Mr.X

Wasn't being critical of you, I just found it surprising that someone had something negative to report about Hendry's personality. From everything I've heard, he's a really easy guy to like (just not as a GM). No worries, I met him and Riccardi and a few other people in 2007 at the Winter Meetings in Nashville. That's pretty cool. Are GMs pretty accessible during the Winter Meetings? Well I was coming off an internship where I was doing a lot of things and I was committed to getting a job in the industry. I had interviews with a few teams, but I was in a relationship in which at the time I couldn't leave Boston. I personally would have went anywhere and I wanted to get into player development, I talked with Steve Phillips about it for a few and he told me to head on down to scout school...never materialized though unfortunately. I'm still fairly young so who knows :) ... all I know is that this Theo debate and the last few weeks of the Sox sad sack season has gotten me back into things. Buster Olney and Peter Gammons are two of the nicest people I've ever met.

You must think very highly of the Cubs' farm system if you see a top 50 prospect who could be major league ready by next season as a mid-level prospect. You must think highly of the Cubs system if you consider him top 50. He had a step back, hes not top 50 until he proves something at the higher levels. Blisters are a concern, but I'm just not a fan...now that's me personally...my opinion is like all of yours it means nothing in the basis of these talks. It all depends on how these teams view the Cubs farm system.

Wasn't being critical of you, I just found it surprising that someone had something negative to report about Hendry's personality. From everything I've heard, he's a really easy guy to like (just not as a GM). No worries, I met him and Riccardi and a few other people in 2007 at the Winter Meetings in Nashville.

That is ridiculous and just about as bad as the PR job that the Sox have been trying to do throughout the process. It really appears to be a bi-polar organization. One moment they trash Theo, the next moment they love him, they can't wait to get rid of him, they would love for him to stay. The sad part is that almost all of the early leaks were from Sox and have really backed them into a corner at this point. Theo clearly wants to leave, and management clearly wants him gone. Everything else is just fiction. I don't think any rational person believes that the Cubs will give up more than a few mid-level prospects to get him. Also, I think Sox fans clearly overestimate the impact of this deal falling through. Most of the Theo to the Cubs hype is from the more than casual fan. If you don't believe me, read the stories all over Chicago about how surprised the beat writers are that fans are not as excited about Theo coming as they expected them to be. The biggest story this offseason for the Cubs, is that they actually have an owner that "gets it". No more old cliches, but an owner that sees the significance of numbers and statistics. Even if the Cubs don't get Theo, they are going to get a GM in the same mold and for that they will be much better off. And McNutt is mid level...so we're back to square one again. I wouldn't say management clearly wants him gone at all, this is the same guy that Henry pretty much begged to come back once before, I haven't heard one report that has mentioned this. Just because you give someone permission to leave, doesn't mean you absolutely want them to leave. I do think the Cubs are in good hands and the fan base deserves that.

You start high and you work your way down, by asking for a Low A ball player with no ceiling in return, you're making the Cubs fan base do handstands, and probably leaving something on the table. I have to negotiate contracts every day...it can be annoying as hell but people understand parameters before speaking and then you work your way to a middle ground in which both parties can agree to. Pretty dumb of the Red Sox to not start with Castro. Castro is a wet dream for Sox Fans that was the most far fetched scenario to begin with.

I like this I bet if you look at every single trade negotiation you'll see instances like this more often than not.

you are literally the first person i have ever heard of who has met hendry and didnt say he was incredibly nice That was the first thought I had when I read his post. I've never heard anything negative about Hendry's personality before that post. Not trying to slander, he could have had a bad day...we all do...so who knows? Riccardi was an absolute prick though

McNutt was a top 50 prospect according to BA. The Marlins prospects didn't crack the top 100. They were close to that, the issue I had was with the combined remark...never did I say McNutt wasn't more valuable than either one.

