davearm2

Having Fielder for 3-4 years and then having him opt out of the last 3-4 years would be about the best-case scenario.

Come on now. Two prospects in the 6-10 range is more than fair compensation for Epstein. That's less than the Guillen-Florida deal, for a more important role. If the Cubs get to hold onto their 5 best young MLers and 5 best prospects, we should be thrilled.

I doubt that's going to work, considering the Cubs might not have more than 10 players in the organization that the Red Sox would want. Castro Garza Soto Marshall Anyone else from the ML roster? Then a handful of intriguing prospects: Jackson McNutt Sczrzr That's 7. Pick your favorite next three (not including 2011 draftees), and the cupboard is pretty bare after that. You can only think of 3 prospects another team might want? The pessimistic whining of some fans makes me want to stab kittens. Sure in a vacuum, there are other guys that another team would want. But as compensation for Epstein, it sure feels like the Sox are shooting higher than the mid-tier stuff that's left. Just for grins though, who are your #s 8 9 and 10 that are also offlimits? Then who are 11 and 12 that the Sox get to have? Go through that exercise, and I think you'll see what I'm saying.

I doubt that's going to work, considering the Cubs might not have more than 10 players in the organization that the Red Sox would want. Castro Garza Soto Marshall Anyone else from the ML roster? Then a handful of intriguing prospects: Jackson McNutt Sczrzr That's 7. Pick your favorite next three (not including 2011 draftees), and the cupboard is pretty bare after that.

The Sox also have a contractual obligation to Epstein--he is their GM. If they tried to make him the "co-GM" or demote him to scout or even "promote" him to Special Assistant to the President in Charge of Pencil Sharpening (or whatever) THEN he would have a contractual beef (and win in any court). The specific language of the contract may or may not permit the Red Sox to reassign Epstein. We don't know. But clearly that's not the situation we're in. The Sox have made no effort to get out of their contractual obligation to Epstein, so I'm not sure where you're going with this.

I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but I don't think that is what Henry said. What I recall Henry saying is that it is customary for the Red Sox to grant permission to interview with another team if there is a promotion involved. Well actually, I know he said that. If he also said the bit about no compensation if there's a promotion, then I missed that. If you could link me to that quote I'd appreciate it.

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'm not sure Friedman is completely out and he's been my top choice all along. I just think Epstein and Friedman are on a different tier than Hahn, Coppolella, etc. Not worlds better, but better enough to sacrifice a little extra for. Absolutely on a different tier, no question. The demonstrated excellence factor is huge. Lots of highly-touted, brilliant young up and comers flame out when they become GMs.

I don't get your hypothetical about the Sox naming him Co-CEO. They clearly are not doing that on top of giving him more privileges and a boost in compensation. If that were the case, then I could understand the compensation more. You have a point in the fact that the Cubs new before they came to the table that there was compensation needed. Posters here merely asked why it was necessary. Arguing that it's necessary because the Cubs already knew before hand is avoiding the debate. Compensation is necessary because the Red Sox will be releasing a valuable, high-ranking member of their organization that they have under contract. In the end it doesn't really matter if the Cubs want him to run the place or wash cars in the players' lot. In either case the Red Sox are losing his services, and that's what requires compensation. I personally don't know the ins-and-outs of contract negotiations, especially ones to this degree. However, if the Sox cause considerable monetary loss (not to mention stalling career path growth) to an employee because they deny that employee from taking a job with the Cubs, I think that employee has litigation rights to help himself to that lost compensation. I may be wrong on that though. 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.

Someone mentioned Thad Levine of the Rangers. Might be a name to keep an eye on.

I don't get your hypothetical about the Sox naming him Co-CEO. They clearly are not doing that on top of giving him more privileges and a boost in compensation. If that were the case, then I could understand the compensation more. You have a point in the fact that the Cubs new before they came to the table that there was compensation needed. Posters here merely asked why it was necessary. Arguing that it's necessary because the Cubs already knew before hand is avoiding the debate. Compensation is necessary because the Red Sox will be releasing a valuable, high-ranking member of their organization that they have under contract. In the end it doesn't really matter if the Cubs want him to run the place or wash cars in the players' lot. In either case the Red Sox are losing his services, and that's what requires compensation.

