Jump to content


Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?

Photo

Compensation for letting Theo go


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
1440 replies to this topic

#51 Yazdog8

  • 3924 posts

Posted 13 October 2011 - 07:19 PM

Shouldn't the compensation have been worked out prior to all the announcements?


I don't think there have been any official announcements yet. Just reports on twitter and the like.

I can see why the Cubs don't want to part with what little prospects they have, but the Sox really could use some depth at AAA. Hopefully Ben can pry something decent loose.

#52 LesterFan

  • 3620 posts

Posted 13 October 2011 - 07:19 PM

Shouldn't the compensation have been worked out prior to all the announcements?


I don't think either team has announced anything.

#53 OCD SS


  • SoSH Member


  • 6846 posts

Posted 13 October 2011 - 07:27 PM

I don't think there have been any official announcements yet. Just reports on twitter and the like.


Should've more clearly indicated my intended sarcasm... my bad.

#54 Jnai


  • is not worried about sex with goats


  • 9309 posts

Posted 13 October 2011 - 07:29 PM

Why do the Cubs need to part with anything at all? What leverage do the Sox have? Is there any chance of this not happening?

I mean, I understand that there will be some token exchange of players, but I am not counting on anything valuable.

Edited by Jnai, 13 October 2011 - 07:30 PM.


#55 Harry Hooper


  • SoSH Member


  • 14269 posts

Posted 13 October 2011 - 07:36 PM

Why do the Cubs need to part with anything at all? What leverage do the Sox have? Is there any chance of this not happening?

I mean, I understand that there will be some token exchange of players, but I am not counting on anything valuable.


Theo is under contract with the Red Sox for one more year. If the Cubs won't provide a prospect, H/W/L can have Theo sit next to Kapstein for the entire 2012 season, only with better headphones, while Ben is the GM of the team.

The Cubs owner is salivating so much over Theo that he wants to give him the keys to the kingdom and $15-20 million. When push comes to shove, and given past MLB precedent, it's entirely reasonable to expect him to toss in a prospect.

Edited by Harry Hooper, 13 October 2011 - 07:36 PM.


#56 Rudy Pemberton


  • Just a string of characters


  • 28142 posts

Posted 13 October 2011 - 08:08 PM

Theo is under contract with the Red Sox for one more year. If the Cubs won't provide a prospect, H/W/L can have Theo sit next to Kapstein for the entire 2012 season, only with better headphones, while Ben is the GM of the team.


Theo's gone, the Sox aren't going to hold him hostage. They have zero leverage here, ultimately I suspect they get very little. What is past precedent? When has this happened before? He's not a manager, he's a GM. He wants to go, and the Sox will not stand in his way over some middling prospect.

#57 JakeRae


  • SoSH Member


  • 5293 posts

Posted 13 October 2011 - 08:12 PM

Why do the Cubs need to part with anything at all? What leverage do the Sox have? Is there any chance of this not happening?

I mean, I understand that there will be some token exchange of players, but I am not counting on anything valuable.

What do the Sox have to lose?

The Cubs could lose their clear top choice at GM that they want to commit to for the next 5 years. The Red Sox, worst case scenario, lose the cost of buying Theo out of his contract or just use this year as a transition year with an even more gradual transition from Theo to Cherington.

The Cubs are pretty committed to the PR splash that acquiring Theo will get them. The Red Sox get no PR benefit from this deal and there is no real cost to it failing.

The Red Sox are getting something back. It will be more valuable than what the White Sox got for Ozzie Guillen and less valuable than anything that's been proposed in this thread. 2 top 10 prospects, most likely in the 5-10 range, feels about right. Most likely, they'll be pitchers as the top Cubs position player prospects are more valuable to the Cubs then they are to the Sox.

There is also a possibility of some prospect for prospect movement like Jackson for Reddick.

#58 Rudy Pemberton


  • Just a string of characters


  • 28142 posts

Posted 13 October 2011 - 08:16 PM

What do the Sox have to lose? Another fucking PR disaster if they refuse to let Theo go. They could lose Cherington if they dick around. They could lose credibility among people in baseball, obviously. They have repeatedly let players go who didn't want to be here, they certainly aren't going to force a guy who doesn't want to be here to run the team.