You start high and you work your way down, by asking for a Low A ball player with no ceiling in return, you're making the Cubs fan base do handstands, and probably leaving something on the table. I have to negotiate contracts every day...it can be annoying as hell but people understand parameters before speaking and then you work your way to a middle ground in which both parties can agree to. Starting high is one thing. That's why you ask for, say, Brett Jackson. Starting absurdly, irrationally high is another thing. Doing that garners no benefit and often leads to anger and intransigence from the other party. The other side, which perhaps was very willing initially to give up Trey McNutt, may now be annoyed and want to give up Koyie Hill. But cooler heads prevail and you give up something in the middle that both parties can be amicable to doing.

Couple of things. The last one of you SoSH's who came by earlier in the thread said the same stuff about using Guillen as a basis for compensation, and this is faulty logic for a couple of reasons (and I hope you address them as the other guy continually ignored them): 1) Theo is being offered a promotion. This isn't manager in Chicago becomes manager in Miami, it is VP of baseball ops/GM becoming President of baseball operations and reporting to only the owner. It's a promotion and a raise, and if you want to talk about precedent, there is plenty of precedent out there of front office guys moving to other organizations for a promotion and compensation is never discussed. 2) The are multiple sources that say that the return that the Sox got for Ozzie was due to alleged tampering by the Marlins for over a year. If you recall there were rumors about this move last season as well. Also, there were rumors of Ozzie signing a 4 year contract with Miami at the same exact time Guillen was in Reinsdorf's office "asking for an extension" aka getting out of his contract so he could go to Florida. There was no permission granted and no known interview for the position. This was worked out behind the scenes, and because of this the Marlins felt obligated to compensate the Sox. I personally don't think that Theo can come back to the Red Sox and co-exist at this point. I am not sure that the relationship is as frayed as its suggested, but the facts are that Epstein has chosen to join the Cubs over the Red Sox. He would rather work some place else. Also, Theo has 1 year left on his contract and reports are out there that Theo already told the Red Sox before the Cubs situation came up that he would be leaving Boston after his contract is up. Maybe it was a negotiating ploy by Theo, who knows. But all the signs point to a reunion between the Red Sox and Theo being short lived at best. Do the Red Sox really want to pay $7 million for a GM that won't be there after this year. Wouldn't the Red Sox rather move on and let the new GM take over with his plan and vision instead of waiting to do it a year from now? That brings me to another point, that there are reports that the Red Sox have already informed Cherington that he will be the new GM. If Theo comes back for this year, Cherington will become a popular candidate to interview for other GM positions, namely Baltimore or Anaheim. Given that he would be interviewing for a promotion, I doubt the Red Sox will stand in his way. I think they'd owe it to him after giving him the GM role twice only to take it back from him. So you risk losing Theo AND Cherington within a year. It's a possibility that with Theo saying he won't be back that Cherington will sit patiently and wait for another season, but its also possible that he wants to make his next career move sooner rather than later, and if that's the case he's gone this offseason most likely. So, on one side you gain $7 million, keep Cherington and get a mid level prospect from the Cubs. On the other you lose $7 million, possibly lose Cherington and get no compensation for Theo. Is that worth taking a hard stance based on principle? I don't mind if the only thing we give up is McNutt and cash, that is fine. But I trust Ricketts' judgement in the matter, and the fact is, we have no idea what the Red Sox are really asking. If Kraplan is right about the Red Sox offer still being insane, its much more than McNutt and cash. First to get something out of the way, the Sox would still have to allow Cherrington to interview with another team, as anyone under contract has to get permission for. The chances of them doing this would be remote as I had mentioned before hes going to be the Sox GM, regardless. The Guillen comparison is actually I think spot on, because of two issues. 1)This is a "promotion" but its not...Theo will still be doing the same job duties as he has since 2006. This was taken care of when Lucchino was moved over to more of the business side of the house, and Theo was given virtual control over the Baseball side of the house. 