Scotti

Both (for different gigs) but that isn't going to happen. GM--Hoyer.

If these latest reports are true this is like "We're getting the band together again." They're "On a mission from God"--bringing a World Series to Chicago. Blues Brothers Accent>

I think that's exactly what this is, and I too would be disapointed if Theo was the out of public eye president and Hoyer was the GM. Then again, apparently the best part of Theo is his ability to build a strong baseball organization and farm system and his worst quality is his ability to make successful FA signings. Hiring Hoyer as GM to target and negotiate FAs might be beneficial even if Theo surely has tons of influence on the decisions. Even if that's true, there has to be some level of independence built into the position for Hoyer to leave his position controlling the SD franchise and move to Chicago to work under Theo. Would make no sense to pay Theo 15-20M to not make those decisions. The more of Theo's guys the better. He'll be trying to change a culture. You don't change a culture with just one guy. Adding Theo and some of his guys would be expensive. However, if successful, it would pay dividends in the mid to long-term.

Henry actually questioned his sanity... I'm guessing that was a figure of speech but it wasn't the kind of thing that he would have done of there was a chance in hell of the Rox bringing Theo back.

GJ repeating what I just said while replying to you/quoting you. Very possible that this is for leverage or Plan B but also that he'd be GM and Theo would be President (Andy / Ed).

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. 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.

If the Red Sox get anything more than a mediocre A-ball pitcher, they should be happy. It will be more than a mediocre A-Ball pitcher...I think that has been established already. Glad you came here--you spiced up what would have been a rather anti-climatic read... However, NOTHING has been established in terms of what type, if any, of players will be changing hands. All we have heard is what the Cubs have said "No" to (and even that isn't first hand).

I don't get your hypothetical about the Sox naming him Co-CEO. They clearly are not doing that on top of giving him more privileges and a boost in compensation. If that were the case, then I could understand the compensation more. You have a point in the fact that the Cubs new before they came to the table that there was compensation needed. Posters here merely asked why it was necessary. Arguing that it's necessary because the Cubs already knew before hand is avoiding the debate. Compensation is necessary because the Red Sox will be releasing a valuable, high-ranking member of their organization that they have under contract. In the end it doesn't really matter if the Cubs want him to run the place or wash cars in the players' lot. In either case the Red Sox are losing his services, and that's what requires compensation. I personally don't know the ins-and-outs of contract negotiations, especially ones to this degree. However, if the Sox cause considerable monetary loss (not to mention stalling career path growth) to an employee because they deny that employee from taking a job with the Cubs, I think that employee has litigation rights to help himself to that lost compensation. I may be wrong on that though. 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).

Olney/Insider: Andrew Friedman faces a tough decision http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/blog?name=olney_buster&id=6881791&action=login&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fmlb%2fblog%3fname%3dolney_buster%26id%3d6881791

Uh, you mean like the value of OAK doubling over the last 9 years? That's just fact. Sure Beane can sell at the current value but he can't replace that kind of secure growth during a very long recession in the market or in real estate. If a smart investor owned 4% of the A's in this market he/she would NOT sell it at face value. If the A's are going to soon be valued at 616M at minimum (Holy [expletive] they are not), then why would Beane only make 12M from the sale of his shares? I'm sure that nine years ago you would have said that the idea of the A's valuation doubling--from 157M to 307M--in nine years through the worst recession in decades and without a new stadium deal was goofy as well. But it happened. Even while the team has sucked on the field for five straight years. So you don't see the A's being worth 600M after it settles into a new stadium with huge increases in stadium revenues (from the worst in baseball to the newest stadium). No biggie. I'm not concerned. Beane has 4% ownership and the team is valued at over 300M. That valuation does not take into consideration the fact that it is, in fact, an under-valued commodity. That would be silly. But that doesn't mean that the valuation isn't, in fact, undervalued. Forbes does not include stadium deals until they are "imminent." I have zero doubt that a deal will be made for the A's (and one for the Cubs and one for the Rays). When each of those goes down the valuation will increase considerably (and so will the value in sale of any shares). IIRC Forbes valuation was within about 3% of the sales price the last time the team was sold so they did a good job there. I don't doubt that they have this pegged in terms of sale price/valuation as it stands but, as I said, the A's will eventually get a deal. When they do their value will go up. The fact that they are a MLB team means they are a great bet to go up anyway but for now they "tread water" with 100% gains in 9 years.

Doubtful.

