Cubfanintheknow

I'm not hung up on the Philips situation and I do not think others should be. A quality GM/coach combo can easily win with this ownership/president set-up. Ted is effectively the business guy. Agreed. The fact that they're bringing in Accorsi to be the voice of football reason makes me feel better about the situation. I have no idea how qualified he is, but the fact that the last coach he hired has been in the job as long as he has tells me he has a decent idea of what he's doing. That Accorsi will be leading the search for a GM/HC and not Phillips speaks volumes about McCaskey's faith in Phillips to do this job correctly.

Garza to the Rangers was talked about a lot because it made sense for both teams, not because it was something that was going to happen because the Cubs were talking about it beforehand (though admittedly it would make sense for the Cubs to leak something to perhaps draw in another team and drive up the price). It was widely known the front office was trying to trade Samardzija and Dempster because it was the M.O. of the front office, not because there were any "leaks." I'm not saying the Cub's front office is tight-lipped or anything, it's just that with all the speculation out there (emphasis on your word), it's tough at times to say what's been leaked and what's media chatter.

So is my hypothetical conversation a "negotiation" or a "dealing." Please help me. A dealing. I'll disagree, which now leaves us with another internet pissing match.

Hey, I didn't make up the definition. No, you just made up the source you chose to take it from. Yup. I hastily threw together a website with business definitions in order to confound you. You got me.

Look, I spelled out a hypothetical conversation. One in which no deals were made, no dollar figures tossed around, no terms, nothing. The kind of conversation that happens all the time in the sports world. Players who are under contract are always talking about teams they'd like to play for before they hit the open market. They openly admit it to the media. Shouldn't that be tampering? Agents have been working the phones before a player's contract is up, defining a market for their representatives and perhaps lining up potential suitors in the process. If your agent isn't doing that, then he sucks. Should't that be tampering, too? You honestly don't think managers do the same thing? Really? If you truly want to go by your definition of tampering, that's fine. But then I think you'd see these types of charges being leveled all the time. This type of thing happens every year when NFL free agency comes around. Lots of teams circumvent the rules. The point is, there is tampering, and if somebody actually goes through the effort of not turning a blind eye and lobbing an accusation, it can and does get discovered and punished in the sports world. If your hypothetical occurred and can be proven, it would be considered tampering. So is my hypothetical conversation a "negotiation" or a "dealing." Please help me.

Hey, I didn't make up the definition.

Look, I spelled out a hypothetical conversation. One in which no deals were made, no dollar figures tossed around, no terms, nothing. The kind of conversation that happens all the time in the sports world. Players who are under contract are always talking about teams they'd like to play for before they hit the open market. They openly admit it to the media. Shouldn't that be tampering? Agents have been working the phones before a player's contract is up, defining a market for their representatives and perhaps lining up potential suitors in the process. If your agent isn't doing that, then he sucks. Should't that be tampering, too? You honestly don't think managers do the same thing? Really? If you truly want to go by your definition of tampering, that's fine. But then I think you'd see these types of charges being leveled all the time.

That is the very definition of tampering. Except that it kinda isn't. http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/tampering.html You aren't familiar with sports are you? You aren't familiar with reading, are you?

That is the very definition of tampering. Except that it kinda isn't. http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/tampering.html

Nobody can say, cuz it's a pretty uncommon circumstance. Ultimately, Maddon had every right to opt out without Tampa receiving any compensation. So my best guess is that it'd be a fine. It's pretty unlikely that tampering is proven, imo. Well yeah but it would be a bit more punitive if they can prove Maddon opted out because he knew the Cubs were offering him their job. When Maddon opted out, the Twins were the only team with an open managerial spot, so it immediately seems fishy that Maddon would opt out of his job when there was only 1 team that was definitely looking for a manager. Especially because like a week before he stated how he was dedicated to staying with Tampa Bay long term and abruptly changed course. I don't think the Cubs tampered at all (based on Theo's extremely confident remarks and the promise of full cooperation), I'm just saying why the Rays might get more compensation than a fine if the Cubs were caught tampering. Also, considering their willingness to give the MLB investigators full cooperation, if they maintained their innocence to the investigators and were later found to have tampered, the MLB could suspend Theo and Jed and/or take away draft picks/draft and IFA pool money. It's been reported that Joe Maddon made an offer to re-up his contract in Tampa and Rays management declined. http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/writer/jon-heyman/24782084/before-taking-big-cubs-deal-maddon-made-olive-branch-offer-to-rays Even if Theo had a conversation to the effect of, "If you're ever available, we'd love to talk to you about managing the Cubs," it wouldn't matter. Maddon legally opted out. The only reason the opt-out kicked in is because Friedman left. If they had kept Friedman, none of this would have happened. It's going to be impossible to find any tampering charges given all the dominoes that needed to fall for all this to happen.

Yesssss. Is there some sort of macro that will automatically replace "kaplan" with "screaming dildo"?

The title of the thread is the only way the true subject gets to a second page of posts.