2)Teams control their employees regardless of if it will be a promotion or not. I used an example in my post about Dan Jennings and Al Aliva as examples, they can absolutely block someone from taking a job elsewhere. Now the Red Sox usually do not do this, however since Epstein is running the department (Baseball Ops) they view this move as a lateral one, this is why they asked for compensation. If they laid this out for the Cubbies on the front end then this is absolutely valid, once again none of us really know what either team is asking for. In fact here's the time line -Heyman reports Sox prefer cash -Kaplan comes out and says the Sox want prospects ...now after a bunch of back and forth we're at this point. I wouldn't rule out Larry attempting to get every last dime out of the Cubbies, and if you are responsible for the overall business aspects of running a team, why wouldn't you? If you were the Sox and didn't at least ask for Garza then what is that saying to your fan base? You never know until you ask, as with everything in life. As I mentioned before the Sox would usually not stand in the way of a promotion, however like with Chris Antonelli in Cleveland he turned down loads of interviews since he knew that Shapiro would be moving up and he would be next in line. Cherrington knows that hes next in line, and if Epstein stays...hell they make him the Co-CEO and he doesn't have to deal with the day to day GM duties...hes Mark Shapiro in this scenario pretty much. -I'm not sure about the Marlins "tampering" with Ozzie, however the fact that they were talking names like Mike Stanton last year tells me that this is probably BS, again I could be wrong but usually when tampering is involved, Selig gets involved (chuckle) or the offending team gives up compensation, however since this has been going on for 2 years now I would believe that its a trade...pure and simple. -If you throw out Ozzie you still have...Chuck Tanner for an all star, Lou Piniella for a starting CF, and Billy Beane for a 3-5 prospect in the Sox system (Youkilis or someone else depending on who you actually believe)...so I would say the Ozzie comparison would actually strengthen the argument for the Cubs faithful as opposed to the other 3. Someone who runs baseball operations and will bring a staff such as Byrnes and others with him (they'll let him bring 1 or 2 people, probably Baird too) is much more valuable than what a manager can bring to the table, as that person is responsible for the health of the entire system, the manager effects the major league product. The GM is the one who can put people into spots in the minors and develop the entire system from the ground up. Much more valuable, and the impact shows on the field. Hope I answered your questions... First of don't ever call them the Cubbies. Most Cubs fans hate that. The Sox and Marlins were talking about Stanton last year when Ozzie still had 2 years left on his deal and the Sox had no reason to let him go. The alleged tampering was obviously not something that was public knowledge at the time, and the compensation was offered to ignore any instances of tampering and so that the Sox did not look further into it. The fact that there were reports of Ozzie getting a 4 year deal from the marlins circulating at the exact same time Ozzie was meeting to discuss his status tells me that there was tampering. In all of those other examples you mention (including Ozzie), you are talking about managers leaving to become managers. Regardless of what Theo's roles are compared to Boston, this is a promotion that comes with a better title, less people to report to and challenge his decisions, and oh yeah a hefty pay raise. There is no precedent for this situation, so the Sox and Cubs are essentially setting the market for this, despite the fact that the Cubs have already "given" the Red Sox 3.5 million to pay for the contract temination or whatever it is that the Red Sox would have to pay next year. It can be argued that the Cubs shouldn't have to give Boston any other compensation, but the Cubs none the less have agreed to compensate the Red Sox further. I understand that the Red Sox can say no to teams asking about Cherington, but you are not really addressing my points. First of all, Henry went on the radio 10 days ago and said it is their position that they do not stand in the way of teams interviewing their employees when a promotion is on the table. It stands to reason that Cherington would not be exempt from that as well regardless of the state the Sox are in, assuming they are not giving him the GM position because Theo comes back. You mention examples of other teams but the only thing we "know" about the Red Sox stance is what Henry said on the radio the other day. If Theo comes back, you are talking about a guy who twice has been given the GM role and had it taken away from him shortly after. You cannot presume to know how he feels about that or whether he is willing to wait another year to have a shot at the GM position. It's not unreasonable to say that he could very well pursue the same position in another organization this offseason. Okay fine...THE CUBS...this is true what Henry said, however logic would dictate that if they have something in Cherrington's contract that says "GM in waiting" he would stay. I don't attempt to presume anything except that if the Cubs KNEW about what it would take (IE Players) then they shouldn't complain about it, which I'm not saying that they are at all. If the stipulation ahead of time was players then your argument about the Cubs doing this out of the kindness of their hearts is baseless. The Title comes with the same role though, not just one or two more duties but its the same role, unless he hires Byrnes or another "GM" to oversee the duties after all of this. Again though, this is not the Sox problem...the problem is obviously figuring out fair compensation for an employee that would like to move on. I do think your feelings on Theo is a valid concern, but at the same time you're ignoring my point about that the Sox could just throw more money at him, make him Co-CEO or something of that nature and just promote Cherrington similar to an Antonelli/Shapiro deal.

