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This topic has been archived.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

#101 OCD SS


  • SoSH Member


  • 6,852 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 11:48 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.


Does Szczur at least have enough tools/ upside to be a high-upside guy as he climbs the ladder (I don't really know anything about him)?

#102 knucklecup


  • hi, I'm a cuckold


  • 4,236 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 12:03 PM

One of my Cubs buddies opinion of Jackson, for what it's worth:

Trying to think of a good comp but struggling. Good tools just doesn't excel in one particular but I'm decently high on him to be a solid player, not an all star. 20-20 last year with a .379 OBP which is very 'un-Cubs-like'

I envision with a smart person running the organization, he will start in center opening day (or at least he is ready to), perhaps put Byrd in right which he is more suited for at this point (although, more marketable for a trade in center field if you have a Pirates type buyer in 2012).


Obviously, he doesn't foresee him being included in this package but in that regard, his position is irreleveant.

Funny to hear the different sides - Cubs fans don't think they're obligated to give up anything, I think they need to give up a considerable piece like Youkilis was during the Beane negotiations.

#103 OCD SS


  • SoSH Member


  • 6,852 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 12:06 PM

SoxScout put this up on twitter:

Grain of salt, but I heard it's basically, "Put your top prospects on the table, or we will keep 'special assistant' Theo in 2012."


Sounds about right.

#104 Saturnian

  • 483 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 12:07 PM

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.

I was thinking along the same lines, but we obviously would need to know what sort of dollar amount it is the Cubs are offering to send in lieu of prospects. One or two of their top 5-10 prospects would come with the benefit of, to varying degrees, a track record in professional baseball. But if they are as underwhelming as they arre being described (and in Jackson's case, fairly redundant), I would rather identify a player (or 2 or 3) in the draft or international market, and use the cash to go over the normal budget and bring in more talent that way.

The ownership and FO are far better equipped than me to make this decision; I am guessing they have identified a player or two in the Cubs organization that they think can help next year, either on the field or in another trade (i.e. Jackson or Reddick for a reliever).

#105 amfox1

  • 3,367 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 12:15 PM

Does Szczur at least have enough tools/ upside to be a high-upside guy as he climbs the ladder (I don't really know anything about him)?


Three things on Szczur, who is 22YO and finished in high-A ball.

1. Even though he was drafted last year, he's Rule 5 eligible because of an administrative abnormality (his bonus was increased when he gave up football, so he was technically released and re-signed), so he'd have to be put on the 40 man roster immediately.

2. He was a football star at Villanova, who was picked in the 5th round last year and received a $1.5 million signing bonus. Szczur has an average to slightly below average arm but his range should allow him to stick in CF, although that is not 100% certain. He has solid bat speed and excellent pitch recognition. Right now, he is showing only doubles power.

3. Character is reportedly off the charts.

Szczur’s ceiling is high. The key to reaching that ceiling is the development of his power. If he learns to be more aggressive on pitches in the strike zone and turns it into game-day power, he could be an all-star. Otherwise, he could still be an above-average regular who hits for high average and plays solid defense in CF. He reminds some of pre-2011 Jacoby Ellsbury; I think he's more like a RHH Ryan Kalish.

#106 amfox1

  • 3,367 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 12:17 PM

One of my Cubs buddies opinion of Jackson, for what it's worth:


Brett Jackson is David Murphy with a better chance of sticking in CF IMO. Third OF in the National League/2nd tier American League team, 4th OF for a good American League team. Don't see him as a good fit for us, given his left-handedness and tool set.

Personally, I'd be focusing on non-outfielders. The Cubs do not have a top heavy system but have some potentially interesting sleeper arms and infielders and some decent lower-level prospects. I'll give you four names to keep an eye on:

Catcher - Welington Castillo. Plus arm, questionable game-calling/blocking. Good bat. Better chance to stick behind the plate than Lavarnway.