Well said. It's crazy that the National Park Service is even involved. But if you're the Cubs and you're going to have to work around the landmark status, you might as well take advantage of it if you can. It would have been one thing if the Cubs had asked for landmark status just so they could take advantage of the tax credit. But that was done long before Ricketts bought the Cubs.

That's because he's Biff. He's not our kid. And if he was, he doesn't have the potential Starlin has. Uhh, Rizzo is ours too. Sorry I didn't make the biff=Rizzo connection right away. Then I'll simply say biff's screw-ups aren't as painfully as obvious as Starlin. And that's a huge part of the problem. Starlin does have a way of making his mistakes stand out like a sore thumb. Rizzo's mental lapses get glossed over because many people don't even see them. Rizzo not covering 1B was worse than anything Castro has done and should've stood out like a sore thumb. The media sure didn't cover that play like they covered Castro today. I view both those transgressions as being equal. One is not worse than the other. And I'll just go out and guess the media does not view them as equal because it doesn't see Starlin's mistake for what it was--a mental mistake, like Rizzo's. The media--Kaplan in particular--sees it as more of a judgment call. Starlin should have been running right out of the batter's box. And because it has happened on a couple of occasions before, it's perceived as a lack of good judgment. Not saying it's right, mind you. But that's what it seems to be boiling down to. Back to the original analogy--Kaplan's only doing this to make himself better. He's probably insane enough to believe that if this is the last "bad judgment" call out of Starlin, it'll be because if his hard-nosed stance on the incident.

Huh? Is he invisible to the camera or something? When he screws up it's on TV just like Castro's. Yep, he's on TV all right. But again, they're not nearly as obvious. Rizzo's never been isolated on camera making his mistakes like Starlin.

But he's the adopted brown kid and biff can make the same mistakes without getting yelled at. That's because he's Biff. He's not our kid. And if he was, he doesn't have the potential Starlin has. Uhh, Rizzo is ours too. Sorry I didn't make the biff=Rizzo connection right away. Then I'll simply say biff's screw-ups aren't as painfully as obvious as Starlin. And that's a huge part of the problem. Starlin does have a way of making his mistakes stand out like a sore thumb. Rizzo's mental lapses get glossed over because many people don't even see them.

But he's the adopted brown kid and biff can make the same mistakes without getting yelled at. That's because he's Biff. He's not our kid. And if he was, he doesn't have the potential Starlin has.

This is an analogy that many parents will understand. We want our kids to be the best they can be. But then they screw up, we yell at them, they say they're sorry and behave for a while. Then they screw up again. Eventually they stop making those same stupid mistakes. Not because you grounded them or lectured them. They stopped because they figured out it's in their best interest to stop. We let other kids get away with it because they're not our kids. We tell our kids not to do that stupid thing some other kid did, but they do it anyway. Then we get into the whole yelling thing again. And then they finally figure it out on their own. Starlin is our kid. Even the best kids do stupid things. We yell because we think it's going to make a difference and it makes us feel better. But in the long run, it's up to the kid. Just like in the long run, it's up to Starlin.

I'm almost positive service time does not factor into Soler's situation. He's only in the second year of a nine year contract, so unless there's a clause which allows him to renegotiate after a certain amount of time in the majors, the six years of service time will have elapsed before his contract does. I will concede a call up now would be rather easy; unlike Alcantara, Baez and ultimately Bryant, Soler is already on the 40 man roster. All the Cubs would have to do is send down a guy who still has options (I see you hiding, Junior). But waiting three more weeks isn't going to drastically change the fortunes of the big club. He'll be here September 1st.

Actually, when they asked him what happened, he responded, "When did they put in that fence?"

This thread inspired me to play "Six Degrees of Gabby Hartnett." Our contestants: From the American League, Derek Jeter. And from the National League, Roy Halladay. We'll start with Jeter... who played with Rick Honeycutt... who played with Diego Segui... who played with Granny Hamner (LOVE the name!)... who played with Chuck Klein... who played with Gabby Hartnett... who played with Phil Cavaretta... who played with Nellie Fox... who played with Joe Morgan (maybe that's who Joe got his meatball lessons from)... who played with Juan Samuel... who played with Roy Halladay. I just kinda picked Gabby Hartnett arbitrarily. But I wonder who would be the oldest player who is six players away from someone on a major league roster today. Hartnett, Klein and Cavaretta were all on the '35 Cubs. (note: edited a typo)

I saw this... And this immediately came to mind:

I think the Cubs are going to wait on Bryant until he breaks Crash Davis' minor league home run record.

How dare he hit the first pitch he sees for a home run! Doesn't he know the rules?

With you. Loved Sammy as a player. Was pissed when he ditched the last day, but have seen so many other egregious acts by other players of the teams I love that I'm willing to forgive. But..... I could give a rat's ass about Sammy Sosa and his relationship with the Cubs. Could care less about the 100th birthday of Weeghman Parlk/Cubs Park/Wrigley Field. With so many other pressing issues, this is so far off the the meter it doesn't even register.