davearm2

My guess is that Red Sox brass is looking over who can replace Theo, should they ask for compensation and how to handle the obvious media circus this is sure to become should he leave to come here. Not an easy time for Red Sox ownership. They're trying to decide whether or not to let him go, is all. The rest is easily dealt with. Promote Cherington. Pick a dollar figure for compensation. Hold a back-slapping press conference for Epstein just like they did for Francona.

Isn't it at least a little bushleague to refuse to allow a guy to interview with another team? I know it happens sometimes, but you'd think that would not sit well with either the requesting team, or the employee... especially the employee.

Seriously. I'd have no problem taking on Lackey. Move him to the NL and get the issues with his marriage resolved, and he could be a comeback player of the year candidate.

Some areas just have crappy fanbases. Tampa may be one. Atlanta has terrific new(ish) facilities and a large population, yet all of their professional teams struggle with attendance. Heck for years the Braves wouldn't sell out their postseason games, and the Thrashers just gave up and left town. LA can't support an NFL team, etc...

This nonsense about the team presidency is just so lame. Whoever comes in will be the baseball czar, no matter what title he's given, and a Crane Kenney type will still be needed to deal with 1,000 other things not directly related to the baseball side. I mean do people really think Theo Epstein is going to have any interest in dealing with crap like bringing concerts and football games to Wrigley, interfacing with the city and the neighborhood about parking and crowd control, deciding where to put a Toyota sign, politicking for a triangle building, managing a "premium" ticket-scalping side business, hiring interns for the marketing department, etc.?

What's been unspoken (until now I guess) is that if Epstein and Francona come to Chicago to make the Cubs the Red Sox of the NL, two things are almost sure to happen: 1) Epstein is going to want to hit a homerun in free agency with a Pujols or a Fielder, and 2) Chicago would jump way up these guys' list of where they'd like to sign. It'd be the perfect storm.

So let me get this straight: If the Sox grant permission, then that means they want Theo to leave. (Corrolary: if they don't want him to leave, then they won't grant permission.) And if Theo feels they want him to leave, then he won't take the interview. So if the above facts are correct, please explain how Epstein could ever interview for, let alone become the next Cubs' GM.

To be fair, life in the AL East kinda sucks if you're BAL, TB, or TOR. If you're NYY or BOS though, it ain't so bad, especially before TB got things figured out.

They're going to be very disappointed. I'd take Lackey and part of his contract because he's never pitched in the NL. Besides, I don't think Epstein would want to come over if we gave away our 2 best players. I would be thrilled if the Cubs got Epstein and Lackey for Zambrano.

How do we know what Boston will or will not request? There's no real precedent that I'm aware of, so I don't see how anything can be ruled out. Plus, the GM position has become more and more high-profile, and Epstein is widely considered one of the best, so he's clearly a valuable asset. I wouldn't be surprised if they put a high pricetag out there.

The manager should be an extension of the GM and the organization's philosophy. The general manager should set the philosophy of the organization (what type of hitters and pitchers does the team want, etc) and the manager should help to execute that philosophy by promoting whatever offensive and pitching approach that philosophy calls for. With extreme exceptions (20- and 21-year-olds in the majors, for example), the fundamentals should be taken care of throughout the minors - so if you want to hire a guy because he'll preach fundamentals, then you should be pulling for him to be a minor league manager where that teaching will be far more useful. Except for the youngest of players, if you're trying to teach fundamentals at the major league level, you've failed already. Whoever the Cubs hire as GM should have full reign over bringing in a manager of his choice. If that GM is Epstein and he feels Ryno will work inside the constraints of the organizational philosophy Theo sets, then I'm ok with hiring Ryno. Hendry's biggest problem with the Cubs is that we never had an organizational philosophy, it changed with each managerial hire. When you rely on the manager to set the philosophy, it changes with every new managerial hire. You should hire a manager to fit your organizational philosophy, not let your manager set your philosophy. Excellent post. The GM dictates the organizational philosophy. The ideal manager is whoever can best implement that philosophy at the bigleaguge level, and instill it in bigleague players. Just as the ideal scouting director is whoever will find the best players to fit the philosophy, and the best farm director is whoever will best teach it across all levels of the minors (or more accurately perhaps, best manage and guide the coaching staff that will teach it). This notion that Sandberg would be a great hire completely ignores the fundamental question of, how well would he or wouldn't he mesh with an as-yet-unnamed GM, and an as-yet-unveiled philosophy.

Fleita was extended so he wouldn't leave for Detroit (allegedly). Totally different situation.

Some package deal involving those names, and possibly Zambrano and/or Soriano (to offset some of the $$$ impact on the Cubs) isn't difficult at all to imagine.

I'm going to predict Epstein takes the Cubs job, but he doesn't want to bring Francona along to be his mgr.

No they do not. That conclusion is, and forever will be, pure speculation. Heck I have yet to hear anyone even ask, let alone answer, the question of where the stands end and the field of play starts. At the railing? At the edge of the concrete wall? At the outermost edge of the padding? I'm pretty convinced the ball, glove, and hands were above one or more of those potential, imaginary boundary lines. To borrow a phrase from football, there is not conclusive video evidence to overturn the call on the field. The signs all over the field telling you not to reach over the railing and into the field of play make the division pretty clear. And I even conceded that there's no conclusive video evidence. However, simultaneous photographic evidence from two angles, separated by 90 degrees, makes it pretty clear that, unless the grass in foul territory fits into the grey area you're describing, the ball was over the field of play. You're good now, Nuts. Davearm will pick up your stance from here. Haha really? You can look at one or more of those pictures and determine where the ball is in relationship to the grass? That's comical.