Infielder - Marwin Gonzalez. Surprised the Cubs in stepping into SS last year when Castro was promoted to the Cubs and consolidated gains in winter ball. Good glove, improving bat. He could push Iglesias and potentially step in as Lowrie's replacement.

Relief pitcher - Rafael Dolis. Not really a sleeper, but Dolis has a Bard-like fastball and a power curve. Projects as a future closer/set-up man.

Starting pitcher - Nicholas Struck. Undersized pitcher has flown through the system and has has some velocity bumps. Only 21, he probably needs a consolidation year in AAA but could fit into the back end of a rotation.

Edited by amfox1, 14 October 2011 - 12:35 PM.


#107 CoRP

  • 4,172 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 12:24 PM

Matt Szczur donated bone marrow to a 15-month old girl.

#108 snowmanny

  • 2,577 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 12:58 PM

The Red Sox really have the leverage, just as the Patriots had leverage in the Parcells move*, and as the Jets did a couple years later. Everybody wants it to all work out amicably (or at least reasonably), but the Red Sox are the team that has less to lose if they walk away.

Edit: When as you recall the Pats forced the Jets to hire some hack second choice to be Jets interim coach until they got the compensation they wanted.

Edited by snowmanny, 14 October 2011 - 01:01 PM.


#109 maufman


  • SoSH Member


  • 12,592 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 01:01 PM

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?


This makes a lot of sense. The Red Sox will be close to (or above) the luxury tax threshold in 2012; the Cubs will be well below it. So if you assume (for discussion purposes) that Jenks is worth a million bucks, it makes more sense to send Jenks and his $6mm salary to Chicago than to have them cut us a $5mm check.

Unfortunately, iirc Bud Selig has to approve any deal, and he is known to frown on compensation packages that include major-league players.

#110 StuckOnYouk

  • 2,064 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 01:02 PM

If this goes on another 24 hrs, does Theo tell the Cubs, "look just give them the player they want. I'll be drafting two or three of those talents a year once I get over there. Let's just wrap this up OK"

#111 maufman


  • SoSH Member


  • 12,592 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 01:03 PM

Funny to hear the different sides - Cubs fans don't think they're obligated to give up anything, I think they need to give up a considerable piece like Youkilis was during the Beane negotiations.


In the 2002-03 offseason, Youk's ceiling was presumed to be far below what he ultimately became.

If it will help grease the skids to get Lackey out of here, I'd rather have cash than a prospect whose present value is comparable to Youk's (perceived) value then.

#112 rembrat


  • SoSH Member


  • 23,554 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 01:34 PM

I don't understand how this happened. I know an organization poaching a GM from another organization while that GM is still under contract doesn't happen often but there should still be some parameters in place by MLB.

No agreeing to a new contract while you are still under an old one.
No discussion of a new contract until compensation has been agreed upon.

WTF MLB is so fucking assbackwards when it comes to these things.

#113 Harry Hooper


  • SoSH Member


  • 14,803 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 01:40 PM

Since it keeps coming up in this thread...

Gammons:

It's been said many times that [the Red Sox in 2002] actually had agreed to trade Kevin Youkilis for Billy Beane, but that's actually not true. I was going back over this the other day. It was really weird, because Billy was actually negotiating with Paul DePodesta, who was going to take over Billy's job in Oakland. So Billy was acting as the Red Sox general manager and DePodesta was acting as the A's general manager, even though neither one of them was already in his position. And, in the end, he explained, Billy said to Paul, 'Look, there are only three players here at that time in the organization -- Kevin Youkilis, Hanley Ramirez and Kelly Shoppach. I can't give you one of the three real assets in the organization. And if you hold out for it long enough, then you're not going to get the general manager's job. So we have to work it out so we all get what we want.' As it worked out, Billy made the decision to stay closer to his family. He believes it was a life-changing decision not to come to Boston."


Edited by Harry Hooper, 14 October 2011 - 01:40 PM.


