davearm2
-
Posts
2,776 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Joomla Posts 1
Chicago Cubs Videos
Chicago Cubs Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
2026 Chicago Cubs Top Prospects Ranking
News
2023 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
Guides & Resources
2024 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
The Chicago Cubs Players Project
2025 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker
Blogs
Events
Forums
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by davearm2
-
Gut instinct or any particular reason? I don't think his hitting will exceed a 1.000 OPS, give or take. He's done that three times. He could maintain that level, but I don't think he elevates those numbers meaningfully going forward. And his fielding and baserunning have noplace to go but down IMO.
-
Doesn't mean the shape of their career WARP curves aren't likely to mirror each other when all is said and done. And if so, the point about Pujols being a significant liability in the second half of his next deal is very valid. In fact I think that's essentially a given. Nobody's arguing that he wouldn't decline over the course of a 6-10 contract at this point in his career. The point in him being better than ARod is that it means there's a very good chance that his decline would still leave him at a level where he's better than most longer than the typical player, or even someone at ARod's level. Do you want the Cubs to not sign either Pujols or Fielder? Best case is you give 'em a deal with an opt-out, and they take the opt out. The Yankees should have let ARod walk. And they should let CC walk too, if they get that chance this year.
-
right now he is, but ARod' renegotiated deal started the year after he posted 9.8 WAR. Entering 2008, he was in his age 32/33 season. Pujols is entering his age 32 season and has had two years where his performance has slipped a bit. If he's looking for a gigantic deal that is 7 or more years, how certain are you that he won't decline in 2-3 years the way ARod is? Now that we aren't in the steroid era anymore, the expectation should be for normal human declines, and mid-30's was typically the area where decline started to happen. Everyone is different, but therein lies my concern with a Pujols deal. Another impact of the end of the steroid era -- we have to question whether the next wave of superstars will remain productive as long as guys like Manny and Bonds did.
-
I think everyone agrees with these points, but it seems curious to classify Fielder as a star player and post-2006 vintage Soriano as non-star. Soriano's WARP numbers from 02-06 look an awful lot like Fielder's from 07-11: 5.1 5.7 1.7 5 6.4 2.1 3.4 2.3 5.5 5.3 22.1 20.4 Soriano represented a larger risk of age-related decline, but Fielder represents a larger risk of weight-related decline. If you don't like the Soriano contract, then it's pretty hard to justify offering the same deal to Fielder. And you probably can't even get Fielder @ Soriano's numbers. Fielder going into his prime is probably going to put up better numbers than all but Soriano's first season with the Cubs. If Fielder gets an eight year deal like Soriano got, I could see the last year or two looking pretty bad. IMO we're seeing Fielder's prime right now. I don't see him being more than a 5-6 win guy going forward.
-
Doesn't mean the shape of their career WARP curves aren't likely to mirror each other when all is said and done. And if so, the point about Pujols being a significant liability in the second half of his next deal is very valid. In fact I think that's essentially a given.
-
I think everyone agrees with these points, but it seems curious to classify Fielder as a star player and post-2006 vintage Soriano as non-star. Soriano's WARP numbers from 02-06 look an awful lot like Fielder's from 07-11: 5.1 5.7 1.7 5 6.4 2.1 3.4 2.3 5.5 5.3 22.1 20.4 Soriano represented a larger risk of age-related decline, but Fielder represents a larger risk of weight-related decline. If you don't like the Soriano contract, then it's pretty hard to justify offering the same deal to Fielder. And you probably can't even get Fielder @ Soriano's numbers.
-
Why not? See above. Let's assume for a moment that there's even a 1% chance that Epstein to the Cubs falls apart. Hoyer's not going to quit his job in San Diego if there's a chance he has to work with someone other than his superbestbuddy. The Cubs aren't going to hire a new GM if there's even a tiny chance they have to find a new President (who will presumably want some sort of say on the GM front). If they officially hire Hoyer and later the Epstein deal falls apart, then the Cubs go without a President. Hoyer isn't working with Epstein, sure, but he's now the head honcho, reporting directly to Ricketts. Not seeing the problem with that situation, if you're Hoyer.
-
Yes, let's leave it up to Bud Selig to determine the value of guys like Brett Jackson and Trey McNutt.
-
What I don't get is the assumption that if Selig were to get involved, that he'd mandate a solution in the Cubs' favor.
-
The Lackey thing does seem pretty plausible from all sides. The Sox get out from under a horrible contract and rid themselves of an unwanted player. The Padres get a veteran starter with upside for below market value. And their division and ballpark maximize his chances of bouncing back. The Cubs get their coveted execs for mainly cash.
-
Mike Greenberg : Jets
-
Why would you assume Theo hasn't already done due diligence on these guys on behalf of the Sox?
-
It's not as large of a promotion. But whether or not it is on the right side of some imaginary "promotion/not a promotion" line is not reasonably in question. Nor is it relevant.
-
Typically, promotion absolutely does = no compensation. Whether this is really a clear cut promotion is highly questionable, though. It was clear to everyone involved that compensation was going to be required. That's why all of this talk of "is it a promotion or isn't it" is a colossal waste of time. What that compensation will be is not tied to if it's a promotion, how big a promotion, or anything related to the job title, responsibilities, etc. etc. The compensation is tied to what will make the Red Sox okay with releasing their asset from his contract.