You start high and you work your way down, by asking for a Low A ball player with no ceiling in return, you're making the Cubs fan base do handstands, and probably leaving something on the table. I have to negotiate contracts every day...it can be annoying as hell but people understand parameters before speaking and then you work your way to a middle ground in which both parties can agree to. I agree, but in this case McNutt or B. Jackson is starting high. Starting at Garza is stupid. Jackson is high, McNutt is a pitcher who was drafted after the 30th or so round, came out of nowhere and regressed. I think again this type of player is fair compensation. If Hendry had the opportunity to include him over Archer for Garza then well...that's why he isn't the GM anymore. Plus I've met Hendry before...not a fan...although JP Riccardi is the biggest ahole I've met in the industry.

Thank you for not only taking the time to come in and express your opinion, but also for doing it in such a well thought out manner. I almost hate to tell you that one of the central tenets of your argument is incomplete. You admit that the Cubs have at least some degree of leverage purely from a PR standpoint (you may even ascribe more leverage to that angle than I do). You admit that the Cubs have some leverage simply because there are other options. But you have completely omitted the single most important piece of leverage the Cubs have. Money. More precisely, the Red Sox are on the hook for somewhere in the realm of $6,500,000 if this deal falls through, due to the nature of his Theo's contract and the conclusion bonus. Yeah, the Red Sox can afford to eat that, but try thinking of it another way. That's what, 3-5 excellent superslots in the draft? More? The Cubs are basically already offering the equivalent of about 1/3 ~ 1/4 of your draft budget next year. You could bring Theo back, but you'd lose far more than most I've seen at SoSH are willing to admit. Ha, problem is when I was doing P.R. I had my ex as my copy writer...she always caught my errors :). The PR Standpoint? Well lets see...they have been getting roasted to a degree to say the least in the media. No matter what they do it probably couldn't make it any worse. I'm not necessarily trying to discount the 6.5 million dollars, however JWH owns a racing team and liverpool, so it comes in this situation that I don't think 6.5 million is a huge loss. Especially since they've eaten more just to get rid of Renteria and Lugo. I think they would be fine, obviously though its better to gain 6.5 million then lose it, that's just good business, however if one or two of those players turn into 4 million dollar a year players then you make your profit back. That's just my opinion in the matter. I don't lie to get my point across and I try not to pull punches, I think both teams are in a rare situation in which no matter the outcome they could both win, or they could both lose. I personally don't think its lose lose for either side if this doesn't get done.

Would I sell the GM for $3.5 million? Depends on the situation. If he wanted to leave, had a year left on his contract, and would cost me an extra $3 million to keep (beyond forfeiting the $3 million I was being offered), then yes, I probably would. Negotiation does not mean being insulting. The Cubs presumably didn't open with Epstein + Ellsbury for $3.5 million. Well it gets a pulse on the situation, I never said that I would expect the Cubs for it...but you can't fault the Sox for trying. As far as negotiating in good faith, we are all getting 2nd 3rd and 10th hand information from beat writers that ironically enough neither city respects. Truth is once again if you are not in the room for these talks then we all truly do not know what is going on. McNutt may not even be on the table, so lets wait and see.

You start high and you work your way down, by asking for a Low A ball player with no ceiling in return, you're making the Cubs fan base do handstands, and probably leaving something on the table. I have to negotiate contracts every day...it can be annoying as hell but people understand parameters before speaking and then you work your way to a middle ground in which both parties can agree to.