#114 jmcc5400

  • 1,845 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 01:42 PM

[quote]knucklecup, on 14 October 2011 - 10:03 AM, said:

Funny to hear the different sides - Cubs fans don't think they're obligated to give up anything, I think they need to give up a considerable piece like Youkilis was during the Beane negotiations.



In the 2002-03 offseason, Youk's ceiling was presumed to be far below what he ultimately became. [quote]

But we have an idea from Moneyball that Youkilis was pretty highly valued by Oakland and Boston. Hell, it's too bad SoSh's archives from 2002 and 2003 don't exist anymore, because he was highly valued here as well. (BHEC, testify!) But, I'm also pretty sure we would have willingly parted with him for Billy Beane in the winter of 2002 (when Youk was coming off of a .462 OBP in AA). Because an able GM is an extremely valuable asset. The Cubs had better recognize as much.

Edit: Interesting quote from Gammons above. So Youk, Hanley and Shoppach were untouchable. Do the Cubs have a Freddy Sanchez lying around?

Edited by jmcc5400, 14 October 2011 - 01:44 PM.


#115 EddieYost


  • has a special friend in GHoff


  • 4,365 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 01:53 PM

If it will help grease the skids to get Lackey out of here, I'd rather have cash than a prospect whose present value is comparable to Youk's (perceived) value then.


There is no way they are going to give us enough cash to offset the Lackey signing, or any significant portion of it. We really need to forget about this being our chance to ditch Lackey.

#116 SumnerH


  • Malt Liquor Picker


  • 15,392 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 01:55 PM

I don't understand how this happened. I know an organization poaching a GM from another organization while that GM is still under contract doesn't happen often but there should still be some parameters in place by MLB.

No agreeing to a new contract while you are still under an old one.
No discussion of a new contract until compensation has been agreed upon.

WTF MLB is so fucking assbackwards when it comes to these things.


Unfortunately search isn't turning it up, but one of the other threads had a quote from someone saying that nothing related to GM movements (including for money) is subject to MLB approval. According to him/her it's only when you start moving players around that the commissioner gets a say. I can't recall who it was or what their credibility on the issue is, though.

#117 Kid T

  • 499 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 01:57 PM

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

Just a quick note on the author of that article

Al Yellon
Editor
Al Yellon is a Cubs fan. For that, he hopes you will indulge him. He's seen Cubs failures since 1969, including the agonizingly close playoff misses in 1984 and 2003. For that, at least a bit of sympathy is requested.



#118 rembrat


  • SoSH Member


  • 23,554 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 02:04 PM

Unfortunately search isn't turning it up, but one of the other threads had a quote from someone saying that nothing related to GM movements (including for money) is subject to MLB approval. According to him/her it's only when you start moving players around that the commissioner gets a say. I can't recall who it was or what their credibility on the issue is, though.

Interesting. Thank you for clarifying. I'm sure someone will point us to the post you are referring to.

#119 maufman


  • SoSH Member


  • 12,592 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 02:10 PM

There is no way they are going to give us enough cash to offset the Lackey signing, or any significant portion of it. We really need to forget about this being our chance to ditch Lackey.


Of course they're not going to just take Lackey -- but getting something like $10mm from the Cubs would go a long way toward bridging the gap between what the FO is willing to eat to dump Lackey, and what a third team might reasonably be willing to pay him.

#120 EddieYost


  • has a special friend in GHoff


  • 4,365 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 02:15 PM

Of course they're not going to just take Lackey -- but getting something like $10mm from the Cubs would go a long way toward bridging the gap between what the FO is willing to eat to dump Lackey, and what a third team might reasonably be willing to pay him.


I would be shocked if we were talking about $10 million dollars here. If they did, and then they immediately swung a deal where they dumped Lackey, using that money to help it happen, that would be great. I just think its a pipe dream.

#121 YTF

  • 3,697 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 02:30 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.


