KingCubsFan

Yep. I've heard that Cuban won't have to go through the MLB approval process in an auction. Wait, seriously? [expletive].

Bruce Chen? Jeff Francis? Their upsides are basically a poor man's Buehrle.

Yeah there's no way he'd come here. He'd be a good signing though. He's about as consistent as they come.

Probably not. I really think people are grossly overrating what those guys can do. Agreed. LeMahieu and Flaherty aren't exactly top prospects, and people are probably putting a little too much stock in WAR's defensive values when trying to equate their production with Aramis.

He's going to cost way too much in terms of prospects. The Mets aren't run by idiots anymore, and he's one of the few valuable assets the team has.

Who?

You take a couple of small insignificant items and try to put him in a box that he doesn't fit in. Show me where his teams play small ball more than other minor league teams. I'm not talking about one or two instances in 5-6 years where he asks a middle of the order batter to bunt. His teams are usually in the middle of the pack as far as bunting and steals. Fine. 2007 - 3rd of 14 teams in SH, 5th of 14 teams in SBA 2008 - 2nd of 14 teams in SH, 7th of 14 teams in SBA 2009 - 2nd of 10 teams in SH, 6th of 10 teams in SBA 2010 - 10th of 16 teams in SH, 6th of 16 teams in SBA 2011 - 9th of 14 teams in SH, 3rd of 14 teams in SBA So you have years of Sandberg being at the least doing more "button pushing" than average, on top of every word that's ever come out of his mouth putting undue importance on those things. And even more overlooked, he hasn't been a part of the MLB game in 15 years and never in a coaching capacity. But because he won a bunch of games with 30 year old AAA players last year, and his players said good things about him like they do for all coaches, he's supposed to be a surefire MLB managerial candidate? No, any advocacy for Sandberg is either willfully ignoring every tendency he's ever had, or trying to explain them away on the hope that it won't be all that bad, simply because of his playing career. Looks like as he moved up the ladder, he relied less and less on sacrifice bunts. And I think it often gets overlooked just how bad some of those Cubs teams were that Sandberg managed. That 2009 Smokies team was horrendous offensively. Sure, he might have had the #3 hitter bunt, but who was hitting 3rd? Colvin? Blake Lalli? These guys needed to learn how to bunt, because, realistically, there wasn't one member of that team that projected to hit in the middle of a legitimate major league lineup. I'm not advocating Sandberg to be manager, but sometimes people rely a bit too much on a Yahoo! sports article, a Hall of Fame induction speech (basically a meathead convention), and some tendencies as a minor league instructor. If Epstein thinks he can work, then I'll accept it.

Speaking of 2B, I wonder if the White Sox would trade Beckham for Darwin Barney.

Do these WAR/dollar figures translate so that a 1 WAR player is technically worth $5 million? Because if that's the case, it's incredibly stupid.

I got this same impression. I did not. I got the impression that the developmental side (minor leagues) would be busy as hell, but the FA (big league team) side not so. The whole time when he was answering that question about the major league team, I KNEW that "but" was coming about the parallel fronts (and [expletive] if he didn't do a great job of conveying it). I didn't get the impression that they would be throwing away next year at all. He basically went out of his way to come out and said that the two things aren't at all mutually exclusive. He could've easily taken the easy way and said nothing but the whole, "It's gonna take time," and nobody, seemingly, would begrudge him that if he did. Everyone seems willing (if not wanting) to be patient and throw away a year or two. But he didn't. He very clearly stated that every opporunity to win, every season, is sacred and he's not about to throw away a season. Right. At the same time, it was also pretty clear that he's not going to mortgage the future in order to compete next year. It's definitely going to be a busy offseason. We may see some pretty interesting acquisitions this offseasons that are high-risk/high-reward.

I would tend to agree. I doubt he goes after Pujols but I wouldn't be surprised if he did make a run at Fielder though given the hole at 1B right now and the payroll flexibility he'll have. Pujols past his prime (not that he is, yet) is better than Prince in his prime. Maybe true, but Epstein's whole point was that he wants to pay for future performance, not past performance. That's why Pujols will cost more money.