The part of this that I'm thinking about is that Epstein will likely rope in Byrnes, and possibly bring a lower level guy or two with him. Would guys like Hahn/Coppolella/etc. be able to attract or draw in top supporting talent like Theo would? I'm not sure, and it's definitely a factor. I don't think this would be a factor, consider the fact that a guy like Levine has done a tremendous job in Texas learning from Daniels and John Hart. That is the guy I go after, I think the big thing with Theo is that he knows how to build a proven winner and can handle the media pressure, I'll tell ya, he won't make a big deal just for the sake of making one or how much the radio callers bitch. That's a huge quality I think a lot of GM's or prospective ones do not have.

Its a promotion in title, not however in duties and role, that is where the disconnect is coming in. If he had his original duties back when he was first hired then there would be no absolute grey area in this matter, it can be argued.

Dred Scott is no longer the law, sir. If he wasn't under their control then he would be a free agent and wouldn't need permission from the Sox to interview. My point stands, if the Sox allowed Theo to interview under the premise that they would be compensated then why should this come as a surprise to anyone? It's not a surprise to anyone. The Cubs offering to pick up his $3.5 million conclusion bonus is compensation. What's surprising here is that the Red Sox are actually, possibly dumb enough to think that by leaking the Epstein news, they can somehow pressure Ricketts into giving up insane value. Epstein is a nice GM that I'd be excited to have. I had him listed fourth in my "awesome pile" of potential GMs. But that's also all he is: one of a pile. If the Cubs don't get him, they could do just as well picking from the large pile of saber-savvy, young, well-educated, driven executives out there. Some have more experience and track record, some don't, but personally I don't think that matters. The marginal value of Epstein, the difference between Epstein and the next-best pick, is not huge. We talked earlier in the thread about the value of prospects who are nearing the major leagues. It's pretty big, something in the low 8 figures. If the Cubs have a choice between Epstein minus a near-ready prospect and another GM from the awesome pile while keeping the near-ready prospect, then they'd be fools to take the former choice. So as far as I can see, there's no incentive for the Cubs to give the Red Sox any significant compensation. The only reason anyone can come up with why they would is the idea that Cubs fans are somehow going to pressure Ricketts into doing it because we are so orgasmic at the idea of Epstein. That's asinine, and it's a theory that could only be advanced by fools and people who are very far removed from the pulse of Cubs fans. We don't want an owner who caves in negotiations and overpays for things that he wants. Owners who insist on paying whatever it takes to get things they want saddled us with the Soriano contract. And even if we believe that the pressure to pay up for Epstein is being exerted by Cubs fans, only someone who hasn't actually been paying attention to Ricketts would think that would work. When Ricketts bought the team, the immediate pressure was to be a Mark Cuban-style owner who would ride into town and start throwing around piles of money to make the team competitive. Instead, he froze payroll and put all the extra money into the draft. The next thing everyone wanted to see him do was fire Hendry, and he waited over a year. Then, when he finally did, he didn't tell anyone for a month (and that's how I know these leaks about Epstein didn't start with the Cubs). Many Cubs fans were furious that the team didn't hire Sandberg, and he didn't care. Ricketts is not going to cave to imaginary fan pressure, even if it were to become real. So even if we ignore the absurd assertion that the Red Sox somehow benefit from threatening to throw $6.5 million into a pile and burn it, even if we put aside the damage to their reputation it does for other potential executives to see what sort of an organization the Red Sox are (one that will hold you back if they feel like it), then just looking at it from a Cubs perspective, it makes no sense to be giving anything significant in compensation. If the Red Sox are that determined to burn their pile of money, and if they were so crazy and stupid as to ask for Garza with a straight face, then I'm perfectly happy to see the Cubs move on to the next choice. I assume that you have never had to be apart of a negotiation, Garza is the high point, they knew they wouldn't get him, again you absolutely have to ask though. Think about this, and I think this is what is lost in all this...if your GM won two world series and built up a player development system that was responsible for a core group of players, and was used to grab multiple players in trades...would you sell that for 3.5 million? Both fan bases have a lot of broad ideas...some of them are foolish, but I'm fairly certain the Cubs knew the Sox were going to ask for prospects, otherwise they wouldn't have wasted their time in asking for permission and agreeing to a deal with Theo.

