davearm2

I agree with all of this. I would refine it by saying, "we want Epstein, they know it, and they know we need him in place ASAP." They want and need him gone for all sorts of reasons, all of which have been repeated many times here. They just don't need it done ASAP. If they let Theo twist for a week or two, that limbo hurts the Cubs more than it hurts the Sox. So what motivation do they have to compromise on their offer right away? I guess the threat of the Cubs walking away is the answer to that question. My point is, the Cubs don't want to walk away, and move on to plan B, and the Sox know this, too.

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.

Let ME see if I understand this. People seem to think there's this "gunfight at the OK Corral" going on between the Cubs and Red Sox right now? It is a negotiation. They're working through details. The only people in this whole situation that are being obstinate are on message boards. I hope you're right. Just seems like there's a little more smoke than you're seeing. Like I said, I'd rather you be right than me.

There's pretty much one person suggesting that it won't get worked out and everyone else saying how stupid he is. Get a clue. I said I thought it would get worked out. More than once actually. I'm disagreeing with the perception that the Cubs hold all the cards and the Red Sox hold none.

... I'm dying to know what you think this proves. You realize it only answered your silly little question of what was worse, losing Epstein or losing top prospects, right? It's beyond obvious that if you choose to walk away from Epstein and keep the prospects, you hire someone else. Didn't think that needed to be spelled out for you. Not sure why I would assume such a thing. ... You're making less and less sense. Explain why you quoted my answer. You clearly thought it was some kind of trump card. I quoted your answer because I foolishly assumed you grasped the fact that if the Cubs lose Epstein, they will hire someone else to be their GM. Hence, your saying "Of course not getting Epstein would "hurt" more than losing, say, Jackson and McNutt in the long run" is equivalent to saying "Of course not getting Epstein and hiring another GM instead would "hurt" more than losing, say, Jackson and McNutt in the long run".

This leads us directly back to the question I've already asked, repeatedly. If you're saying what I think you are, you're the first to argue the Cubs would be better off keeping their prospects and hiring another GM versus giving up their prospects and hiring Epstein. I think I'm saying basically what a lot of other people are saying. In a vacuum, I'd rather have Epstein than Jackson/McNutt/Szczur But I'd rather have Atlanta guy/all of our prospects/$2m a year than Epstein without Jackson/McNutt/Szczur Fair enough. I disagree. Give me Epstein. You can have the prospects and the extra $2M and other dude can stay in Atlanta or go be someone else's GM.

Which do you think would hurt most? It's possible either would hurt most, but 100% speculative. I'm asking you to speculate.

... I'm dying to know what you think this proves. You realize it only answered your silly little question of what was worse, losing Epstein or losing top prospects, right? It's beyond obvious that if you choose to walk away from Epstein and keep the prospects, you hire someone else. Didn't think that needed to be spelled out for you. Not sure why I would assume such a thing.

This leads us directly back to the question I've already asked, repeatedly. If you're saying what I think you are, you're the first to argue the Cubs would be better off keeping their prospects and hiring another GM versus giving up their prospects and hiring Epstein.

I'm going to go with, the Red Sox compensation demands. So now they would demand compensation for an Asst. GM to get a GM job with another team? That has never been done, and if they ever want to hire someone from another organization they won't be the first to do it. Henry has said you don't block your employees if it's a promotion. Haven't the Red Sox already come out and said they're promoting Cherington themselves?

Who said anything about a "universe?" The biggest option that you're leaving out in your very typical either/or scenario is that the Cubs walk away and hire a different GM. I'm not leaving that option out. That's the second of "take it or leave it". I think we both agree that the Cubs lose if they choose that option.

I'm going to go with, the Red Sox compensation demands.

Which do you think would hurt most? Holy [expletive], you do this nearly every time: you take a position that gets shot down and then attempt to narrowly redefine the issue being debated argued to something ridiculously simplistic. Those aren't the only options. If the Red Sox "dig in their heels" as you described, what are the universe of options? I can identify two. Which ones am I leaving out?

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. by all accounts the red sox aren't asking for 1 or 2 prospects, they're asking for the entire system. i wouldn't be surprised if they asked for javier baez, just to mess with the hog farmer. LOL "all accounts" say that? As best I can tell, 100 accounts say 100 different things.

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. You didn't answer my question.

Which do you think would hurt most?

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.

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.

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. Meanwhile the Sox can move forward with Cherington as the de-facto GM. Ergo, leverage Red Sox.

The words "breach of contract" come to mind. Theo has an employment agreement wherein he performs certain duties, has authority over members of the organization, and is the GM. Stripping him of those duties or naming someone else GM while Theo is still employed by the Red Sox as GM would cause them a whole mess of legal trouble. That's possible, but 100% speculative. We don't know what options the Sox do and don't have, contractually. Which is why we must speculate about the Red Sox stripping Theo of his duties and title without any legal repercussions whatsoever. Nevermind the titles, that's a triviality. If Cherington and Henry and Lucchino start scheduling interviews with potential managerial hires, and don't invite Theo to those meetings, what's Theo going to do? Sue them?

This is a hilarious read. I thought the SOSH people were supposed to be level headed "smart" posters. I mean I know their viewpoints are going to be unconsciously biased towards the Red Sox and vice versa for us, but some of the things they are saying are just plain ridiculous. They think that not only do the Sox have all the leverage, but they have significant leverage. Nah, I don't think so guys. The Sox have some leverage -- time. What motivation do they have to resolve this quickly? Or before opening day for that matter? They can come out and announce Cherington is the GM and Epstein's role is being sorted out, or he's a special assistant, or whatever they want. Meanwhile the Cubs have no GM. The Sox can say "take it or leave it" indefinitely. The Cubs don't have that luxury. I think you are kidding yourself. They don't want Theo and know that he doesn't want to be there. If he stays they are stuck with a high level employee that won't be GM and won't have a position. They are also stuck with with approximately $6MM obligation ($3.5MM buyout, $2.5MM+2012 salary) to Epstein. I know they have all kinds of money to waste (Crawford, Lackey, Beckett....) but why would they want to waste another $6MM only to have him leave at the end of the year anyways? The Red Sox have done a terrible job of trying to control the narrative of this whole transaction. Well as I said above I think this will get worked out... eventually. The Red Sox can leave it in limbo for much longer than the Cubs can, though. There's not the same urgency on their part. The Cubs absolutely have to have a GM in place by the end of the WS. If the Sox let Theo and the Cubs twist in the wind for a month or whatever, what's the harm to them? Other pressing issues can't be addressed? Why not? Other young executives won't want to work for them in the future? Please.

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. Well it seems clear that we've got an old-fashioned standoff here. I do think someone will blink, and everything will get worked out. I'm just not 100% sold that the Cubs won't budge, and the Sox will rescind their exhorbitant demands. That'd be yet another egg on their face.

The words "breach of contract" come to mind. Theo has an employment agreement wherein he performs certain duties, has authority over members of the organization, and is the GM. Stripping him of those duties or naming someone else GM while Theo is still employed by the Red Sox as GM would cause them a whole mess of legal trouble. That's possible, but 100% speculative. We don't know what options the Sox do and don't have, contractually.

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.