect from the internal strife this would cause and no impact on what is likely going to be a major offseason for them. Other than that, yeah, there's little reason they could let this drag out!

The point is, dragging it out impacts the Cubs more. If the Cubs do not have a new GM in place by the end of the World Series, that's a major problem for them.

 

Ergo, leverage Red Sox.

 

Well, no, because the reports seem to be indicating that Ricketts has had overtures out there to multiple candidates, so if they want to move on they can and could almost certainly have the position filled by one of their other top picks by the end of the WS.

Which would hurt the Cubs more in the long run: losing one or two prospects they wanted to keep, or losing Epstein?

 

If you say the former, you're lying.

 

by all accounts the red sox aren't asking for 1 or 2 prospects, they're asking for the entire system. i wouldn't be surprised if they asked for javier baez, just to mess with the hog farmer.

[davearm2]

Well, you're apparently banking on there being no legal repercussions, no effect from the internal strife this would cause and no impact on what is likely going to be a major offseason for them. Other than that, yeah, there's little reason they could let this drag out!

The point is, dragging it out impacts the Cubs more. If the Cubs do not have a new GM in place by the end of the World Series, that's a major problem for them.

 

Ergo, leverage Red Sox.

 

Well, no, because the reports seem to be indicating that Ricketts has had overtures out there to multiple candidates, so if they want to move on they can and could almost certainly have the position filled by one of their other top picks by the end of the WS.

Which would hurt the Cubs more in the long run: losing one or two prospects they wanted to keep, or losing Epstein?

 

If you say the former, you're lying.

 

We're talking about the bigger picture of whether or not the Cubs need to give in to the Sox or let them drag this out or deal with the asinine suggestion of the "nuclear option." If the Sox go nuts and dig in their heels then the Cubs move on.

You didn't answer my question.

[Sammy Sofa]

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

 

That's possible, but 100% speculative.

Which do you think would hurt most?

 

Holy [expletive], you do this nearly every time: you take a position that gets shot down and then attempt to narrowly redefine the issue being debated argued to something ridiculously simplistic. Those aren't the only options.

[davearm2]

Well, you're apparently banking on there being no legal repercussions, no effect from the internal strife this would cause and no impact on what is likely going to be a major offseason for them. Other than that, yeah, there's little reason they could let this drag out!

The point is, dragging it out impacts the Cubs more. If the Cubs do not have a new GM in place by the end of the World Series, that's a major problem for them.

 

Ergo, leverage Red Sox.

 

Well, no, because the reports seem to be indicating that Ricketts has had overtures out there to multiple candidates, so if they want to move on they can and could almost certainly have the position filled by one of their other top picks by the end of the WS.

Which would hurt the Cubs more in the long run: losing one or two prospects they wanted to keep, or losing Epstein?

 

If you say the former, you're lying.

 

by all accounts the red sox aren't asking for 1 or 2 prospects, they're asking for the entire system. i wouldn't be surprised if they asked for javier baez, just to mess with the hog farmer.

LOL "all accounts" say that? As best I can tell, 100 accounts say 100 different things.

[Sammy Sofa]

You didn't answer my question.

 

Because it's a pointlessly limited question. Of course not getting Epstein would "hurt" more than losing, say, Jackson and McNutt in the long run. Those are not, however, the only options. The Cubs don't have to only make that choice as their options.

[davearm2]

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

 

That's possible, but 100% speculative.

Which do you think would hurt most?

 

Holy [expletive], you do this nearly every time: you take a position that gets shot down and then attempt to narrowly redefine the issue being debated argued to something ridiculously simplistic. Those aren't the only options.

If the Red Sox "dig in their heels" as you described, what are the universe of options?

 

I can identify two. Which ones am I leaving out?

[CP_414]

The Red Sox are not going to pay Theo $6Million to be a pretend GM for a year and also give Cherrington a multi-million dollar deal to be a real GM because of Brett Jackson. They could sign 3 Latin Brett Jackson's for that money and not have to deal with a year full of drama.

 

From everything reported, John Henry and Theo are very close. If Theo wants this Henry isn't going to screw him over. To play along though, what would stop the Cubs from hiring Cherington as GM, and then Boston is left with nothing in 12 months?

 

It's a nonissue though. Lucchino (or however it's spelled) is doing his job trying to get as much as he can out of this. I suspect in the end The cubs give up a few mid tier prospects, but no one in their top 5 for Theo.

[davearm2]

To play along though, what would stop the Cubs from hiring Cherington as GM, and then Boston is left with nothing in 12 months?

I'm going to go with, the Red Sox compensation demands.

[Sammy Sofa]

If the Red Sox "dig in their heels" as you described, what are the universe of options?

 

I can identify two. Which ones am I leaving out?

 

Who said anything about a "universe?" The biggest option that you're leaving out in your very typical either/or scenario is that the Cubs walk away and hire a different GM. The only way the Cubs deal with the "nuclear option" is if the Red Sox have the Cubs over the barrel and they think Epstein is their only option. He isn't, so they're not.