#59 Archer1979


  • shazowies


  • 3090 posts

Posted 13 October 2011 - 08:22 PM

Theo's gone, the Sox aren't going to hold him hostage. They have zero leverage here, ultimately I suspect they get very little. What is past precedent? When has this happened before? He's not a manager, he's a GM. He wants to go, and the Sox will not stand in his way over some middling prospect.


The reason this hasn't happened before because the team with the GM under contract has the team that wants the GM by the short hairs. The Cubs will cave at some point only because they see this as the perfect fit. The Cubs aren't positioned to have an interim-GM while they wait for Theo's contract to expire. If the Cubs play hard ball, Cherington takes over in Boston while Theo serves hot dogs in the center-field bleachers in Fenway in 2012 and there is zilch that the Cubs can do about it.

The Sox hold all the cards as long as they have Theo under contract.

#60 OCD SS


  • SoSH Member


  • 6846 posts

Posted 13 October 2011 - 08:22 PM

Note to Selig and the next owner who goes trying to sign a GM already under contract: first establish compensation for the release of contractual obligations, then negotiate a contract with your new hire.

#61 Rudy Pemberton


  • Just a string of characters


  • 28142 posts

Posted 13 October 2011 - 08:32 PM

The reason this hasn't happened before because the team with the GM under contract has the team that wants the GM by the short hairs. The Cubs will cave at some point only because they see this as the perfect fit. The Cubs aren't positioned to have an interim-GM while they wait for Theo's contract to expire. If the Cubs play hard ball, Cherington takes over in Boston while Theo serves hot dogs in the center-field bleachers in Fenway in 2012 and there is zilch that the Cubs can do about it.

The Sox hold all the cards as long as they have Theo under contract.


Why would Cherington play along in such a situation? Such a scenario would be extremely amateurish, yet another massive distraction, and the Sox organization would lose a lot of credibility around the league, IMO. When players have wanted out...they've accomodated. They are going to do the same thing here. It's time to move on, and they'll take what they can get. Hope to hell I'm wrong and they get a boatload of prospects, of course.

#62 Van Everyman


  • SoSH Member


  • 7291 posts

Posted 13 October 2011 - 08:35 PM

What do the Sox have to lose? Another fucking PR disaster if they refuse to let Theo go. They could lose Cherington if they dick around. They could lose credibility among people in baseball, obviously. They have repeatedly let players go who didn't want to be here, they certainly aren't going to force a guy who doesn't want to be here to run the team.


I only agree with this to a point. I mean, I think what Henry said about people having a shelf in these jobs is true -- but I also think that, for the time being anyway, Theo is the property of the Red Sox and a very valuable commodity. You wouldn't let a player who wanted to leave town go for virtually nothing -- I mean, this is the team that turned a disgruntled Manny Ramirez into a year-and-a-half of All Star-caliber Jason Bay. They didn't just say, "Hey, take him" (that was their 2004 approach, of course).

That leads me to think they will get more out of this than people are thinking. Whether it is good prospects or a lot of cash, I don't know. But esp. after the rumors of us inquiring about whether the Cubs could compensate the Sox just for talking to Theo, I have to believe it will be more than the pittance we're hearing about.

#63 BannedbyNYYFans.com

  • 3110 posts

Posted 13 October 2011 - 08:37 PM

The reason this hasn't happened before because the team with the GM under contract has the team that wants the GM by the short hairs. The Cubs will cave at some point only because they see this as the perfect fit. The Cubs aren't positioned to have an interim-GM while they wait for Theo's contract to expire. If the Cubs play hard ball, Cherington takes over in Boston while Theo serves hot dogs in the center-field bleachers in Fenway in 2012 and there is zilch that the Cubs can do about it.

The Sox hold all the cards as long as they have Theo under contract.

Well put. Obviously Boston isn't getting Castro and Garza back, but why not ask for something that's of decent value. Right now the Cubs virtually can't walk away from the deal.

http://yfrog.com/z/kg8dihjj

http://yfrog.com/z/met2sfrj

And if Theo doesn't like it, ownership can tell him, "Either give us a top prospect or enjoy reading that Globe article about your cocaine and glue addiction as soon as you leave town". I'm only half-joking.