But... he doesn't have a checkpoint (IE: Lucchino). If I didn't have to have my manager's approval to order myself a $4000 desk and make my own hours, that would be a promotion. Sure, I'm still doing the same job, but having unrestricted access to certain privileges and abilities makes my job different. Better. It is a promotion. Once again not sure where the disconnect is going here...on paper its a promotion...but my contention was that the fact hes going to essentially be responsible for the same duties is the reason the Sox asked for compensation. Don't really know what the big deal is about that. If it's a promotion on paper, it's a promotion. I'm guessing the Red Sox asked for compensation because we're taking an employee under contract for a year and they're trying to squeeze any value out of it that they can. Not because of a weird semantic argument on what is and isn't really a promotion. This. Ultimately the Red Sox don't give a rip what Theo will or won't be doing for the Cubs. He's their employee, and they want something out of it if they're going to relinquish him to the Cubs.

WTF does it matter if it is or isn't a promotion? The Red Sox are entitled to compensation in either case. If there was no promotion involved, then the Red Sox would have had a valid reason to decline the interview request. We're obviously way beyond that point. Promotion/no promotion doesn't really have any bearing on the compensation issue.

So, what's the Cubs' drop-dead date on this thing?

Or this was their plan all along.

Do you think Theo would get 10M/Y if he were a free agent? ETA: Hi Gooney Every team in baseball would fall all over themselves to pay $10M to have Epstein under control for 6 years, like you get with the prospect. So if we make your question apples-to-apples, the answer is absolutely yes. WHAT? What what? You're making a totally invalid comparison, as I pointed out. I tried to straighten it out as best I could.

A lot higher. McNutt is older than your basic draft pick, has had more success closer to the big leagues, and the signing of draft picks is artificially lowered by their inability to negotiate with multiple teams. Let's just assume you're right, and a well-regarded AA prospect is worth $10M. In that case, what is the monetary value of a GM with a stellar record of drafting and developing many of those well-regarded AA prospects? Less than the value of one such prospect? Really? Do you think Theo would get 10M/Y if he were a free agent? ETA: Hi Gooney Every team in baseball would fall all over themselves to pay $10M to have Epstein under control for 6 years, like you get with the prospect. So if we make your question apples-to-apples, the answer is absolutely yes.

A lot higher. McNutt is older than your basic draft pick, has had more success closer to the big leagues, and the signing of draft picks is artificially lowered by their inability to negotiate with multiple teams. Let's just assume you're right, and a well-regarded AA prospect is worth $10M. In that case, what is the monetary value of a GM with a stellar record of drafting and developing many of those well-regarded AA prospects? Less than the value of one such prospect? Really?

JMHO of course, but your discount rate needs to be significantly higher.

What do you believe to be the monetary value of a well-regarded AA prospect? You mean if the Cubs put McNutt on eBay, what would other MLB teams bid? Something on par with what gets spent on high draft picks and top international guys, I suppose. $1M? $2M? What's the correct answer?

The next-best candidate+prospects, AINEC. If you truly believe that, then you shouldn't want Epstein at all. You should want Ricketts to hire the cheapest GM available, and pump the savings into the draft to get more prospects.

He and Marshall are the only ones who have done anything. And Marmol is not exactly setting the world on fire anymore. Maybe you can help me with my dilemma. I'm hungry but the store wants to charge me $100 for a loaf of bread. Obviousy not starving to death is worth $100, so I should do it, right? For this analogy to work, you'd have to specify that bread is your clear favorite food, and the store you're at is the only one that has it. So you could go someplace else, spend less, and get something less satisfying. You're not going to starve in either case.

Who'll take a huge payraise to come to a franchise who has laid out an impressive organizational plan with a chance to break a historic championship drought in a world class city? Probably nobody. Maybe Jim Bowden. Someone not as well-suited to the job as Epstein. The analysis is, what's more valuable to the organization: the marginal difference between Epstein and the next-best candidate, or the prospect(s) the Red Sox want.

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. I don't believe Plan B is Friedman, Beane or Cashman. I think Plan B is someone that's never been a GM before (or perhaps Josh Byrnes). For the Cubs, it's not so much an issue of PR. It's an issue of making the decision that best sets your franchise up for sustained, longterm success. They think Epstein is the guy for the job. So the pertinent question is: does keeping Trey McNutt (or whomever) and going with the second choice better position the organization for the future, or does giving up McNutt and getting Epstein?

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.