scarey

his forward progress was stopped while he was in bounds True, but that's a silly rule. Only counts out of bounds if you go out on purpose? It wouldn't be silly if he was right at the first down marker and was thrown backward out of bounds. Not trying to be a smart ass, just trying to point out why it's in place.

He stood a guy up that weighs at 40 lbs more than him. Yes, Briggs destroyed him, but Tillman stopped him in his tracks.

He was forced backwards. Forward progress puts him down in bounds.

I've been trying to figure out a way to verbalize this correctly. Well done.

Personally, I hope Sandberg ends up managing an AL team, has some moderate success, and loses every game he manages against the Cubs (especially if he ever faces up with them in the WS). What's wrong with that?

I would put Matt Cain above both of them and Anibal Sanchez, Ervin Santana, and possibly even John Danks and Shaun Marcum above Greinke. ?!? Based on what? Wins? Greinke has had a very pedestrian 100 and 102 ERA+ over the last two years. Yes, his pre-2010 stats are very nice, but he's been a mediocre pitcher the last two years and that worries me. All the guys I listed have been better than Grienke over the last two years. I'm not sure I would take Marcum over him because of age, and Danks mediocre 2011 combined with his career K/9 make me leery. Wait so you are serious? I'm assuming you're questioning the validity of ERA+? If you are, I can understand why you would be critical of it especially in the case of Grienke's 2010 where he was playing with one of the worst defensive teams in the league. However, the Brewers were a top 10 defense last year. Also, Greinke's line drive percentage last year was 22.4%. I guess it's possible that he just had an off year, but his K/9 have always been all over the place. He's a bit inconsistent in that way, and personally I don't think adding him to a high pressure situation in Chicago is going to be a positive influence on him given his social anxiety disorder. It's just a personal opinion though. I can see why you would be very interested in his consistently low BB/9. The guy is obviously going to be a huge committment and I personally would rather make the huge committment to Cain or Hamels. If not them, then a lesser committment to Sanchez or Santana. All things equal, of course I would take Greinke over everyone but Cain or Hamels. That inherent risk is not equal though.

Wow, that makes all kinds of sense. Wait, no; reverse that. I can see why that would be recklessly assumptive, but am unclear on why that makes no sense.

I would put Matt Cain above both of them and Anibal Sanchez, Ervin Santana, and possibly even John Danks and Shaun Marcum above Greinke. ?!? Based on what? Wins? Greinke has had a very pedestrian 100 and 102 ERA+ over the last two years. Yes, his pre-2010 stats are very nice, but he's been a mediocre pitcher the last two years and that worries me. All the guys I listed have been better than Grienke over the last two years. I'm not sure I would take Marcum over him because of age, and Danks mediocre 2011 combined with his career K/9 make me leery. gotcha. Don't let ERA fool you...Greinke is flat out filthy. I would assume so, 10.5 K/9 is impressive over 171 innings of work. ERA+ has to account for something over a two year sample size though. Also, his whole anxiety disorder thing worries me as well.

I would put Matt Cain above both of them and Anibal Sanchez, Ervin Santana, and possibly even John Danks and Shaun Marcum above Greinke. ?!? Based on what? Wins? Greinke has had a very pedestrian 100 and 102 ERA+ over the last two years. Yes, his pre-2010 stats are very nice, but he's been a mediocre pitcher the last two years and that worries me. All the guys I listed have been better than Grienke over the last two years. I'm not sure I would take Marcum over him because of age, and Danks mediocre 2011 combined with his career K/9 make me leery.

It seems like there are a lot of people in this thread trying to convince themselves that the Cubs could get Wright for next to nothing. I'm certainly not convinced that's reality.

I would put Matt Cain above both of them and Anibal Sanchez, Ervin Santana, and possibly even John Danks and Shaun Marcum above Greinke.

NO! NONONONONONO! NO! There's no way they win it all with Moore out there. Make it Marquez Smith and it's a sure thing!

Seeing as Samardzija has a no trade clause, I doubt he's going to be included. It's possible that they talked to him about it and got him to agree. I think somebody somewhere along the line just threw a name out though.

I checked back at this post a couple nights ago... I'm pretty pleased with myself. viewtopic.php?f=2&t=58414&p=2514036&hilit=+Maybe+I%27m+crazy+#p2514036

Angels need a 1st baseman, Blue Jays might, Orioles do, Yankees and Red Sox could use a DH (though Pujols strongly prefers to play 1st I think). Nationals might be a factor as well. Obviously the likelihood of some of those teams being a factor varies, but those are the teams that might jump into it, off the top of my head. I've been hearing the Rangers will have some money to spend this off season too. Whether they use that to lock up Hamilton/Napoli, bring in pitching (or retain Wilson), or grab one of Pujols/Fielder is anyone's guess though.

Because he's the first African American dude you could think of off the top of your head? Is that how this game works?

You're right in the way you worded it. I specified a situation that may or may not allow for legal action that you're ignoring so that you can be right 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. 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.

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. 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.

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.

Agreed. Don't confuse the hand wringing for disgust. I think a lot of people are enjoying this thread.

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. Two things 1) I don't think I've avoided any debated tonight haha 2) You never know what type of spin will come out of this...no one thought there was any way in hell LL ceded Baseball Ops control to Theo before he made a stand and left. As for why LL is negotiating and Cherrington isn't? I believe they feel that Theo earned that clout...now LL can come back to a seat at the table with the Ops group...which scares me as a fan. I wasn't implying that you're bailing out on a discussion or anything. I only meant that you're missing the point of taking part in the debate. Sorry if I wasn't clear there.

Personally, I think a package along the lines of Welington Castillo and Jeff Beliveau would be pretty fair. I would hate to lose Beliveau, but I think it would be fair. I'd try to sneak Rhoderick in there instead. McNutt wouldn't be outrageous either, but I think the Red Sox are the winners if that's what ends up happening.

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.

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.