At what point did I say anything about other teams not increasing in value? In ten years the Cubs could be worth 1.75-2.0 billion but that doesn't mean they will leapfrog the Yankees into first--the Yankees will increase as well. Just not as much. Ownership of virtually any MLB team is a good/great investment. Those teams have, and will, increase as well. But when the A's get a new stadium/city they will be valued at a much greater amount then the A's are currently. The A's are a good, solid organisation--they just need a good stadium and, ideally, a move to San Jose (who would love to have them). Without that, they are still undervalued. As such, yes, the A's should leapfrog over teams like the Jays, KC, CLE, the Reds, MIL, DET, AZ, SD, BALT, the Gnats, SEA, HOU, ATL, MIN and perhaps several others. Those teams either got their new parks already (that's the sole reason some are valued higher now) or they just aren't going to get one (KC). Tampa looks to leapfrog up the ranks if and when they get their new park as well. Miami has already added 116M in value from where they were before the long drawn out process down there started (Dec 2007) and they won't play a game in that park until 2012. That's 41% increase and they haven't played a game (much less reported financials). If the Marlins can grow 41% over a three-year period and two seasons ahead of actually playing a game (2011 valuation is for 2010 season) then, yeah, OAK can double its valuation after building a good park and getting out of a horrible park. Not unless the deal was imminent, no. It is valued at what it is valued at. That is a similar reason that Sternberg bought the Rays... He got in when it was undervalued. He didn't pay the "When Tampa Gets A New Ballpark" price he paid the "This Ballpark Sucks Hairy Nuts" price. In the case of the A's, they are undervalued because they have no decent stadium deal and they share the market with the Giants: "Oakland A's play in one of Major League Baseball's wealthiest regions but get less than $7 million a season from premium seating at Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum" There are way too many vagaries for an investor to overpay the current valuation. Does the team move or stay? What does the new place look like and what are the particulars in the contract? Regardless, my guess would be that there are stipulations about to whom and when he can sell those shares. Perhaps he can only sell back to the majority owner at market value. It makes sense for the owner. It keeps the GM interested in staying on because the shares have more value to the GM if he keeps them long term. That is just a guess though but I can't see the owner not putting some strings on this. Of course the biggest strings are those attached to his long-term contract. Few people ever get the opportunity to buy in to a MLB team--it's a great, stable growth investment--the A's have doubled in 9 years and most teams have grown similarly--and there are very few of that type of investment these days. One of the reasons that MLB continues to grow is because 90% of the ballparks out there are a good experience and worth the ticket price. That is NOT true of Oakland. Any team that wanted to get Beane's services would have to cover the difference between what he got for the shares (basically the Forbes valuation which does NOT take any future deal into account unless it is "imminent") and what the future growth that he has to give up because he cannot own shares in a different club. The Cubs could sell him shares of the Cubs but then they would be out of that future growth themselves (paying the difference but in a different way). Another issue for Beane is that ownership take in profits over and above the value of the shares increasing (even while the team is struggling). The lower he keeps payroll, the higher those profits are. So, he has an investment (4% that has increased 66% in since he signed the deal and through a recession) that brings in cash in profits every year as long as he handles the budget appropriately. He also doesn't have to participate in cash calls (when there is a negative balance instead of a profit). That is a very valuable asset to have--all gain with no loss. From a personal standpoint, I wouldn't sell off that type of security for cash unless I knew I could reinvest my money into a similarly secure situation with similarly outstanding benefits. The actual value to Beane (who has much more control over the worth of the team--and thus his own shares) is likely greater than any run-of-the-mill minority partner. Beane has much greater control over player expenses than any other 4% partner ever could (and, as I said, Beane is exempt from cash calls as well). The Cubs would have to pay dearly to buy him out of that deal IF he were a FA. He isn't. To me Beane doesn't belong in this thread (other than to say that Beane doesn't belong in this thread). Go Friedman!

Uh, you mean like the value of OAK doubling over the last 9 years? That's just fact. Sure Beane can sell at the current value but he can't replace that kind of secure growth during a very long recession in the market or in real estate. If a smart investor owned 4% of the A's in this market he/she would NOT sell it at face value.

Yeah, just forget the fact that the A's have him under contract... For three more years. He's Billy Freakin' Beane and no contract can hold him.