Edited by BannedbyNYYFans.com, 13 October 2011 - 08:40 PM.


#64 Archer1979


  • shazowies


  • 3090 posts

Posted 13 October 2011 - 08:41 PM

Why would Cherington play along in such a situation? Such a scenario would be extremely amateurish, yet another massive distraction, and the Sox organization would lose a lot of credibility around the league, IMO. When players have wanted out...they've accomodated. They are going to do the same thing here. It's time to move on, and they'll take what they can get. Hope to hell I'm wrong and they get a boatload of prospects, of course.


Cherington wouldn't be playing along in anything. He will be the GM once Theo is gone. The only question is how much power is written into Theo's title in the contract and how much he can be marginalized in 2012.

#65 Saints Rest

  • 3720 posts

Posted 13 October 2011 - 08:55 PM

Could the Sox kick in something from their system (Lars, maybe? or Reddick/Kalish?) to bump the compensation up to Garza?

#66 PedroKsBambino


  • SoSH Member


  • 14187 posts

Posted 13 October 2011 - 09:19 PM

The holdup could just be Theo trying to get a third team involved in the trade somehow...

#67 OCD SS


  • SoSH Member


  • 6846 posts

Posted 13 October 2011 - 09:38 PM

Why would Cherington play along in such a situation? Such a scenario would be extremely amateurish, yet another massive distraction, and the Sox organization would lose a lot of credibility around the league, IMO. When players have wanted out...they've accomodated. They are going to do the same thing here. It's time to move on, and they'll take what they can get. Hope to hell I'm wrong and they get a boatload of prospects, of course.


The Sox FO was also quoted (or "quoted" or whatever) as saying that they expected the compensation for letting Theo go to be extremely high. Backing off that with their tail between their legs doesn't do much to help their future negotiations either.

Edited by OCD SS, 14 October 2011 - 07:41 AM.


#68 finnVT

  • 1068 posts

Posted 13 October 2011 - 09:49 PM

From a practical point of view, while the Sox may have little leverage in the long term (Theo's eventually going to be gone), there's very little urgency from the Sox point of view. They could easily wait this out until November, December, whatever, while Cherington runs the show. The Cubs aren't going to want to wait that long, because they'll start missing out on important off-season prep. Given that, if they're in a stalemate about this now, I think it's entirely reasonable that Chicago blinks first.

#69 JimD

  • 4600 posts

Posted 13 October 2011 - 10:16 PM

Why would Cherington play along in such a situation? Such a scenario would be extremely amateurish, yet another massive distraction, and the Sox organization would lose a lot of credibility around the league, IMO. When players have wanted out...they've accomodated. They are going to do the same thing here. It's time to move on, and they'll take what they can get. Hope to hell I'm wrong and they get a boatload of prospects, of course.


There is precedent, and Theo and Ben presumably had good seats at the table - the Sox were prepared to send compensation to Oakland in 2002 in exchange for the A's releasing Billy Beane from his contract as GM. The Cubs need to quit f'in around play ball here. And far from losing credibility, I'll bet lost of MLB execs would love to see this precedent being strengthened so they can get something better the next time some other team tries to poach their rising young FO stars.

#70 mt8thsw9th


  • anti-SoSHal


  • 13972 posts

Posted 13 October 2011 - 11:32 PM

I don't want a shitty prospect back for the sake of getting a prospect in return. Be like, ok, you can have our GM, one of the best in the game, that your fan base will wet themselves over. We'll take Sean Marshall. Thanks.


What's funny is the Theo Red Sox stupidly drafted the wrong Marshall twin in the first place.

#71 Savin Hillbilly


  • SoSH Member


  • 11446 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 07:17 AM

The Sox FO was also quoted (or "quoted" or whatever) as saying that they expected the compensation for letting Theo go to be extremely high. Backing off that with their tale between their legs doesn't do much to help their future negotiations either.