Couple of things. The last one of you SoSH's who came by earlier in the thread said the same stuff about using Guillen as a basis for compensation, and this is faulty logic for a couple of reasons (and I hope you address them as the other guy continually ignored them): 1) Theo is being offered a promotion. This isn't manager in Chicago becomes manager in Miami, it is VP of baseball ops/GM becoming President of baseball operations and reporting to only the owner. It's a promotion and a raise, and if you want to talk about precedent, there is plenty of precedent out there of front office guys moving to other organizations for a promotion and compensation is never discussed. 2) The are multiple sources that say that the return that the Sox got for Ozzie was due to alleged tampering by the Marlins for over a year. If you recall there were rumors about this move last season as well. Also, there were rumors of Ozzie signing a 4 year contract with Miami at the same exact time Guillen was in Reinsdorf's office "asking for an extension" aka getting out of his contract so he could go to Florida. There was no permission granted and no known interview for the position. This was worked out behind the scenes, and because of this the Marlins felt obligated to compensate the Sox. I personally don't think that Theo can come back to the Red Sox and co-exist at this point. I am not sure that the relationship is as frayed as its suggested, but the facts are that Epstein has chosen to join the Cubs over the Red Sox. He would rather work some place else. Also, Theo has 1 year left on his contract and reports are out there that Theo already told the Red Sox before the Cubs situation came up that he would be leaving Boston after his contract is up. Maybe it was a negotiating ploy by Theo, who knows. But all the signs point to a reunion between the Red Sox and Theo being short lived at best. Do the Red Sox really want to pay $7 million for a GM that won't be there after this year. Wouldn't the Red Sox rather move on and let the new GM take over with his plan and vision instead of waiting to do it a year from now? That brings me to another point, that there are reports that the Red Sox have already informed Cherington that he will be the new GM. If Theo comes back for this year, Cherington will become a popular candidate to interview for other GM positions, namely Baltimore or Anaheim. Given that he would be interviewing for a promotion, I doubt the Red Sox will stand in his way. I think they'd owe it to him after giving him the GM role twice only to take it back from him. So you risk losing Theo AND Cherington within a year. It's a possibility that with Theo saying he won't be back that Cherington will sit patiently and wait for another season, but its also possible that he wants to make his next career move sooner rather than later, and if that's the case he's gone this offseason most likely. So, on one side you gain $7 million, keep Cherington and get a mid level prospect from the Cubs. On the other you lose $7 million, possibly lose Cherington and get no compensation for Theo. Is that worth taking a hard stance based on principle? I don't mind if the only thing we give up is McNutt and cash, that is fine. But I trust Ricketts' judgement in the matter, and the fact is, we have no idea what the Red Sox are really asking. If Kraplan is right about the Red Sox offer still being insane, its much more than McNutt and cash. First to get something out of the way, the Sox would still have to allow Cherrington to interview with another team, as anyone under contract has to get permission for. The chances of them doing this would be remote as I had mentioned before hes going to be the Sox GM, regardless. The Guillen comparison is actually I think spot on, because of two issues. 1)This is a "promotion" but its not...Theo will still be doing the same job duties as he has since 2006. This was taken care of when Lucchino was moved over to more of the business side of the house, and Theo was given virtual control over the Baseball side of the house. 2)Teams control their employees regardless of if it will be a promotion or not. I used an example in my post about Dan Jennings and Al Aliva as examples, they can absolutely block someone from taking a job elsewhere. Now the Red Sox usually do not do this, however since Epstein is running the department (Baseball Ops) they view this move as a lateral one, this is why they asked for compensation. If they laid this out for the Cubbies on the front end then this is absolutely valid, once again none of us really know what either team is asking for. In fact here's the time line -Heyman reports Sox prefer cash -Kaplan comes out and says the Sox want prospects ...now after a bunch of back and forth we're at this point. I wouldn't rule out Larry attempting to get every last dime out of the Cubbies, and if you are responsible for the overall business aspects of running a team, why wouldn't you? If you were the Sox and didn't at least ask for Garza then what is that saying to your fan base? You never know until you ask, as with everything in life. As I mentioned before the Sox would usually not stand in the way of a promotion, however like with Chris Antonelli in Cleveland he turned down loads of interviews since he knew that Shapiro would be moving up and he would be next in line. Cherrington knows that hes next in line, and if Epstein stays...hell they make him the Co-CEO and he doesn't have to deal with the day to day GM duties...hes Mark Shapiro in this scenario pretty much. -I'm not sure about the Marlins "tampering" with Ozzie, however the fact that they were talking names like Mike Stanton last year tells me that this is probably BS, again I could be wrong but usually when tampering is involved, Selig gets involved (chuckle) or the offending team gives up compensation, however since this has been going on for 2 years now I would believe that its a trade...pure and simple. -If you throw out Ozzie you still have...Chuck Tanner for an all star, Lou Piniella for a starting CF, and Billy Beane for a 3-5 prospect in the Sox system (Youkilis or someone else depending on who you actually believe)...so I would say the Ozzie comparison would actually strengthen the argument for the Cubs faithful as opposed to the other 3. Someone who runs baseball operations and will bring a staff such as Byrnes and others with him (they'll let him bring 1 or 2 people, probably Baird too) is much more valuable than what a manager can bring to the table, as that person is responsible for the health of the entire system, the manager effects the major league product. The GM is the one who can put people into spots in the minors and develop the entire system from the ground up. Much more valuable, and the impact shows on the field. Hope I answered your questions...