Edited October 15, 2011 by Sammy Sofa

[davearm2]

If the Red Sox "dig in their heels" as you described, what are the universe of options?

 

I can identify two. Which ones am I leaving out?

 

Who said anything about a "universe?" The biggest option that you're leaving out in your very typical either/or scenario is that the Cubs walk away and hire a different GM.

I'm not leaving that option out. That's the second of "take it or leave it".

 

I think we both agree that the Cubs lose if they choose that option.

[Sammy Sofa]

If the Red Sox "dig in their heels" as you described, what are the universe of options?

 

I can identify two. Which ones am I leaving out?

 

Who said anything about a "universe?" The biggest option that you're leaving out in your very typical either/or scenario is that the Cubs walk away and hire a different GM.

I'm not leaving that option out. That's the second of "take it or leave it".

 

I think we both agree that the Cubs lose if they choose that option.

 

Well, no, I don't. There are other very good GM options out there.

[CP_414]

To play along though, what would stop the Cubs from hiring Cherington as GM, and then Boston is left with nothing in 12 months?

I'm going to go with, the Red Sox compensation demands.

 

 

So now they would demand compensation for an Asst. GM to get a GM job with another team? That has never been done, and if they ever want to hire someone from another organization they won't be the first to do it. Henry has said you don't block your employees if it's a promotion.

[davearm2]

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

[ScrubMD]

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

 

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

[davearm2]

To play along though, what would stop the Cubs from hiring Cherington as GM, and then Boston is left with nothing in 12 months?

I'm going to go with, the Red Sox compensation demands.

 

 

So now they would demand compensation for an Asst. GM to get a GM job with another team? That has never been done, and if they ever want to hire someone from another organization they won't be the first to do it. Henry has said you don't block your employees if it's a promotion.

Haven't the Red Sox already come out and said they're promoting Cherington themselves?

[Sammy Sofa]

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

 

...

 

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

 

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

[Yeti]

why do you guys even bother feeding that dolt?

[Vinestal]

The Cubs in no way have to cave to the demands of the RedSox. Boston has made it clear that it's ready to move on without Theo and the Cubs have made it clear they want him here. Ricketts could easily run the team under it's current placeholder GM (Randy Bush) for another year. They could aslo bring in Josh Byrnes (who was rumored to be coming in under Theo's new Chicago front office anyway) as a temporary GM for a year until Theo is out from under contract. Once Theo is hired Brynes could move back into an assistant role. Then the Cubs and Theo Epstein could completely gut the RedSox front office of whomever Theo wants to bring with him. Most of Theo's inner circle are working under 1 year deals and without any kind of agreement to stop them from leaving, as they would have with this trade Boston could see a mass exodus of it's best and brightest. Who wants to work for an organization that drags it's people through the mud the way the RedSox have after this season? The RedSox need to think twice before they try to ask for the moon here. Cub fans realize that 2012 is not a prime opportunity for us to compete anyway and we know Theo is worth waiting for. Ricketts has the whole hearted support of his fans, and one way or another he can and will get his man. I don't mind waiting a year, it's not worth giving up 3 of our top prospects for, we don't have many good ones near the top anyway. Edited October 15, 2011 by Vinestal

[UMFan83]

To play along though, what would stop the Cubs from hiring Cherington as GM, and then Boston is left with nothing in 12 months?

I'm going to go with, the Red Sox compensation demands.

 

 

So now they would demand compensation for an Asst. GM to get a GM job with another team? That has never been done, and if they ever want to hire someone from another organization they won't be the first to do it. Henry has said you don't block your employees if it's a promotion.

 

Yes but at that point, the Red Sox would be pretty fed up with the Cubs due to the failed Epstein negotiations and would make it extremely difficult for the Cubs to take Cherington.

 

I think it's more likely that if the Cubs fail to make a deal with Boston and Theo stays, that Cherington ends up taking the Baltimore GM opening, or maybe the Angels.

[davearm2]

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

 

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

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

 

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

[Outshined_One]

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

 

That's possible, but 100% speculative.

Which do you think would hurt most?

 

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

[CP_414]

To play along though, what would stop the Cubs from hiring Cherington as GM, and then Boston is left with nothing in 12 months?

I'm going to go with, the Red Sox compensation demands.

 

 

So now they would demand compensation for an Asst. GM to get a GM job with another team? That has never been done, and if they ever want to hire someone from another organization they won't be the first to do it. Henry has said you don't block your employees if it's a promotion.

Haven't the Red Sox already come out and said they're promoting Cherington themselves?

 

It was tweeted that he was told he will the next GM. If they don't let Theo leave, they aren't going to have 2 GM's, so Cherrington would have to wait.

 

The guy who tweeted that was the same one who said Hendry won't be fired after he had already been fired anyway.

[davearm2]

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

 

...

 

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

 

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

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