But they didn't say in any specific way what "extremely high" meant, did they? Whatever they get, they can--and will--spin it as meeting their expectations.

That said, I think finnVT nails the key point here: time is not on the Cubs' side. They'll want to get this settled. (As will the Sox, but with less urgency.)

#72 86spike


  • Currently enjoying "Arli$$"


  • 22019 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 08:04 AM

The holdup could just be Theo trying to get a third team involved in the trade somehow...


awesome


I find it funny that we have one sentiment of "This sucks! Theo is the best GM in the game, losing him is a huge blow!" and then another of "Well, the Cubs shouldn't have to give up all that much."

If Theo is such a huge asset, then the Cubs need to pony up and pay the freight to get him out of his obligation to Boston. Plain and simple. Henry shouldn't budge one bit.

#73 Seabass177


  • has an efficient neck


  • 4144 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 08:21 AM

I find it funny that we have one sentiment of "This sucks! Theo is the best GM in the game, losing him is a huge blow!" and then another of "Well, the Cubs shouldn't have to give up all that much."

If Theo is such a huge asset, then the Cubs need to pony up and pay the freight to get him out of his obligation to Boston. Plain and simple. Henry shouldn't budge one bit.

This is where I find myself - Theo is an enormous asset. Going from Jim Hendry, drafting the Hayden Simpson's of the world to Theo, a person who has proven that he knows how to identify and develop young talent, is exactly what the Cubs need, and have needed since WWII. The Cubs could hire someone else who would probably do 90% of what Theo does, but there are no other candidates that have the gravitas of Theo, and that's what the Cubs are trading for here, along with Theo's skills. The Sox should hold out for a premium prospect or two, and they have no reason to cave at all.

If the Cubs think that Theo is going to infuse their system with talent, they should be willing to give up some on the field talent for him. If Theo were the one running the negotiations, I'm sure he'd recognize that he's worth a Brett Jackson or two.

#74 maufman


  • SoSH Member


  • 12116 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 09:03 AM

The reason this hasn't happened before because the team with the GM under contract has the team that wants the GM by the short hairs. The Cubs will cave at some point only because they see this as the perfect fit. The Cubs aren't positioned to have an interim-GM while they wait for Theo's contract to expire. If the Cubs play hard ball, Cherington takes over in Boston while Theo serves hot dogs in the center-field bleachers in Fenway in 2012 and there is zilch that the Cubs can do about it.

The Sox hold all the cards as long as they have Theo under contract.



I would be surprised if Theo's contract allows the FO to relieve him of his duties, yet keep him from seeking work elsewhere.

Neither side can credibly threaten to blow up the deal -- the Cubs obviously want Theo, and at this point the Sox do not want him back. Because no one is walking away, leverage lies with whichever side is more willing to countenance a delay -- at some point, one side will accede to the other's demands (to a point) to put this behind them.



#75 Savin Hillbilly


  • SoSH Member


  • 11446 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 09:10 AM

Because no one is walking away, leverage lies with whichever side is more willing to countenance a delay

Right, and this is pretty obviously the Sox, since no matter what happens with the deal, their 2012 GM is working for them right now. The situation's a little unsettled (and no doubt, more than a little unsettling for those involved), but the Cubs are much more in limbo.

Edited by Savin Hillbilly, 14 October 2011 - 09:10 AM.


#76 maufman


  • SoSH Member


  • 12116 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 09:21 AM

Right, and this is pretty obviously the Sox, since no matter what happens with the deal, their 2012 GM is working for them right now. The situation's a little unsettled (and no doubt, more than a little unsettling for those involved), but the Cubs are much more in limbo.


Not necessarily. The Cubs aren't going to contend in 2012. Sure, they'd like to have Theo ready to hit the ground running when the World Series is over, but do they want that badly enough to give up a prospect who they think can help them 3-4 years from now?

By contrast, the Sox have high expectations for 2012 and face a need to make decisions in early November on two key free agents, in addition to whatever other changes they want to make in response to the way the 2011 season ended. It helps that Theo's successor is already on board, but how freely are they going to discuss baseball operations in front of Theo, or others who might not be part of a Cherington administration? In addition, there are a couple other teams looking for GMs; if one of them asks for permission to talk to Cherington, that might force the Sox' hand.