No they do not. That conclusion is, and forever will be, pure speculation. Heck I have yet to hear anyone even ask, let alone answer, the question of where the stands end and the field of play starts. At the railing? At the edge of the concrete wall? At the outermost edge of the padding? I'm pretty convinced the ball, glove, and hands were above one or more of those potential, imaginary boundary lines. To borrow a phrase from football, there is not conclusive video evidence to overturn the call on the field.

What makes Epstein better? What mAkes him more likely to win a WS? I believe the thought process is that hes done it already and that his success has been relatively recent, which to me is poor logic. Between Beane and Epstein: I'm more impressed with Epstein's drafting. I'm more impressed with the improvement in the Sox' minor league system under Epstein. I'm more impressed with the major league talent that's emerged under Epstein. I'm more impressed with Epstein's ability to stockpile compensatory picks. Epstein has experience working in a big-market, big-media environment, Beane doesn't. Beane has made some trades that left me scratching my head, Epstein's have been more impressive. Epstein has some questionable FA signs on his resume, but Beane probably would too if he had the money to spend. For these reasons, I think the Cubs would improve more dramatically with Epstein in charge.

Dude what reason did he have to leave Oakland then? They were still a legit contender and the MoneyBall hype still hadnt died down. He was maybe 5-6 years into his career as A's GM. A whole lot of time has passed since then, and things have changed significantly. Actually things haven't changed significantly. The A's are still the A's, and the Red Sox are still the Red Sox. Beane had the same reason to leave Oakland then as he would have now -- to enjoy the financial resources and other advantages that come with running a big-market, big-spending club.

Him turning a job down over half a decade ago when the A's were still a perennial contender really has nothing to do with anything anymore. It has everything to do with why you're misguided in saying Beane "deserves a better job". He has been offered exactly that, and turned it down. Personally, I am all-in on Theo, but Beane wouldn't be a disappointment. The notion that he's owed the opportunity to be a big-market GM just rings totally hollow though, given the above circumstances.

That was a good what...6...8 years ago? It's about time you let that go. I forgot that even happened, and it literally has nothing to do with anything anymore, except as a piece of trivia, I guess (who did Billy Beane turn down half a decade before taking the Cubs job?). Your second point is true, I thought I threw it in, but then I would think that would make the pool of people who should get the job much, much smaller. I especially believe this given new ownership. Beane is more of completing a legacy in a place where he can compete year in and year out while rebuilding the infrastructure of baseball's old joke franchise like he did his first franchise. Yes, again this can be anyone. To me, there's a difference between giving it to the guy who revamped the MLB front office personnel, the way they operate, got beat by those ideas once richer teams started adapting, opened the door for GMs like Andrew Friedman and other Wall Street employees and/or MBAs to seriously work in baseball, got publicized in a book that shook the baseball world, and then saw that book made into a move starring one of Hollywood's biggest stahs and giving it to someone who's done basically what the former did after Beane opened the door for guys like him. To me it's hiring a kid to do a man's job, and I'm not sure my opinion will change too much until Beane is officially not a candidate. That will only be because it has to change. Plus, what's the one thing Beane's resume is missing? Hint: It's the same thing the Cubs haven't claimed in over 100 years. Let what go? I'm just setting the record straight. You're playing this misguided "woe is Billy, stuck with the A's" tune, and it just doesn't work. He *chose* to stay where he is, after being handed the keys to the Red Sox.

Freidman's never had a contract. He and the owner are pretty tight. He's my first choice and by a large margin, but I think he's going to stay put too. I'm putting all my chips on Cherington as the winner. I'm a Beane guy, through and through. Guy deserves a better job more than any GM in the game, and this IMO is exactly that job. Personally Friedman is a kid in the GM game and to me has always been chump change for this Cubs job compared to Beane. To me Ricketts isn't looking for the young hot name, but rather a boss who's been there done that and knows exactly what he would do given the resources new GM will have. Beane could truly become a fckin leeeeeeegend with this job. I mean he's pretty damn close to it with a book people think he wrote and a movie, but this would be his Inglorious Basterds. I think the difference between him and Friedman is that he's swam against the 15 years and EARNED a position that guys will literally fall over (and stab) each other to get. IF Ricketts is on the hunt for the next great and gos with a fresh face then yeah I'm on the Friedman wagon. Then Cherington and everyone else...I actually really like Cherington. Oh and I lump Cashman with Beane, but I'd pick Beane. Two things: Beane was offered the Boston job, accepted it, then backed out. Given that, I have a hard time beating the "he deserves a better job" drum on his behalf. Whoever gets hired "could truly become a fckin leeeeeeegend". It will go along with the job until someone wins a WS.

So do the Cubs introduce Epstein and Francona at the same press conference, or do they hold separate ones?

Of course that isn't the rulebook definition of fan interference.

I'm betting these guys can have a ton of fun in Chicago even without eating $110 worth of meals a day.

yeah i like how in davearm's scenario the players are just eating [expletive] cold cuts for 2 meals a day during their two week road trips. "well i make millions of dollars a year, but if i go a little hungry and turn up at the ballpark at 2:30 there will probably be some sammiches laying around that i can dig into." maybe they go to soup kitchens or beg for food outside mcdonald's for breakfast and pocket the whole thing. First of all, we're talking about Clevenger and Dolis, not guys that make millions. Second of all, clubhouse food is way better than you suggest. Third of all, I wasn't suggesting that they eat two meals in the clubhouse *every day*. Some days they will, though. Regardless, for guys coming up from AAA, what's available in the clubhouse is probably a huge upgrade compared to what they're used to eating on their own in the minors... which was probably a lot of cold cuts. You're a fool if you don't think guys like this are going to be pocketing the majority of that $110.