This is one of the funniest things I've read on here. Ever. Good job. I can appreciate something that's pretty funny, good job

Dred Scott is no longer the law, sir. If he wasn't under their control then he would be a free agent and wouldn't need permission from the Sox to interview. My point stands, if the Sox allowed Theo to interview under the premise that they would be compensated then why should this come as a surprise to anyone?

The thing is, McNutt is better than the prospects the Marlins gave up (combined). A top 5 prospect in the Cubs system is not the equivalent to a top 5 prospect in the Marlins system. I would disagree with this as both guys were pretty well thought of before a setback this year, McNutt had a similar set back this year as well. If he had progressed then I would absolutely be in agreement with you. Like I said I'm not hoping for the guy by any means, however McNutt would be proper compensation. I don't know how you can say that both guys are less valuable than McNutt after all 3 didn't really do that well this year. Kind of a bold statement, no?

Theo's gone. The relationship may have been repaired before, but the rift wasn't this severe. Henry and Lucchino appear be putting themselves on one side and everyone else on another. Henry sort of just threw Theo under the bus with his comments about the Crawford signing, and he has been speaking about Theo's tenure in the past tense throughout this entire process. Theo has told the Sox he won't be staying. The only conceivable scenario where Theo stays is one where he replaces Lucchino, and there has been no indication whatsoever that could happen. The only question here is who will blink first in the showdown over compensation, and how long it will take for that to happen. I disagree with the concept of the relationship wasn't this severe, it was in my opinion worse back in 05, with Larry pretty much not letting him run the ops department. Everything can be fixed, however what do you expect Henry to say? He also did go on to say that he wished Theo would be the GM forever so I think it could be looked at from both points of view.