#77 cahlton

  • 508 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 09:43 AM

This is Cherington's first official transaction as a GM acting alone, and one would imagine he wants to make an impression. Speier is passing along a Merloni report that Red Sox are interested in prospects only, not money.

http://twitter.com/#!/alexspeier/status/124854669297192960

#78 Section15Box113

  • 3447 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 09:45 AM

In addition, there are a couple other teams looking for GMs; if one of them asks for permission to talk to Cherington, that might force the Sox' hand.


Don't see it. I think ownership would simply decline to grant permission.

At this point, talking to BC about a GM role could well be considered a lateral move, unless another team was offering to make *him* president and GM as well (which I just don't see).


Speier is passing along a Merloni report that Red Sox are interested in prospects only, not money.


And this makes much more sense than the cash or prospects report.

Edited by Section15Box113, 14 October 2011 - 09:47 AM.


#79 miracleofmidre

  • 74 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 09:47 AM

The Sox have the upper hand here, pretty explicity. Theo is under contract yet it has been made public (if these report are indeed accurate) that he has accepted a job elsewhere. How exactly do Theo and the Cubs have any leverage at all? There is no position for Epstein in Chicago until the Sox agree to allow Theo to go to Chicago.

Sure, there is risk in disallowing this and having a disgruntled, lame duck of a GM, and the message it may send about the practices of this organization to current and/or future employees, but that's ephemeral in my mind - each situation is different. But this caveat doesn't change the overall dynamic, it only mitigates the significant leverage the Sox have. In any scenario, in my opinion, the Red Sox have the leverage. They should be asking for something significant as it relates to the minimal precedents set for compensation in this scenario. While it may not be Starlin Castro or Matt Garza, it ought to be of sufficient value (even if it is just cash) to give them comfort in allowing Epstein to move on. I say the Sox tell the Cubs a couple of things they want, then tell the Cubs they can choose which one they want in order to secure Epstein's services. I am not saying they act unreasonably, but they should be getting something from the Cubs that matters to the Cubs, since the Sox are giving up someone who matters to them and who is obligated to serve them.

Another question - which team can walk away from this situation? Seems to me like the Cubs cannot, unless they are prepared to hire someone like Billy Beane (who would have the same compensatory issues) or someone else high profile. They went public with this courtship, and now they have to pony up. I hope the Sox have resolve on this one.

Edited by miracleofmidre, 14 October 2011 - 09:48 AM.


#80 JimD

  • 4600 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 09:51 AM

Not necessarily. The Cubs aren't going to contend in 2012. Sure, they'd like to have Theo ready to hit the ground running when the World Series is over, but do they want that badly enough to give up a prospect who they think can help them 3-4 years from now?


Really? The Cubs had the sixth-largest payroll this year at $126 million - is Ricketts really going to be willing to set fire to a similar pile of cash next year just to avoid giving up a prospect who is as likely to disappoint as become an All-Star?

By contrast, the Sox have high expectations for 2012 and face a need to make decisions in early November on two key free agents, in addition to whatever other changes they want to make in response to the way the 2011 season ended. It helps that Theo's successor is already on board, but how freely are they going to discuss baseball operations in front of Theo, or others who might not be part of a Cherington administration?


Why not? Cherington is Theo's protege and odds are that Epstein will support his decisions.

In addition, there are a couple other teams looking for GMs; if one of them asks for permission to talk to Cherington, that might force the Sox' hand.


If Theo is not signing an extension, the Sox will do whatever it takes to keep Cherington on board. He knows the job is his anyways and he seems loyal to the organization.

#81 maufman


  • SoSH Member


  • 12116 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 10:01 AM

Really? The Cubs had the sixth-largest payroll this year at $126 million - is Ricketts really going to be willing to set fire to a similar pile of cash next year just to avoid giving up a prospect who is as likely to disappoint as become an All-Star?



You're right, of course. The Cubs want this done quickly. In my post, I explained why the Sox also want this done quickly.

Someone will blink. The question of who blinks first has more to do with temperament than objective circumstances.



