Sammy Sofa

The point is, dragging it out impacts the Cubs more. If the Cubs do not have a new GM in place by the end of the World Series, that's a major problem for them. Ergo, leverage Red Sox. Well, no, because the reports seem to be indicating that Ricketts has had overtures out there to multiple candidates, so if they want to move on they can and could almost certainly have the position filled by one of their other top picks by the end of the WS. Which would hurt the Cubs more in the long run: losing one or two prospects they wanted to keep, or losing Epstein? If you say the former, you're lying. We're talking about the bigger picture of whether or not the Cubs need to give in to the Sox or let them drag this out or deal with the asinine suggestion of the "nuclear option." If the Sox go nuts and dig in their heels then the Cubs move on.

I think most would agree that exercising the nuclear option would hurt the Cubs in the long run far more than giving up the prospects the Red Sox want for Epstein. I don't think most would agree with that at all. This isn't a "Theo or bust" situation for the Cubs.

The point is, dragging it out impacts the Cubs more. If the Cubs do not have a new GM in place by the end of the World Series, that's a major problem for them. Ergo, leverage Red Sox. Well, no, because the reports seem to be indicating that Ricketts has had overtures out there to multiple candidates, so if they want to move on they can and could almost certainly have the position filled by one of their other top picks by the end of the WS.

Potentially, yes. Or MLB steps in.

Well, you're apparently banking on there being no legal repercussions, no effect from the internal strife this would cause and no impact on what is likely going to be a major offseason for them. Other than that, yeah, there's little reason they could let this drag out!

Wait, what? They need to hire a new manager and deal with coming off a disappointing season, potentially trying to deal away bad contracts and dealing with expiring ones and singing new FA. In short, they have a lot do do and leaving the FA in turmoil isn't going to help at all. The Red Sox very much have motivation to get this done quickly. Like I said, they can officially name Cherington the GM anytime. He's already acting in that role, and presumably he's working on all the things you mentioned. This Theo stuff isn't holding up any of that. No, I'm sorry, that's an absurdly messy situation. To think it's likely they'd go through that just to play hardball over not getting top prospects is, well, absurd. It would be one thing if the Cubs were trying to force them to walk away with nothing, but the reports/rumors seem to indicate they're willing to give up players and money. The Sox are just trying to shoot for the moon with the player compensation, likely because they think they can push around someone they view (or viewed) as fatally green to this in Ricketts. Nevermind the legalities of Theo's contract and the dissent it would sow.

Wait, what? They need to hire a new manager and deal with coming off a disappointing season, potentially trying to deal away bad contracts and dealing with expiring ones and singing new FA. In short, they have a lot do do and leaving the FA in turmoil isn't going to help at all. The Red Sox very much have motivation to get this done quickly.

I have little doubt that that's been inferred over the course of this in the hope of intimidating Ricketts. That said, there's a huge difference between such an implied (or even outright) threat and then actually going through with it.

Well, that's just common sense.

Yeah I'm pretty sure every GM would refuse to deal with him indefinitely. Plus, Henry still has veto power over everything Theo does. Plus, as sulley was saying, pretty sure that would fall well into the realm of collusion.

They may have ended up over their pythag, but the collapse is definitely monumental because their performance during September was far below what they had done all season. Sure, they were playing over their heads the first five months, but not by a large enough amount for anybody to expect them to collapse the way they did. Obviously the Cardinals are playing well, but they are definitely not meeting as much resistance as you would expect in the playoffs. They have been handed 4 runs tonight. They are winning by 4. They pounded the Brewers in Game 2, but other than that, they've relied on the Brewers mistakes to stay in this series. That's the kind of stuff that happens in the playoffs nearly every year. Sometimes it goes the Cardinals' way. Sometimes it doesn't. I mean, we sit here on the one hand damning them for making the playoffs with "undeserving" teams, yet they are also the team that lost the first World Series anyone had lost to the Red Sox in nearly a century (swept, no less, after winning 105 games in the regular season). They play in a division that gave up back to back division wins to the Cubs. They have their share of luck, and they have their share of decent team construction. People can cry about the luck all they want, but not every team is as poorly constructed as the Cubs are 9 times out of 10. They're obviously well-constructed. The key to success is getting to the playoffs consistently by consistently winning around 90 games a season. The playoffs are such a crap-shoot. That's why they get in these situations, because they're constantly in the playoffs. It doesn't mean I can't be pissed when the other teams makes it easy on them. Well, I never said you couldn't be. I'm just explaining why I'd rather hate them for what they are than for being some kind of baseball boogeyman (not saying that you are doing this).