First off I would like to say I like this board and I like the fact that there are a lot of people on here with strong opinions about this topic on here as well. I'm a member over at SoSH, this whole thing is making my head spin on one hand Cubs fans believe that they have the leverage in the deal because, Theo agreed to a deal and "he can't go back to Boston". Sox fans believe that they have leverage because of the fact that they have a GM that has won two world series titles and has built a strong nucleus of talent. From an unbiased opinion I actually think both teams have leverage in the matter. The Cubs have leverage because, the reality is this the media and fan perception of this team as of right now is addition by subtraction. Anyone who had anything to do with this whole season needs to be fired, etc... The Cubs also have options outside of Epstein that are fairly workable, such as Hahn and others. The Sox have leverage due to the fact that Epstein is their property, he can come back (happened in 2005 and Hoyer/Cherrington became Co-GM's, although I would probably chuckle a little bit if Epstein snuck out of Yawkey Way this time in a Cubbies Mascot Suit), and the fact that he is the man in charge of Baseball Operations in Boston...not Lucchino (as part of the agreement to bring him back the first time was to give him control over this aspect of the team...this is why its not a lateral move...but more on this in a second). The Cubs had to ask the Red Sox for permission based on the fact that Epstein was in fact the property of the Red Sox for one more year. It is in the Red Sox right to ask for appropriate compensation regarding this matter (Not Garza, but you can't blame them for trying), and I'm positive that this was brought up before permission was even granted and the Cubs agreed to that. So the fact that it is coming across as Ricketts doing the Sox a spade for taking off of their hands a "disgruntled employee" is far from the truth. All parties as in any negotiation know the parameters of what it will take before getting the parameters of a contract in place. They could have easily denied the Cubs permission because of the contract, regardless of promotion or not. For example, the Marlins have Dan Jennings and they routinely deny him opportunities to interview for GM positions, same with the Tigers and Al Avila. However, a team like the Blue Jays will allow their guys to go without too much of a fight, unless its someone like AA. So all of this leads to the compensation piece, for which you have Billy Beane, Lou Piniella, Chuck Tanner, and Ozzie Guillen to use as a barometer for. Beane the Sox would have given a mid level project (probably not Youk, despite popular thought), Chuck Tanner fetched an all star, Ozzie fetched two top prospects who were coming off down years, and Lou Piniella fetched Randy Winn. Using Guillen as a comparison since he was the most recent, a guy like McNutt would be comparable to what the Marlins gave up to Chicago in this case. Jackson would be too much, Sczuzr probably would be also, although I would welcome that return with open arms as I myself, am not that high on McNutt to begin with. The likely outcome is the same with each of these deals, a top 5 prospect. Now there's a difference between one of those in a system like Kansas City/Tampa and one in a system like Boston's, Chicago's etc...Chicago's system is like Boston's in the sense there is a lot of intriguing talent at the bottom such as Sczuzr/Candelario but the shelves are not stocked too well in AAA/AA overall. Again nothing that I mention here is too insane as all I am using is the Guillen comp and others to make this determination. Do I think the Sox will get an all star out of this? Absolutely not, the guy that we get will be at best a solid contributor at the major league level someday, with maybe the outside chance of making an all star team or two. The deal that would match up numbers wise is McNutt, which from what I've read on here is 50/50 on if people would give him up in a deal, which is understandable, however hes not a blue chip prospect, IF everything falls into place correctly then he will be a middle of the rotation arm. For a 22 year old pitcher in the minors, this is a crap shoot. Which leads me to my next point, everything I have posted above is why Ricketts should do this, you get the sure thing in Theo, rebuild the operations department and quite frankly reunite the team of Theo and Byrnes which shouldn't be understated at all as a major coup. Byrnes made some bad deals in hindsight when he was running AZ, but the guy is a good talent evaluator. If McNutt turns into a number 3-4 in 2-3 years this means nothing if the Cubs are putting up a banner in that time period. Young talent is very hard to find, and especially if its cost controlled, and that's where I can see the Cubs balking. But here's the truth, unless if you are in on those meetings it doesn't matter who is reporting what, everything could be further from the truth. My prediction: Theo returns to the Sox with the title of Co-CEO or something of that ilk (the relationship can be repaired and has been before), Cherington becomes GM, and The Cubs...they do already for themselves with new GM Thad Levine and hires Ryan Sandberg to be the manager. I just think that Larry's hard line negotiations will force Ricketts to look elsewhere and Levine would be a fine choice based on what Texas has done in the last few years.