-
No. When you sell your car, does your price depend upon how the person buying it is going to use it? Only if the car is getting promoted to a 4 wheel drive truck. I just don't understand how you don't get this. It's the same thing as an NFL coordinator being allowed to interview for a head coaching job. There's NEVER any compensation when a promotion is involved. In fact, the only time permission is even considered to be an issue is in a parallel move, which we've clearly determined is not the case here. Again, you're commingling the permission issue with the compensation issue. Theo was allowed to interview with the Cubs in the first place because the Red Sox were persuaded by Ricketts that the Cubs were offering a promotion. In no way, shape, or form does promotion = no compensation. Both the Cubs and the Red Sox have understood all along that compensation is required, and I think everyone here understands that as well.
-
No. When you sell your car, does your price depend upon how the person buying it is going to use it? No. Then you're contradicting yourself. You're arguing the Sox' price (compensation) for Epstein depends on how the Cubs are going to use him. Why should it?
-
I'm going to pretend Ricketts wasn't just paying lip service when he made his comment about not needing baseball people in charge of his baseball people and pray that that isn't the case. Exactly.
-
No. I yield to the all caps answer. It's got to be right - it's eLouder. He shouted at me earlier. Just wanted to be sure I was speaking his language.
-
No. When you sell your car, does your price depend upon how the person buying it is going to use it?
-
Correct. The whole reason for compensation is that the Red Sox are losing Epstein's services. It doesn't really matter to them what role he's taking with the Cubs. If Cherington left to become assistant GM of the Cubs, you think it would be the same as leaving to become GM? The Red Sox would not grant permission to the Cubs to interview Cherington for an assistant GM position. This isn't that tricky to grasp. Divorce the permission issue from the compensation issue, and you're home free. Well, you're wrong as usual if you think a generic team views a guy leaving one job for the same job the same as leaving one job for a promotion. Oh jesus christ. You can't possibly be this dumb. THERE ARE TWO SEPARATE ISSUES TO CONSIDER HERE THE PROMOTION FACTOR ONLY MATTERS FOR THE FIRST OF THEM -- WILL WE OR WON'T WE ALLOW AN INTERVIEW WE ARE WELL BEYOND THAT STAGE NOW WE ARE NOW ON TO TACKLING ISSUE #2 FOR PURPOSES OF DETERMINING APPROPRIATE COMPENSATION, IT NO LONGER MATTERS WHETHER ANYONE CONSIDERS THIS A PROMOTION OR NOT ALL THAT MATTERS IS THAT THE RED SOX ARE GIVING UP A VALUABLE ASSET AND THEY NEED TO BE COMPENSATED FOR THAT
-
I think most of us realize that the quote doesn't refer to him leaving the Red Sox for nothing and at the same time most of us agree that there should be compensation involved in the process. What people do take from the quote is that there is an obvious difference between a manager leaving one team to take a manager position on another team and a GM on one team leaving to another to become President of Baseball Operations. Think back to the logic of why they don't refuse interviews to teams offering their guys promotions. Because they don't beleive its fair to their employees to block them from advancing their career with a promotion. As such, it stands to reason that they wouldnt also block their guys from accepting those positions by asking for unreasonable compensation, or at least compensation comperable to what the White Sox got or the Mariners or whoever has traded a manager to another team. I doubt the Red Sox, internally, believe they are being unreasonable, or are expressly trying to block anything.
-
You think compensation would be equal for a lateral move compared to a promotion? Nobody's arguing there should be no compensation involved. Correct. The whole reason for compensation is that the Red Sox are losing Epstein's services. It doesn't really matter to them what role he's taking with the Cubs. If Cherington left to become assistant GM of the Cubs, you think it would be the same as leaving to become GM? The Red Sox would not grant permission to the Cubs to interview Cherington for an assistant GM position. This isn't that tricky to grasp. Divorce the permission issue from the compensation issue, and you're home free.
-
You think compensation would be equal for a lateral move compared to a promotion? Nobody's arguing there should be no compensation involved. Correct. The whole reason for compensation is that the Red Sox are losing Epstein's services. It doesn't really matter to them what role he's taking with the Cubs.
-
The second part of that did not come out of Henry's mouth. That is somebody's interpretation of it. He did say that that protocol exists, and it WOULD seem to imply that that means if you offer someone a promotion, they will grant that person permission to interview. Still, granting permission doesn't at all imply anything about an agreement on compensation or that they'll agree to allowing the person out of his/her contract easily. In fact, he didn't even really come out and acknowledge that what the Cubs are offering is a non-lateral move (which is, to some extent, a subjective matter of opinion), though it's likely that they, at least somewhat, agree that it is. Bravo, David! Several people need to read the bolded as many times as necessary before it sinks in. Page after page of discussion about is it or isn't it a lateral move is completely irrelevant to the current issue of compensation.
-
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. I'm not saying that the employee is entitled to some type of compensation. Merely that the employee may plead his case that he should be entitled to compensation. If that employee can prove that the decision to retain the employee was not a business decision (IE: spite), I would think there is a case there. It would be very hard to prove, but the way the Red Sox organization have been smearing Epstein, I would think there's at least a threat for litigation. And I'm telling you there isn't. I don't think there's anyway you possibly know that for sure off the top of your head. A rudimentary understanding of employment law and contract law is all I need to know. Theo is under contract. He wants out of that contract. He can't sue the Red Sox for not agreeing to let him out of his contract.