KingKongvs.Godzilla

Well so many things... 1 - Why? 2 - How much of that why can be covered by $$? 3 - Have you factored in that Wilken/Fleita will probably still remain a big part of what's done on draft day while they work here? Personally, I think they've done well for the Cubs since Wilken came on, and we'll be seeing the fruits of that labor very soon (well, some have already made an impact). 4 - How much does their actual scouting philosophy actually differ? Alot of what Epstein does and did was inspired by Beane's work in Oakland. Well it's been some time since the A's farm systems hey-day, but let's not be quick to forget: Eric Chavez Miguel Tejada Ramon Hernandez Barry Zito Mark Mulder Tim Hudson Ben Grieve Eric Byrnes Chad Bradford Rich Harden Gio Gonzalez Brett Anderson Trevor Cahill Kurt Suzuki Mark Ellis Nick Swisher Mark Teahen Joe Blanton Andrew Bailey whoever else all were there and productive for them. Only recently has that farm system really lagged, but even then they're starting to put guys on the field again. For instance, Jemile Weeks is going to be a good 2B if he stays healthy. Again, how much of that can be compensated by payroll difference to help bring talent in and out easier? Beane has half a decade more experience, spent time where he was considered the best GM in the game as has Epstein, put up a couple 100 win teams with a combined 3 players making more than 5 million dollars, is a major character in a popular book and critically acclaimed movie, and was at the front lines of changing the way many people look at baseball. I'm going to go out on a limb and say he won't be overwhelmed. Yeah at this point, way too late really, I'm going to call selective memory/lost memories. Beyond the whole MoneyBall thing he's attached too, Beane became famous because of his ability to make a key trade to help boost the A's. 2001 Jermaine Dye...Ray Durham in 2002...Jose Guillen in '03...all considered major wins and deals at the time. Now you're getting it.

Crawford was a terrible fit for their park as a LF. they signed baseballs rangiest LF who gets a ton of value that way to play in baseballs smallest LF. I thought that was a dumb aspect.

What makes Epstein better? What mAkes him more likely to win a WS? I believe the thought process is that hes done it already and that his success has been relatively recent, which to me is poor logic.

He is? You're the one saying he's not. Based on what? I'm saying he's no more qualified, which he isn't. Both are high end GMs who could handle this job, neither truly better than the other. My argument is that Beane makes more sense, is more realistic, and will have way more to prove with this job. If you want longer, read therest of the thread since typing on my phone sucks.

The Crawford thing is the main negative on his resume to me. I'm still not sure WTF he was thinking there. John Lackey....losing Farrell also really hurt their coaching staff...

He is?

Why shouldnt it play a factor? Its not as if Epstein is more qualified than Beane, and he's way less realistic in the first place. Because nobody gives a [expletive] about a story line, they want a [expletive] world series you dolt. So Epstein is more likely to deliver one because....??? Let me give the magic guess...because he's already done it and uh..."knows how to win" or something in the vicinity. FYI: Story is the only reason Epstein would take the job....broke the biggest curses in the sport is something of a story, even if I think it sucks. What other incentive does he have?

Why shouldnt it play a factor? Its not as if Epstein is more qualified than Beane, and he's way less realistic in the first place.

Nobody gives a [expletive] about the White Sox Rotfl @ putting them in the same tier. Williams doesn't have half the profile Epstein does, and Srsly no one cares about the White Sox.

Sports fans. Were a bored and angry people.

As far as Epstein...we give the guy the same job he's already done because he's already ended one curse for a big market club? This Cubs job is an opportunity for someone to become a baseball legend and we give the job to a baseball legend? A baseball legend who's Already done twice and is a derivative of someone who's still on the hunt for his first? How all around blah is that? The big story is that the GM who is already a legend in one of baseballs premier towns will do it in baseballs other rich but cursed franchise? That's downright boring in so many ways...and it's a complete insult to the many other men who can do this job. That's ignoring that he'd walk in and we'd a point and go...now do what you did in Boston. Make the magic happen again. It's fine if the hire actually happens, nut personally it's one of the worst storylines Ricketts could pick for this franchise. You can is Boston as a model without hiring their main guy, who probably won't leave anyway. It's all around unrealistic... Otherthings that changed since Beane said no: Park denied Move denied Two more reasons it's realistic to believe he'd leave Oakland.

Yes, neither team moved or changed their names. Astute observation...OTOH Boston hired completely redid their FO philosophy to mimic the A's and hired an MBA GM to push that movement. The A's have since floundered in mediocrity as rich teams and then almost everyone else have started using similar strategies. The difference being that since that half decade+ FOs operate more critically...with Beane's work in Oakland serving as a model...and exacerbated those reasons. You consider nothing about the timing of his saying no, which ignores history and eliminates context, which then makes saying no to the Red Sox seem like he did it for the hell of it. He didn't. He was still a young GM with plenty left to offer and do with Oakland, who remained a strong team for 2-4 years after that. The Boston decision means nothing today.

Yes, neither team moved or changed their names. Astute observation...OTOH Boston hired completely redid their FO philosophy to mimic the A's and hired an MBA GM to push that movement. The A's have since floundered in mediocrity as rich teams and then almost everyone else have started using similar strategies. The difference being that since that half decade+ FOs operate more critically...with Beane's work in Oakland serving as a model...and exacerbated those reasons. You consider nothing about the timing of his saying no, which ignores history and eliminates context, which then makes saying no to the Red Sox seem like he did it for the hell of it. He didn't. He was still a young GM with plenty left to offer and do with Oakland, who remained a strong team for 2-4 years after that. The Boston decision means nothing today.

