Exile on Waveland

I don't think that is correct. He works at the pleasure of the owners. I don't think the rest of the owners would take kindly to Bud siding with one party or the other like that. There is no "best interest of baseball clause here". This is a discussion among two members of the club. Whether you think it or not, this really is correct. He has the authority to say tomorrow "I find that Epstein going to the Cubs is in the best interests of baseball, and if you don't do it, I will revoke your franchise." It's the ultimate nuclear option, because it torches franchise value and the owners would vote to fire him the next day, but it's still within his authority. Show me where it says he can do that. Are you disputing that the "best interests of baseball" clause exists? Otherwise, I'm not sure what your argument is.

WGN again? Ugh.

Why start with hotter heads? Anyway, what I really want answered is if the Red Sox should initially have asked for Wrigley Field as compensation?

You start high and you work your way down, by asking for a Low A ball player with no ceiling in return, you're making the Cubs fan base do handstands, and probably leaving something on the table. I have to negotiate contracts every day...it can be annoying as hell but people understand parameters before speaking and then you work your way to a middle ground in which both parties can agree to. Starting high is one thing. That's why you ask for, say, Brett Jackson. Starting absurdly, irrationally high is another thing. Doing that garners no benefit and often leads to anger and intransigence from the other party. The other side, which perhaps was very willing initially to give up Trey McNutt, may now be annoyed and want to give up Koyie Hill.

No, you absolutely do not have to ask for Garza. It's ridiculous and the Sox know it. That's not playing hardball, it's being deliberately obtuse. That's not how professionals negotiate; it's how children negotiate.

I just stole the Hope Diamond. While I am a very good thief (see Hope Diamond, stolen), I'm not perfect and in a matter of days I'll almost certainly be caught. The exception is that, if I can sell the diamond, I can use the proceeds to "disappear." There is only one willing buyer rich enough to buy the diamond and capable of doing so without also being caught. I unquestionably have the most desirable asset in the negotiation with the buyer. However, the buyer is wily, and understands my predicament. Kevin Goldstein believes I have the leverage and will obtain fair market value for the diamond. Kevin Goldstein is a moron. Ricketts doesn't seem to be, at all.

It is; you're right. But this is a message board so I'm allowed to intentionally misconstrue your position to better fit my needs.

Epstein's idea of keeping pitchers healthy is a revelation. It's not like other teams would have realized that was important; WHY WOULD HE REVEAL SUCH A SECRET?

No, I don't think that poster understands. Epstein works for the Boston Red Sox. The Boston Red Sox are super awesome and can do whatever they want and other teams (especially the Cubs, lol, curses) will bow down before them. Epstein for Castro and Garza or no deal.

Caldwell is probably the worst coach in the NFL. The man should have never, ever been a head coach in the NFL (he was 26-63 as a college coach). It's a farce he was ever hired.

A.J. Hammons is a real nice recruit for Purdue, by the way. He has great size and talent; he just needs to dedicate himself and work hard. And that's pretty much the modus operandi of the Purdue program.

You can say that again.

Uhhh... I'm not sure he realizes that Earl Weaver was awesome. And our GMs were not. His point is pretty clear, and correct. Thus ruling out the Red Flash that posted here.

the self-imposed sanctions are a tad harsh. if the infractions were any greater, IU might have had to force itself to buy the NCAA a coke. Apparently there were 3,041 reported secondary violations last year overall. Unfortunately, this one being committed with Harris is going to make it more of a story. In a vacuum, the violation is ostensibly irrelevant. It's a rather mundane rule and similar mistakes happen basically all the time across the country. The mistake was reported immediately. IU self-imposed a penalty that I'm guessing is, at least, equally stringent as other punishments for similar infractions. I doubt much, if any, a competitive advantage was obtained (it could theoretically even be viewed as a negative). However, Crean/IU are not living in a vacuum. Crean's priority when hired -- along with winning, obviously -- was to restore credibility and integrity to a program that enjoyed both until the Sampson debacle. While mundane, the rule was not arcane; not open to interpretation; not nonsensical. Simply: on this day you cannot do what Crean did. And, yet, Crean was ignorant or negligent or careless. He didn't know the dates. He didn't program the dates into his computer. He didn't program the dates into his phone. His assistant didn't know the dates. His assistant didn't program the dates into his computer. His assistant didn't program the dates into his phone. It's embarrassing; hopefully it's not foreboding.

What the heck.

For pure, raw excitement about a transaction? Garciaparra is the only comparable I can think of. Non-Cubs division, maybe Hossa. The excitement over Theo is, for me, second only to the day Bill Wirtz died. so morbid, yet somehow justified I don't really have any friends that are Blackhawks fans (or many that are even hockey fans), so that was a difficult one for me to explain. I was so happy; pretty much everyone thought it morbid (without really understanding the underlying rationale).

And it's going to be glorious.

Jesus [expletive] Christ. ... I'm going to give this man so many babies. Man, that was amazing. The Cubs went from a Luddite to that. Amazing.

A little late to (posting) in this thread, so excited, boners, something, something.

I agree completely on the second point. The future is unwritten. Crawford had a terrible year; but that happens. He's still of an age where he could easily rebound -- and has done so in the past -- and be very productive again. I find it very premature and speculative to consider Crawford an outright bust for his contract. This isn't a Soriano situation.

What brought this on? Most of the people in this thread who have said they'd trade Castro have said they'd do it begrudgingly. And I don't see why it's an affront to Castro to say you'd trade him as the centerpiece for a first baseman who's 28 and has posted WARs of 6.9 and 7.3 the past two years and never had one less than 4.0 in a full season. Personally, my ideal situation would be to pursue Fielder/Pujols and keep Castro, but I can't say a Votto/Castro swap (of some sorts) would be that dumb a move. I suspect he's talking about the racist meatballs, not the posters in this thread. I was thinking that, but it seemed really random if that's why. Agreed; it really did. But it is, after all, SSR. He talks to himself in threads.

This blueprint seems familiar . . . just can't quite place it . . .

What brought this on? Most of the people in this thread who have said they'd trade Castro have said they'd do it begrudgingly. And I don't see why it's an affront to Castro to say you'd trade him as the centerpiece for a first baseman who's 28 and has posted WARs of 6.9 and 7.3 the past two years and never had one less than 4.0 in a full season. Personally, my ideal situation would be to pursue Fielder/Pujols and keep Castro, but I can't say a Votto/Castro swap (of some sorts) would be that dumb a move. I suspect he's talking about the racist meatballs, not the posters in this thread.

Hope this is true and Votto is traded. Not only would it take him out of the division (presumably), but would also eliminate one team from the Pujols/Fielder sweepstakes.

Colts doing a good job of making their Suck-for-Luck campaign covert. Can't make it too obvious, ya know?