They may have ended up over their pythag, but the collapse is definitely monumental because their performance during September was far below what they had done all season. Sure, they were playing over their heads the first five months, but not by a large enough amount for anybody to expect them to collapse the way they did. Obviously the Cardinals are playing well, but they are definitely not meeting as much resistance as you would expect in the playoffs. They have been handed 4 runs tonight. They are winning by 4. They pounded the Brewers in Game 2, but other than that, they've relied on the Brewers mistakes to stay in this series. That's the kind of stuff that happens in the playoffs nearly every year. Sometimes it goes the Cardinals' way. Sometimes it doesn't. I mean, we sit here on the one hand damning them for making the playoffs with "undeserving" teams, yet they are also the team that lost the first World Series anyone had lost to the Red Sox in nearly a century (swept, no less, after winning 105 games in the regular season). They play in a division that gave up back to back division wins to the Cubs. They have their share of luck, and they have their share of decent team construction. People can cry about the luck all they want, but not every team is as poorly constructed as the Cubs are 9 times out of 10.

Well, no, they had things go their way in terms of postseason competitors and they won a bunch of baseball games themselves. It's not like teams just show up and are handed victories. They've played hard to get to this point. And was the Braves' collapse even all that dramatic? They ended up 4 games over their pythag. Yeah, they lost a ton of games at the end, but they were REALLY overachieving at the rate they were going. I get what you're saying; I just disagree. It's not like I'm happy they're where they are, but I'm sure as [expletive] glad they didn't actually dominate to get to this point.

Despite people like C.C. and davearm2 trying to rain on everyone's parade, Boston has had very little leverage in terms of demanding or trying to work out "extra" compensation. The Cubs' reported financial offer is more than fair given what Theo had left on his contract and I have little doubt they'd be willing to give up 1-2 mid-tier prospects in addition to that. The Red Sox are a PR mess right now and they're trying to salvage something that they can spin as a "victory" out of all this and they're trying to do so by fighting for a shiny new prospect they can show off, but it sounds like Ricketts is holding fast. Sure, it's not impossible for the Red Sox to walk away and damn Theo to a year in baseball purgatory...but it's extremely unlikely that they would do so, and everyone knows it. They tried to posture, thinking they could push around the money guy behind the Cubs and it doesn't seem to be working. Now they'll let it technically drag out through the weekend before announcing on Monday that everything is finalized. Press conference on Tuesday, all is well: BOOK IT.

Yes I would. I'm tired of them losing their ace and winning the world series. They did it in 06 and they're possibly going to do it again this year. Why would it be better if they were better? Because it seems like everything has to go exactly perfect for the Cubs to win a World Series (or even be in the position the Cardinals are in now). However, once again, the Cardinals are in a season where they shouldn't be contending for a World Series and are knocking on the door of a pennant. Like 2003 for the Cubs? Teams sneak in and make runs. It happens a lot. I just don't know why it would be "better" to see a dominating Cardinals team. A dominating Cardinals steam has much better chance to be bad news for a long time. If they win this, meh, so what? Yeah, it sucks, but in this new Theo-driven realm I say let them enjoy their backdoor shenanigans (yeah, that's right). That time will be done soon.

Yes I would. I'm tired of them losing their ace and winning the world series. They did it in 06 and they're possibly going to do it again this year. Why would it be better if they were better?

There was huge, gigantic news, but we're just so cool we act like nothing happened.

So you'd feel better if they won the WS after dominating the regular season handily and then sweeping through the playoffs uncontested?

*CUBSGM ALERT TO FULL*

"Could be an injury; could be that he's traded; could be something else entirely."

Crawford's contract gets better if the Red Sox send some money over, but purely on each contract as it is now I don't think Crawford's is that much better than Soriano's. Crawford has more value than Soriano right this minute yes, but he's already 30 and is signed for the next six years at more money each year (I think) than any one of Soriano's. I could see the argument that it's better to push back the awful years that are inevitable for both players, but the risk is that there will be more (both in terms of cost and length) for Crawford. Crawford isn't quite the predictable disaster that Soriano was. Right. Doesn't have the "highs" that Soriano was once able to achieve, but much less of a flawed hitter and a much better defender. A lot of Crawford's value is going to come from his speed, but it declining isn't going to turn him into a one-dimensional player like Soriano.

http://twitter.com/#!/CarrieMuskat/status/124981880897540096 Muskat vs. Kaplan: everyone loses.

Not to defend Kaplan, but how much does the player's team's say-so fit into them playing in something like that? Maybe since the Red Sox technically didn't OK it and he's now being traded he was pulled. Just spitballing; I have zero clue if that's right or not.

You're also getting the two better players. Yeah, no kidding. You're basically eating the Lackey contract if you have to to have LF locked down for the next 6 years by Crawford.

lol, i dont think that's how it works, kaplan Imagine how he was licking the spittle out of his goatee as he typed that.