Sammy Sofa

Then they don't hold the most valuable asset. I don't understand how so many people just ignore how it's tremendously unlikely that Cherington can do anything as the GM so long as Epstein technically holds the title. If the Red Sox attempt to drag things out along those lines you're almost certainly looking at MLB stepping in and maybe even a lawsuit or two. Look, maybe Epstein's contract has some insane clause that says someone else can do his job while he holds the title and he can't say or do [expletive] about it...but I highly doubt it.

Why, are they going to pay them with good intentions? California sunshine? Promises to not beat their asses in the parking lot?

Well, it's Kaplan, so [expletive] him, but I've got no problem with the Cubs not blinking if the Red Sox aren't budging. What I just suggested of McNutt + cash is more than fair. Ricketts' badassery is just off the charts this year.

Yup. If it's McNutt and cash then get it done.

They can't give up McNutt simply because I hope to one day both genuinely AND ironically own a "McNutt" Cubs jersey.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ub-jfbVw6uc/TKPo18WJEkI/AAAAAAAAAek/H7Jyci4b21Q/s1600/old+baseball+fat.jpg

Was Corey Patterson supposed to be a "league average player? Was that what he was touted to be or was the term: 5 tools/can't miss prospect the general norm? This is the same mentality as the Cubs fans who, for years, have been looking at Zambrano as a "bust" if he wasn't pitching like an ace.

I'd like to think I had a part in driving cynosure crazy, at least based on the insane, furious PM's I was getting from him near the end.

That's the saddest part; he never got to the see the Cubs under Theo.

Huh. I totally thought this game was tomorrow night.

Right. Epstein is obviously the guy at the top of Ricketts' list, but that doesn't make him the only option, or even make him the clearly "superior" option by that much, given the other names that have been floated out there. If the Cubs pack it in and walk away the Red Sox are stuck with a mess for the next year.

He's failing to realize that the Bobby Valentine-type threat would be coming from the Cubs in this case, not the Red Sox. The Red Sox are clearly the White Sox if we're to make a parallel with that scenario.

Friedman works without a contract. Theoretcally possible but is rumored to want to go to Houston is he leaves TB. Actually he's publicly stated he doesn't have interest in the Houston job, someone wrote a piece recently that said people close to Friedman think that the only job outside of Tampa that might interest him is the Cubs job. The reason he was rumored to go to Houston was because his father was part of a group that had the possibility of buying the team, that is no longer the case. Do you have a link to that? I'd be curious to read that since I was seeing talk of the Houston theory as recent as yesterday. I cant seem to find that article now, so maybe your right and that ownership group that includes his father is still in play. Could have swore I read that that particular group had fallen out of contention. That could very well be the case. What I was reading was little more than blog speculation.

Brett Jackson might be an overreach because he's major league ready and seems to be fairly low risk. He does seem ideally suited to Fenway's spacious RF. As you said the precedent is going to be established, but I believe it will, and should be higher than compensation packages we've seen for field managers. I just don't understand the perspective of Cubs fans that Theo shouldn't be worth some serious on field talent. Friedman is no sure thing to leave Tampa Bay (he works on a handshake agreement with the Rays), Cashman is staying with the Yankees and the only other candidates seem to be unproven. Fact is, the Cubs have Theo in hand if only they can work out a deal. None of the other candidates are a sure thing, if the Cubs play ball with a fair deal Theo is a sure thing. He's reportedly already agreed to a contract. It could be argued that Epstein is the perfect choice for what the Cubs want. Someone with experience in big markets, someone who has shown the ability to work the draft and someone who has experience building a winner. For all his greatness Andrew Friedman does not have Epstein's experience with a big budget. There's a certain knack to running a "100 million dollar player development machine." As Epstein once referred to his goals for Boston's farm system. If Jackson was an untouchable then what about Vitters, Szczur, McNutt, Simpson, Dolis or Guyer? Shouldn't they be part of the conversation in regards to compensation? I can see where the Cubs would be reluctant to give up MLB ready talent but the guys in the lower minors might be easier to replace and their youth makes them unknown quantities. The feeling I've been getting (from news reports and this forum) are that the Cubs should give up nothing for a top executive and they could simply wait and snag someone else. Both cases seem incredibly unrealistic IMO. There is already a deal in place. Cash is exchanging hands. The Cubs also seem to be willing to give up prospects in addition to the cash; just not their top prospects.