What choice would Cherington have unless he opted to quit and leave the organization rather than be elevated to the job that he's seemingly going to get anyway? He's under contract, yes? I'm assuming he wants the job. Honestly it would be awkward with Theo still officially part of the organization, but do you think Ben's going to refuse? I don't think it comes to this. You're right though it may be amateurish, but I ask you at this point is there much credibility left? There is a lot of opinion out there right now about this team. Perception vs reality matters little right now as no one is ever going to know the truths behind the many story lines here. I do think the Sox are in a position of power here based on the Cubbies choosing to offer Theo what they reportedly have and have said offer apparently accepted (and announced/leaked) before even discussing the compensation package.

Just my opinion..........I would love to somehow pry Castro away. I think he's the prize here. They have to offer something along with Theo and I'm not talking about Lackey and his shit contract. The Cubs won't take him without a good deal of subsidy and if you're going to subsidize Lackey, why not do that with another team that would take a chance on him as a fifth starter at a small investment if offering the Cubs something more nets you Castro? It has to be something that the Cubs could live with while helping Boston solve their long running question mark at SS. As I said, I think the Sox hold the power here, but I think they can offer something workable for Castro while they have the Cubs in this position. Right now they are the only suitors for Theo and have greatly tipped their hand. Might it be possible to get what you want without trying to screw someone over and in the process create a viable working relationship between the teams in the future?




#122 EvilEmpire

  • 4,695 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 02:31 PM

So what happens when the Cubs move on? Epstein can't be the only candidate they were considering since they had no idea when all this started if he was even going to be available. So, if they move on, what happens? Is Epstein a lame-duck GM for a year? Contractually, can the Sox remove him from GM duties without firing him? I'd be surprised if Epstein signed a contract giving them that authority in a post gorilla-suit contract, but maybe he did.

What a curious situation.

#123 Papelbon's Poutine


  • SoSH Member


  • 5,900 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 02:42 PM

Of course they're not going to just take Lackey -- but getting something like $10mm from the Cubs would go a long way toward bridging the gap between what the FO is willing to eat to dump Lackey, and what a third team might reasonably be willing to pay him.


Frankly, I'm more concerned with the CBT hit than the actual money they would have to pay Lackey to go away. Even if the subsidized and got some team to take him for basically $5M a year, a $10M CBT hit isn't what this team needs right now.

#124 maufman


  • SoSH Member


  • 12,592 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 02:51 PM

What choice would Cherington have unless he opted to quit and leave the organization rather than be elevated to the job that he's seemingly going to get anyway? He's under contract, yes? I'm assuming he wants the job. Honestly it would be awkward with Theo still officially part of the organization, but do you think Ben's going to refuse? I don't think it comes to this. You're right though it may be amateurish, but I ask you at this point is there much credibility left? There is a lot of opinion out there right now about this team. Perception vs reality matters little right now as no one is ever going to know the truths behind the many story lines here. I do think the Sox are in a position of power here based on the Cubbies choosing to offer Theo what they reportedly have and have said offer apparently accepted (and announced/leaked) before even discussing the compensation package.

Just my opinion..........I would love to somehow pry Castro away. I think he's the prize here. They have to offer something along with Theo and I'm not talking about Lackey and his shit contract. The Cubs won't take him without a good deal of subsidy and if you're going to subsidize Lackey, why not do that with another team that would take a chance on him as a fifth starter at a small investment if offering the Cubs something more nets you Castro? It has to be something that the Cubs could live with while helping Boston solve their long running question mark at SS. As I said, I think the Sox hold the power here, but I think they can offer something workable for Castro while they have the Cubs in this position. Right now they are the only suitors for Theo and have greatly tipped their hand. Might it be possible to get what you want without trying to screw someone over and in the process create a viable working relationship between the teams in the future?



Why are you (and many others here) so ready to believe Ricketts is stupid?

The Cubs leaked the details because it was in their interest to do so. Before the leak, keeping Theo was a viable option for the Sox; now, it isn't. Theo returning as a lame duck would be an even bigger shit show than what's already transpired this offseason, and Cherington might end up getting tapped for one of the other open GM jobs.