#82 gcapalbo

  • 2026 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 10:29 AM

The Cubs want to pay cash.

The Red Sox want players in return (and would love to give them Lackey, and his contract... but doubtful that would happen)

While of course, this seems to be a done deal (the Boston media is writing retrospectives on Theo's tenure in Boston, so it must be true) ... there clearly is no agreement as of yet.

As this article states, there's been no announcement from either side, time continues to pass, everything is seemingly still in limbo.
The Curious Case of Compensation for Theo Epstein

Edited by gcapalbo, 14 October 2011 - 10:30 AM.


#83 OCD SS


  • SoSH Member


  • 6846 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 10:34 AM

As this article states, there's been no announcement from either side, time continues to pass, everything is seemingly still in limbo.
The Curious Case of Compensation for Theo Epstein


From that link:

It probably won't involve Brett Jackson, Szczur, McNutt or Cabrera; it could involve Jay Jackson plus perhaps another lower-level prospect and some cash to finalize this unique deal.


The Cubs system is pretty bad, if their top 4 prospects are off the table it's really to the point of picking a lottery ticket up off the sidewalk.

#84 jsinger121


  • @jsinger121


  • 10043 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 10:38 AM

Vitters has underachieved. Could we pry him for Theo given that maybe he could use a change of scenary?

Edited by jsinger121, 14 October 2011 - 10:38 AM.


#85 Rudy Pemberton


  • Just a string of characters


  • 28142 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 10:39 AM

Sox get Zambrano, Cubs take Lackey. Call it even.

#86 soxfan121


  • minidope/racontuer


  • 14508 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 10:44 AM

Sox get Zambrano, Cubs take Lackey. Call it even.


This would at least corroborate the reports of "cash" being the hold up. As in, the Cubs want some to cover the two extra years of Lackey and the Red Sox want a prospect (and to send no cash) in case Zambrano has a full blown psychotic episode.

#87 OCD SS


  • SoSH Member


  • 6846 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 10:45 AM

Vitters has underachieved. Could we pry him for Theo given that maybe he could use a change of scenary?


He's underachieved because he has no plate discipline; unless the Sox can instill some, he's not going anywhere. Interestingly they did have some success with Reddick in this regard so it might be possible.

#88 ScubaSteveAvery


  • the goats! think of the goats!


  • 6879 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 10:50 AM

He's underachieved because he has no plate discipline; unless the Sox can instill some, he's not going anywhere. Interestingly they did have some success with Reddick in this regard so it might be possible.


I like that idea. However, I hope we just get more than Vitters back. Vitters and Dolis would be a much more attractive package.

Plate discipline is a learned skill and not an inherent physical gift/tool. How much you can teach a 20-something plate discipline is another story, but it is learnable. He did drop his strikeout rate this year from last, which is a plus, however, his walk rate also fell in a repeat of the same league.

#89 Clears Cleaver


  • SoSH Member


  • 8297 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 10:50 AM

if the Sox do not get a legit prospect or a major league player then they failed.

#90 jmcc5400

  • 1828 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 10:58 AM

The Cubs system is pretty bad, if their top 4 prospects are off the table it's really to the point of picking a lottery ticket up off the sidewalk.


Screw the lovable Cubbies. Theo's under contract. He's our asset. The Cubs don't get to define the table. I echo Clears: the Sox are entitled to substantive compensation here. This is hardball. One of Theo's first moves was "breaking" the unwritten rule about going after Millar; he'd better damn expect that the Sox are not going to let him walk away without strings.

#91 StuckOnYouk

  • 2023 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 11:04 AM

How about this...If there's no one we want and they aren't going to eat a huge contract of ours, how about we have them take Jenks off of our hands...saves us what, 6 mil next year? We can go out and get one or two relievers with some good upside for that, no?

#92 mt8thsw9th


  • anti-SoSHal


  • 13972 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 11:05 AM

Sox get Zambrano, Cubs take Lackey. Call it even.


So they get potentially a bigger asshole, and someone whose walk rates could spell certainly disaster in the AL East? His ERA+ over the past four seasons is 109, and he hasn't pitched more than 188 2/3 innings in a season in that stretch. Why do the Red Sox want him instead of just cutting Lackey?