Friedman works without a contract. Theoretcally possible but is rumored to want to go to Houston is he leaves TB. Actually he's publicly stated he doesn't have interest in the Houston job, someone wrote a piece recently that said people close to Friedman think that the only job outside of Tampa that might interest him is the Cubs job. The reason he was rumored to go to Houston was because his father was part of a group that had the possibility of buying the team, that is no longer the case. Do you have a link to that? I'd be curious to read that since I was seeing talk of the Houston theory as recent as yesterday.

I don't believe Friedman works under contract at all. I also spoke with (via twitter) Mark Topkin a writer for the St Pete times who has followed the Rays for a number of years and asked him if he knew if Friedman had any ownership with the team. His response was that he did not believe that was the case. Friedman is not under contract. Reports indicate, however, that he wants to stay in Tampa and is likely biding his time until he becomes the GM/president/whatever of the Astros if the ownership group that includes his father purchases the team.

It was depressingly uncanny how much Mike Murphy's opinions today on this mirror davearm's.

http://photobombings.com/images/photobomb/Face_Palm_Disapproval.jpg

No, I'm "ripping" on people for being pussies. [expletive] the Cardinals; they deserve all the negativity they get. But at least have some damn dignity about it and HATE them instead of this "woe is me" garbage.

Nope. But at least I'm not being a bitch about it.

Wallo's comfortable, chocolate frosting Your socks hangin out, yours is talkin Rock so steadily, son, I'm still crazy Sport my old Force MD furs in the 80's

awesome What's even funnier is that the cool kids are going to call me a meatball any minute now, while the guy talking about lighting dicks on fire is a hero. That's an insult to meatballs. I'd prefer "davearm2 posts the dumbest things that anyone has ever posted here, and this was once a place regularly populated by Da Bum."

OK, I'm going to make this as clear as I can possibly make it: THE CUBS DO NOT NEED THEO EPSTEIN ASAP. They need a new GM pretty soon, but that does not automatically translate to needing only Epstein "ASAP." This would be leverage for the Sox only if Theo was the Cubs only choice/option. Your whole idea hinges on the idea that the Cubs are somehow even remotely cornered in this. They're not. They have other candidates besides Theo. They don't need him. They may not want to walk away (which isn't an advantage for the Red Sox since they don't want to walk away either), but they can easily do so and that's that. The only reason the Cubs would even consider "twisting" for a week or two would be if they actually needed Theo Epstein ASAP and nobody else was available. It's not a viable option for the Red Sox. That's their motivation. They don't have the leverage you think they do.

No, you were trying to get people to pick between losing top prospects or "losing" Epstein for an indefinite period of time due to the stupid "nuclear option." If you meant otherwise you would have actually asked whether it "hurt" more to hire Epstein and lose top prospects or to hire a different GM candidate without giving up as much. It's not like that's some kind of cryptic, complicated question, or like it's the same as what you were actually trying to get people to answer. You were hung up on the dumb idea that the Red Sox could drag this out indefinitely. You're wrong about what I was asking. The "nuclear option" I described would be telling the Red Sox to stick it, and move on to plan B. Sure it was; don't give a [expletive] at this point.

No, you were trying to get people to pick between losing top prospects or "losing" Epstein for an indefinite period of time due to the stupid "nuclear option." If you meant otherwise you would have actually asked whether it "hurt" more to hire Epstein and lose top prospects or to hire a different GM candidate without giving up as much. It's not like that's some kind of cryptic, complicated question, or like it's the same as what you were actually trying to get people to answer. You were hung up on the dumb idea that the Red Sox could drag this out indefinitely.