Beane is an OWNER. The compensation involved in getting him out of that investment (and it's future potential growth) would be staggering. He's a 4% owner of one of the least valuable teams in MLB. "Getting him out of that investment" involves selling his share. The potential growth is the only reason extra compensation would be necessary and it certainly wouldn't be staggering. The reason the A's aren't valued highly is because of the stadium. When OAK gets a new stadium (in OAK or by moving) the valuation of the A's--and Beane's shares--should double at a minimum the team's value has gone from 157M to 307M from 2002 to 2011 without a new stadium. Teams' values have skyrocketed when going from bad stadium to good. Forbes values them currently at 308 million. 4% of that is 12 million. He could sell his shares for 12M but he would not get the unrealized value--the Cubs would have to come up with that on top of a hefty salary. Again, the minimum future value would be double. 12 M (or much more) would be a staggering amount top pay a GM just in order to then sign him to a lucrative long-term contract. Aside from all of that, Beane isn't a free agent until 2015 (a contract extension that he signed in 2007) AND he doesn't come from a "winning tradition."

Given the parameters (from a winning tradition with a commitment to growing through the farm, saber-inclined and preferably the GM that made it happen), the lists that folks have bantered about get whittled down to maybe two guys (Cashman, Friedman) and perhaps Cherington who skates in on the fact that TR isn't demanding that GM has had any real GM experience. Still, Cherington hasn't proven himself as a GM and Cashman isn't particularly known as a saber guy. Byrnes--is a failed GM who couldn't build a winning tradition in AZ. Hahn--isn't a GM, does not come from a "winning tradition" and his team is not known for building from within. Colletti--isn't saber-inclined, the Cubs could finish the year with a higher winning percentage and the Dodgers were a sub-.500 team last year too. Levine--doesn't come from a "winning tradition" unless the last year and a half count while the prior ten don't and he isn't the GM. At the end of the day, it seems no one available really fits TR's parameters but Friedman and Cashman come closest with perhaps Cherington as an insurance policy.

Beane is an OWNER. The compensation involved in getting him out of that investment (and it's future potential growth) would be staggering.

Can they rename that camp after a guy who didn't fall apart the year after doing it? Lol yeah I agree. It was actually named for him because he was a guy who went to the camp and showed immidiate benefits from having attended (and reortedly commiting himself fully to the program). "Camp Colvin" is synonomous with working hard and getting promoted to the bigs (and hitting 20HR in the process). I don't really think what Colvin does THIS year is an issue for, say, Dunston or Vogelbach.

I'm not sure where you get that I meant that either a two-sport or a MLB deal is a "straight up" bonus--that obviously isn't the case. Regardless, for the purposes of staying slot, MLB doesn't care how you spread it out (and it still gets counted in the bonus bucket by BA as well). Over slot is over slot. Two-sport guys can go over slot because MLB wants to be competitive with the other sports but MLB nixed the initial Samardzija deal because it was over slot by goofy proportions not because it was "straight up" or whatever. This got started by my pointing out that MLB can, and has, voided amateur deals. I just don't see how that's debatable. Regardless, I'd prefer not to hijack the thread further than we already have.

The deal could have been a two sport deal without the need for a MLB deal. Regardless, they could have done a MLB deal from the start which is fairly common. The uncommon thing about the deal was a fifth rounder getting ten million. so you really think the cubs were trying to give him a $10m bonus straight up? i highly doubt that, considering that as far as i know, no team has given an amateur player an 8 figure bonus, and certainly not a 5th round draft pick. Not only has it been done but the Cubs have given a 10.5 million bonus. The round is immaterial (see this draft). Regardless, it was reported as it happened.

Two double posts in one night... I might lead the league in doubles.

This is an awesome post...

Just getting caught up on the thread... the answer is Jeff Samardzija. The Cubs and Samardzija agreed to a ten million dollar deal for his first contract. Selig canned that and the Cubs and Samardzija settled on an overslot deal with a "promise" from the Cubs to revisit the deal in the future (when the draft restrictions did not apply). Since signings go through MLB before the press gets a hold of them there is really no telling how many signings get rebuffed. Some teams don't really need the Comish's help with anything so they bend the draft limit "rules" that MLB puts out. Some teams need a favor or two (Selig got the Mesa deal done for the Ricketts family) and this means that they are more likely to tow the line. I could be wrong, but I think that was an actual contractual issue and not a "you're paying too much!" squash. Something about the payout structure not being allowed for minor league deals... which is why he ended up with a major league one the 2nd time around. The deal could have been a two sport deal without the need for a MLB deal. Regardless, they could have done a MLB deal from the start which is fairly common. The uncommon thing about the deal was a fifth rounder getting ten million.

The Commish has broad powers (and by that I mean wide-ranging powers and not a supernatural ability to pick up chicks). He just took over an entire franchise against the owner's will. The "best interest of baseball" clause stretches pretty far.

Double post--Go Cubs!