#93 jmcc5400

  • 1828 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 11:08 AM

Why do the Red Sox want him instead of just cutting Lackey?


Math. Zambrano's owed $18 million for one year. (He has a vesting option for 2013 - if he finishes in the top 4 of CYA voting in 2012)

#94 soxfan121


  • minidope/racontuer


  • 14508 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 11:13 AM

So they get potentially a bigger asshole, and someone whose walk rates could spell certainly disaster in the AL East? His ERA+ over the past four seasons is 109, and he hasn't pitched more than 188 2/3 innings in a season in that stretch. Why do the Red Sox want him instead of just cutting Lackey?


Well math, and the difference between "could" and "we know he cannot".

#95 Rudy Pemberton


  • Just a string of characters


  • 28142 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 11:21 AM

So they get potentially a bigger asshole, and someone whose walk rates could spell certainly disaster in the AL East? His ERA+ over the past four seasons is 109, and he hasn't pitched more than 188 2/3 innings in a season in that stretch. Why do the Red Sox want him instead of just cutting Lackey?


Because MLB contracts are guaranteed. Cutting Lackey would cost the Red Sox $48M over the next 3 years. Zambrano is owed $18M for next year. Therefore, the Red Sox would save $30M.

Zambrano is likely to be a disaster, of course. So is Lackey. If you want to get rid of Lackey, you are going to have to take someone else's garbage, whether its Wells, Zambrano, Dunn, Rios, Zito, Soriano, etc.

I can't imagine there's any way the Cubs would do this, however, nor do I think Theo wants to bring over a reminder of his recent failure in the FA market anyways.

#96 PedroSpecialK


  • Comes at you like a tornado of hair and the NHL salary cap


  • 16907 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 11:28 AM

If they swap Lackey for Zambrano, I can't fathom them letting Z anywhere near the clubhouse. A Charles Johnson-esque acquire-and-DFA-and-release would be in order.

#97 bosockboy


  • SoSH Member


  • 6959 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 11:32 AM

Have to think Vitters would be involved....he's an interesting flyer to take.

My guess is the Sox are demanding Jackson and it's coming up on high noon.

#98 amfox1

  • 3358 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 11:39 AM

From that link:

The Cubs system is pretty bad, if their top 4 prospects are off the table it's really to the point of picking a lottery ticket up off the sidewalk.


You may actually be understating it. Brett Jackson (Cubs #1 prospect) would probably slot into our system at 5, behind Middlebrooks, Kalish, Ranaudo and Bogaerts, Matt Szczur would likely be at 8-10 and no one else in the Cubs system would be in our top 10-12 (not counting Baez, who is not eligible to be traded). Trey McNutt and Rafael Dolis would likely slot into the mid-teens.

#99 knucklecup


  • hi, I'm a cuckold


  • 4186 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 11:39 AM

Zambrano has a Youkilis esque attitude when things don't go his way, but his frustration over the years has largely been due to his team being awful/his affinity for winning/him being frustrated with his performance. The Chicago media have been on a smear campaign with him(that looks like it worked given the general opinion here this morning) for years but I've always thought it was unfair, and many of the more educated Cubs fans I'm friendly with think the same.

He's a talented pitcher. A change of scenary could be great for him.

And if he ends up being a cancer, it's one year/money you'd be paying to dump anyways.

#100 Savin Hillbilly


  • SoSH Member


  • 11446 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 11:43 AM

You may actually be understating it. Brett Jackson (Cubs #1 prospect) would probably slot into our system at 5, behind Middlebrooks, Kalish, Ranaudo and Bogaerts, Matt Szczur would likely be at 8-10 and no one else in the Cubs system would be in our top 10-12 (not counting Baez, who is not eligible to be traded). Trey McNutt and Rafael Dolis would likely slot into the mid-teens.

And judging by Jay Johnson's numbers at AAA the past couple of years, I would seriously wonder if we could even find him a Pawtucket roster spot. If that's what the Cubs want to give us, the Sox might as well just take the extra cash.