I'd have a hard time thinking of many examples of people who were really hurt by the aggressive promotions, but maybe they are out there. Fleita is definitely in charge of that though as well as somewhat dictating a minor league philosophy. He probably shouldn't be running the whole player development program although they can probably find a better role for him. Why not just find no role for him (I know it's kinda late to bark up that tree since they signed him)? What does he do especially well? I think he ran the Latin American operations when we got Zambrano, Cruz, Guzman (even though he was originally signed by the Royals), etc. With Ricketts actually giving some real money to signing international free agents, maybe he'd be good at that.

Are you sure that's what he said? Any chance you are exaggerating a bit, because that is idiotic and not something I would assume Gammons would say. It's about the Red Sox. Gammons fanboyism knows no bounds when it comes to them and his pal Larry. This and the fact that Gammons was always a clown and then got a respite for having a stroke or something. I remember Gammons as one of the first journalists I LOLed at consistently 10-15 years ago. Gammons was always way off when it came to talking about imminent trades that never materialized, but he was always up on things like prospects and their worth long before anybody else in mainstream baseball media acknowledged that prospects had value. He's clearly a Red Sox homer in that he would focus on them and probably sympathize with their side of a situation, but him making such asinine statements as this indicates his brain suffered some sort of damage, or he just pores on the idiotic homer schtick more when talking to local Boston radio. He kind of reminds me of Sam Smith, where's he's basically a mouthpiece for the Red Sox organization masked as a journalist covering the sport. Wouldn't surprise me if, like Smith, he just ends up writing for the Red Sox website.

I bet Peter Gammons can only name two prospects in the entire system, and that's only because he heard about Brett Jackson and Trey McNutt over the past week. And the Red Sox system hasn't been good for a few years. Jose Iglesias as your #1 prospect? Brett Jackson would slot in at #1 or #2 in that system immediately.

if we end up with someone like hahn or coppolella because we wouldn't part with trey mcnutt, i may have to go burn down wrigley. Coppolella + McNutt + 6.5 million <<<<<< Epstein ? I'm not so sure about that Do we know anything about Coppolella besides an article that says he likes stats? Going into the offseason, I think most would agree that Epstein was at least the second best candidate out there. There's really only a few players in our organization (given our complete lack of top end talent) that should stand in the way, and McNutt isn't one of them. And if 6.5 million is that big of a deal, just get rid of Byrd.

LeMahieu actually has 5 walks in 11 games now. Probably just a fluke, but good to see nonetheless.

Okay, what do you believe the value of a well-regarded AA prospect to be? Depends on the situation. What did you believe Corey Patterson's value was? Corey Patterson was 10x the prospect McNutt is. A better comparison would have been someone like Ben Christensen.

You're right, he doesn't care about selling season tickets. Do you think the Cubs sold more season tickets by hiring Mike Quade than if they hired Ryne Sandberg? Maybe last year, who knows. Things like a popular manager or player do more for individual ticket sales, in my opinion, and have a limited long-term impact. I think it's pretty clear that all involved (Hendry, Ricketts, etc.) knew last season was going to be tough, and Ricketts probably knew he was going to have to replace Hendry if the team struggled again. He was obviously reluctant to give out long-term deals to players in the offseason, and he probably felt the same about a manager, particularly one as popular as Sandberg. Ricketts' mantra has always been that he has a long-term plan for the franchise, and the two key elements are a revamped Wrigley Field and a competent management team that is able to produce minor league talent. In his mind, Epstein is the perfect fit, and possibly helps him accomplish both of those goals. He's much more important to Ricketts than any manager or player, because he'll set the long-term tone for the franchise. Given what he's said about the future of the franchise, he becomes much more credible to potential season ticket holders by saying "Look, I've put the future of our team in the hands of a guy who won two World Series in Boston," as opposed to saying "We hired a new GM with no experience, but we got Ryno on the bench!"

You're right, he doesn't care about selling season tickets.