Dude what reason did he have to leave Oakland then? They were still a legit contender and the MoneyBall hype still hadnt died down. He was maybe 5-6 years into his career as A's GM. A whole lot of time has passed since then, and things have changed significantly. He isnt owed [expletive]. OTOH hes one of the very few in this game who's resume, status, pedigree, and ideas fit perfectly. I can already garauntee there will be no Theo. That's a boring story anyway...He's already got two rings for a "cursed" team and rebuilt the infrastructure of one of MLBs 5 most important franchises. How much more glory could one guy possibly need? Not that I'd be pissed if they hired him...just that I find it much, much easier to root for someone who's got [expletive] to prove...it's kind of a case of sloppy seconds if you ask me.

I wish there was a Barry Bonds in this draft.

Him turning a job down over half a decade ago when the A's were still a perennial contender really has nothing to do with anything anymore.

Phillies in 3 Brewers in 5 Yankees in 5 Rays in 3 Yankees in 7 Brewers in 6 Brewers in 6 WS MVP: Prince Fielder I really do expect a great WS this year. I'm rooting for Tigers/Rangers/Rays vs. the Brewers in the NL. The Brewers have the type of talent that can be really nasty in a series. This means they'll be eliminated in the first round.

That was a good what...6...8 years ago? It's about time you let that go. I forgot that even happened, and it literally has nothing to do with anything anymore, except as a piece of trivia, I guess (who did Billy Beane turn down half a decade before taking the Cubs job?). Your second point is true, I thought I threw it in, but then I would think that would make the pool of people who should get the job much, much smaller. I especially believe this given new ownership. Beane is more of completing a legacy in a place where he can compete year in and year out while rebuilding the infrastructure of baseball's old joke franchise like he did his first franchise. Yes, again this can be anyone. To me, there's a difference between giving it to the guy who revamped the MLB front office personnel, the way they operate, got beat by those ideas once richer teams started adapting, opened the door for GMs like Andrew Friedman and other Wall Street employees and/or MBAs to seriously work in baseball, got publicized in a book that shook the baseball world, and then saw that book made into a move starring one of Hollywood's biggest stahs and giving it to someone who's done basically what the former did after Beane opened the door for guys like him. To me it's hiring a kid to do a man's job, and I'm not sure my opinion will change too much until Beane is officially not a candidate. That will only be because it has to change. Plus, what's the one thing Beane's resume is missing? Hint: It's the same thing the Cubs haven't claimed in over 100 years.

My computer sucks.

Duplicate.

Wow I really babble when it comes to Beane and this job. That said, I mean it. I think most people underestimate what this job means to baseball and the MLB as a whole. Luckily, I firmly believe our owner does not underestimate what being the next Cubs GM can and will mean.

Freidman's never had a contract. He and the owner are pretty tight. He's my first choice and by a large margin, but I think he's going to stay put too. I'm putting all my chips on Cherington as the winner. I'm a Beane guy, through and through. Guy deserves a better job more than any GM in the game, and this IMO is exactly that job. Personally Friedman is a kid in the GM game and to me has always been chump change for this Cubs job compared to Beane. To me Ricketts isn't looking for the young hot name, but rather a boss who's been there done that and knows exactly what he would do given the resources new GM will have. Beane could truly become a fckin leeeeeeegend with this job. I mean he's pretty damn close to it with a book people think he wrote and a movie, but this would be his Inglorious Basterds. I think the difference between him and Friedman is that he's swam against the 15 years and EARNED a position that guys will literally fall over (and stab) each other to get. IF Ricketts is on the hunt for the next great and gos with a fresh face then yeah I'm on the Friedman wagon. Then Cherington and everyone else...I actually really like Cherington. Oh and I lump Cashman with Beane, but I'd pick Beane.

I'm one of the people who think Friedman is staying with the Rays. Epstein will remain in Boston. I don't think either is all that realistic, even with Friedman lacking a 2012 contract right now.

They won't fire him. The Red Sox don't strike me as irrationally reactionary like that...OTOH I really, really wish the Cubs had chased after Farrell last year, no hindsight (no really, I pushed him during the hiring period last year).

There's that can of worms I was talking about. Bullpen - The closer blew 9 (+?) saves this year. Unless the team is actually good or something, there's not much that a manager can do there. Overall, I think the roles in the bullpen are known and defined pretty well, which is key #1 to bullpen management. Marmol's suckage this year just kind of threw that off. Lineup - While it should be expected of any manager to come up with a flawless lineup everyday where the best hitter is a 21 year old SS who doesn't walk or have alot of present power, I think it can be argued that Quade wasn't working with the cream of the hitting talent crop this year. After Castro, Ramirez, and Pena the lineup featured a bunch of down year vets (Soriano, Byrd, and Soto), up and down young guys (Colvin, Barney, DeWitt), mediocrity (Jeff Baker, Fukudome), and future nobodies (Campana, Montanez, Hill). Peace = Winning. Trap 25+ guys together for 7 months, have them lose alot at what they're doing, and tell me how peaceful they are. Half of the guys (literally 1/2) who caused any kind of publicly known disturbance in the clubhouse are gone from the team forever. Why did I just do that...