davearm2

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.

What would stop him? The fact he's no longer Boston's GM.

Milwaukee fans squawked about rivalries and traditions when they were shipped from the AL to the NL. Yet their attendance jumped from 1.3M and 1.4M in their last two AL years, to 1.8 and 1.7M in their first two years in the NL. Of course now they have a new ballpark, are drawing in the 3M range, and playing in the NLCS.

Soriano vs Crawford, yes. Lackey vs Z, I don't know. Past 3 seasons WAR: Z 2009: 3.6 pitching + 1.0 hitting = 4.6 2010: 2.3 pitching + .5 hitting = 2.8 2011: .9 pitching + 1.0 hitting = 1.9 Lackey 2009: 3.8 pitching + 0.0 hitting = 3.8 2010: 4.1 pitching + .2 hitting = 4.3 2011: 1.5 pitching + .1 hitting = 1.6 Z is also 2 years younger. Put Z in the AL and the OWAR drops significantly. In fact, as much as he enjoys hitting I don't know if he'd waive his NTC to go to the AL. How great would it be if an AL team gave Z some light-hitting backup as his personal catcher, then DHed for the catcher and let Z hit.

Kyle is saying that if they play hardball in hopes of landing some prospect of ours to the point that we walk away, they are screwing themselves out of $6.5M because they held out for said prospect. I get it. And it makes no logical sense for the reason I explained. "If we don't get Prospect X, we're keeping our $6.5M!" That makes sense. (But it's not the situation.) "If we don't get Prospect X, we're burning our $6.5M!" That makes no sense.

It seems a bit odd that these staff members are in essence being traded. I wonder if anyone stopped to ask them if they would join the Cubs if Theo asked. They could say, "no thanks, I like it here". I'm sure it's only the people that want to come with Theo. I'm sure there're some staff members who would prefer to stay put. It's much easier for Theo to leave his home town when he's making 3-4 mil a year. But of course that's all behind the scenes stuff we'll probably never know. And what I'm wondering is, did they circulate a survey around the office? "Would you like to go with Theo to Chicago?" __ Yes __ No

They paid $51M to hang with Dice-K and his agent. I don't think the money would even make them blink. They are still a cost:benefit analysis organization. What Cubs prospects are worth $6.5 million? I think you're confused. They're not choosing between Cubs prospects and $6.5M dollars. They're going to end up with both or neither. If they are holding out for some Cubs prospect and walk because they don't get him, they have to pay the lame duck GM for another year and pay his conclusion bonus (an even higher one, actually) when he walks. Exactly. The Sox are going to walk away keeping their money AND having Cub prospects (if they "win" the negotiations), or they're going to walk away owing the money and no prospects (if they walk away). It's not an either-or. It's a both-or-neither.

It seems a bit odd that these staff members are in essence being traded. I wonder if anyone stopped to ask them if they would join the Cubs if Theo asked. They could say, "no thanks, I like it here".

They paid $51M to hang with Dice-K and his agent. I don't think the money would even make them blink. They are still a cost:benefit analysis organization. What Cubs prospects are worth $6.5 million? I think you're confused. They're not choosing between Cubs prospects and $6.5M dollars. They're going to end up with both or neither.

They paid $51M to hang with Dice-K and his agent. I don't think the money would even make them blink.

Young, talented executives declining the opportunity to work in the most progressive, desirable FO in MLB. Uh huh.

Fair points, and those are the concerns. But if it works, he's worth 5 WAR every year. If it only kinda works, he's still probably going to be worth 2.5 (Randy Wells 09-10 range). If you don't think he can even replicate Wells, then sure, leave him alone. I'm less worried about him replicating Wells than I am with him ending up broken given his history. It could work, but even if he gives you 150 IP and then gets hurt, WAR may say you gained something, but you've lost a valuable guy by taking an unnecessary risk. Of course this assumes that starting puts Marshall at greater risk for injury than relieving, which is probably not a valid thing to assume. I think it was John Smoltz that said closing put much more wear-and-tear on his arm than starting. One of Marshall's recurring problems was with blisters, which would definitely be at a higher risk of recurring if he's starting. Maybe Marshall ends up a 5 WAR guy, but I don't think that's so likely that it's worth the injury and performance risk. The odds of SP Marshall + [whoever replaces his pen innings] exceeding the value of [Wells/Cashner/whoever he would be replacing] + RP Marshall are very slim. Ideally, Marshall would be "replacing" CJ Wilson, and saving the Cubs $100M or whatever that they can then spend elsewhere. That's best-case, of course. And I know the money is extremely loose and doesn't account for Marshall's salary. Point is SM is dramatically cheaper. Offer him a 4/$15M extension and tell him you'd like to try him as a starter. He'd be an enormous value and a huge asset at those prices, if he can stick.

Fair points, and those are the concerns. But if it works, he's worth 5 WAR every year. If it only kinda works, he's still probably going to be worth 2.5 (Randy Wells 09-10 range). If you don't think he can even replicate Wells, then sure, leave him alone. I'm less worried about him replicating Wells than I am with him ending up broken given his history. It could work, but even if he gives you 150 IP and then gets hurt, WAR may say you gained something, but you've lost a valuable guy by taking an unnecessary risk. Of course this assumes that starting puts Marshall at greater risk for injury than relieving, which is probably not a valid thing to assume. I think it was John Smoltz that said closing put much more wear-and-tear on his arm than starting.

AWKWARD

Expectations media attention will certainly be very high in Chicago. But they were out of control in Boston. Chicago will still be very demanding of course, but I think he's right that it won't be Boston-demanding.

Fair points, and those are the concerns. But if it works, he's worth 5 WAR every year. If it only kinda works, he's still probably going to be worth 2.5 (Randy Wells 09-10 range). If you don't think he can even replicate Wells, then sure, leave him alone.

Lots of talk in here about needing to find another good arm to round out the rotation. Curious if anyone would be in favor of giving Marshall a crack at it. If nothing else, Epstein will surely realize he's more valuable as a starter -- assuming he can remain effective and handle the innings workload. Perhaps he could be CJ Wilson-lite.

You've got a different promised land in mind than I do.

I don't think anyone here needs to be reminded about what Soriano is. So you think given the choice, the Red Sox would prefer just to keep the flawed, aging, declining baseball player they already have, and that their entire fanbase seems to despise, versus giving that whole change of scenery thing a chance with a guy that, incidentally, plugs a hole in their lineup and saves them from committing *another* $30M or whatever it would take to re-sign Ortiz.

Like Lackey -- according to Boston fans. A better player would be great, but short of that, just simply a different player may be tolerable. Beggers can't be choosers and all of that.

THAT is the moment when we can start celebrating.

You'd think maybe (just maybe) the Giants would take Soriano (plus some cash) even with us not taking Zito back. This is a team that plugged in old guys like Tejada at SS and Aubrey Huff at 1B.

Not until the press conference. The one naming Cherington the Red Sox' new GM.

In favor of pointing out flawed arguments. And indifferent on Byrd staying. If they can trade him for something like an even slightly valuable minor leaguer, go ahead. The entire roster needs to be evaluated as follows: "Can [player x] be a key contributor on the next Cubs contender?" Whoever you say "no" or even "probably not" to, needs to go in exchange for a prospect that conceivably could contribute down the road. Marlon Byrd is the perfect example. (Now some will say "the next Cubs contender" can be next year. Naturally, where you fall on that question will greatly influence this exercise.)

I'm hoping for a massive housecleaning. The more new faces on this team, the better. Rip away.