Why not? If they were ever realistic, nothing has changed that would make them less realistic than they were now. And even then, the amount of outcry at hiring Hahn, or Byrnes, or even Cherington(which would be a hilarious F U move to Boston) would be minimal because most fans don't care about GMs and spinning Boston as greedy jerks is too easy. Even the casual baseball fan knows Theo Epstein. He's one of a handful of executives with the type of name recognition that will get a fanbase outside of nsbb excited. As easy as it is to spin Boston as greedy, it's just as easy to portray the Cubs as the "typical Cubs," blowing it in extraordinary fashion because they're cheap. From a casual fan's perspective, are they really going to accept the fact that the Cubs just lost a guy who broke the Red Sox "curse" because they refused to give up a pitcher who won 4 games last year and had an ERA of 4.55 in AA and an outfielder who strikes out all the time? Sure, we realize the value of those players, but most fans don't. As for the other candidates, Beane never was and never will be realistic. He's not leaving and doesn't seem to particularly care much about baseball anymore. He probably runs the A's like a game of Baseball Mogul these days in between Premier League matches. And, while I don't know Cashman or Friedman personally, I find it hard to believe they would jump at the chance to be someone's second choice given their stature in baseball.

The Cubs' downside is one that isn't really palpable and can be managed. They hire PR people for a reason, and "we really wanted Theo, but they were being crazy about it. I mean, have you seen what's happening over there?" practically writes itself. Plus, there's plenty of people who would be equally excited if plan B was a Friedman, Beane, or Cashman. On the other side, the Red Sox downside is both physical(millions of dollars) and PR-related(how will people come here if we hold them hostage?). There's a lot more reason to come down on the Red Sox side, especially since the re-tweeted story of the day is using our best pitching prospect as the anchor for where the negotiations are hinged. Those Plan B's aren't realistic at this point though. Our Plan B would basically be Rick Hahn or Josh Byrnes, which would be a huge letdown from Epstein. Both sides need to get this done.

If the reports are true, it's not just Epstein we're getting, though. We'd also be taking 3 or 4 key employees. Still not a reason to give up our best pitching prospect, but somewhat understandable. It's not like McNutt is Matt Moore or Shelby Miller.

That's just not at all accurate. Lucchino is his mentor and the one who actually brought him to Boston in the first place. John Henry gave him his first GM job for his hometown team. Not only that, but he's been given complete control over Boston's baseball operations. Also, I still fail to see how the Cubs going with an interim general manager makes any sense. Here's this from SOSH: That's what awaits if the Cubs don't play ball. It's like the part in Moneyball where Beane is trying to convince Omar Minaya to add Youkilis into the Cliff Floyd trade. He tells him something to the effect of: "I can see the Boston papers now: 'Larry Lucchino misses out on Cliff Floyd to keep fat third baseman in Double A'" The Cubs knew that Theo would come at a price, that he'd require a fair amount of compensation and now they're getting sticker shock. You can't just have one of the elite general managers in all of baseball when he's under contract. A price has to be paid. Holding out hope that the Red Sox will "blink first" is amateurish. Missing out on getting him would be a disaster. This is a totally unrealistic outcome. If the Red Sox are so unreasonable that a deal can't get done, Ricketts will simply move on to the next candidate. Epstein is the top choice, but he's not the only choice, and there's no way Ricketts wastes a year hoping for Epstein to come. If this deal doesn't get done, it's undeniable that both teams will take a negative PR hit; nobody wins. The Cubs will be viewed by some as cheap and blowing a huge opportunity in typical Cubs fashion. The Red Sox will come across as petty and unreasonable, and will now be viewed as a divided organization with a man in charge of baseball operations that doesn't really want to be there. Coupled with your late season collapse and the with the way your owners threw Terry Francona under the bus in such despicable fashion, it would really cap a horrendous offseason.

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking or what you mean by "built into an agreement between clubs" but Theo is still under contract with the Red Sox. Yes, there is a multitude of reasons why they don't have much leverage in this matter, but in terms of their ability to demand compensation, he is under contract with them and they decide whether he can go or not. For him to come here, they (technically) have to let him go. Right, but even if Epstein breaches his contract, the Red Sox are only entitled to money (which the Cubs could easily pay), unless there's some sort of MLB contract where teams have agreed to exchange players instead of money in situations like this.

Is player compensation somehow built into an agreement between clubs, or is this just some old baseball unwritten rule? If it's the latter, I don't see how much farther the Red Sox can keep pushing this.