The FO is right to hold out as long as possible for more compensation, but the Sox cannot credibly threaten to walk away, any more than the Cubs can.

Edited by maufman, 14 October 2011 - 02:51 PM.


#125 Trautwein's Degree


  • a Connecticut bicycle attorney in General Motor's Court


  • 10,004 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 03:00 PM

Two things about this negotiation: (1) Ricketts, really, really, wants Theo. That is a very large contract for a GM; (2) Henry can easily afford to pay Theo not to work for a year. From what I've read, Ricketts really values good management and is willing to pay for it. His offer to Theo isn't an "I like you how about getting a drink" it's an "I really love you and let's get married" kind of offer.

The Red Sox have the leverage in this situation because they have something the Cubs want. If Ricketts misses out on Theo, what's he going to do? Have an interim GM for a year? That's not an attractive option. The Sox releasing Theo from his contract is worth a substantial something to the Cubs and know that by how much Ricketts is willing to pay Theo. In the end, there's no way a successful guy like Ricketts let's giving up a guy like Brett Jackson stand in the way of getting what he wants.

Edited by Trautwein's Degree, 14 October 2011 - 03:03 PM.


#126 Kid T

  • 499 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 03:01 PM

So what happens when the Cubs move on? Epstein can't be the only candidate they were considering since they had no idea when all this started if he was even going to be available.


I think that ship has sailed. The Cubs fandom is worked up in a frenzy at the thought of Theo taking over. I can't imagine the backlash Ricketts would get if he switched to a different candidate (and bear in mind, many of the other attractive candidates would also have compensation issues with their teams having even MORE leverage against him). Lastly, the Cubs system is widely considered to be pretty weak. I don't see the Cubs having much leverage here.

#127 someoneanywhere

  • 3,171 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 03:35 PM

I think that ship has sailed. The Cubs fandom is worked up in a frenzy at the thought of Theo taking over. I can't imagine the backlash Ricketts would get if he switched to a different candidate (and bear in mind, many of the other attractive candidates would also have compensation issues with their teams having even MORE leverage against him). Lastly, the Cubs system is widely considered to be pretty weak. I don't see the Cubs having much leverage here.


And not only public perception, although that plays a key role. Ricketts has harpooned his whale, the only one he was chasing. He can't take the chance that in the year intervening Theo will have a change of heart.

We get a big prospect for him and a mediumish one. Anybody else comes with him, the comp is two big prospects.

#128 Savin Hillbilly


  • SoSH Member


  • 11,654 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 03:42 PM

Just my opinion..........I would love to somehow pry Castro away. I think he's the prize here.

I think given what we've already heard, there is less than zero chance we get Castro.

#129 Harry Hooper


  • SoSH Member


  • 14,803 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 03:49 PM

I think that ship has sailed. The Cubs fandom is worked up in a frenzy at the thought of Theo taking over. I can't imagine the backlash Ricketts would get if he switched to a different candidate (and bear in mind, many of the other attractive candidates would also have compensation issues with their teams having even MORE leverage against him). Lastly, the Cubs system is widely considered to be pretty weak. I don't see the Cubs having much leverage here.



All this, and the Cubs have another MLB team across town making moves.

#130 kartvelo

  • 3,804 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 03:57 PM

Just my opinion..........I would love to somehow pry Castro away. I think he's the prize here.



wiki

2010 - Despite his significant offensive contribution, Castro led the team and was second in the National League in errors with 27.

2011 - On defense, he led all major league shortstops in errors, with 29, as he also had the lowest fielding percentage (.961)

Is that because he gets to balls that mere mortals cannot?

#131 jacklamabe65


  • A New Frontier butt boy


  • 6,044 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 04:46 PM

The more I think about it - and I am being totally serious here - the Cubs can have Theo as long as they take Lackey. Take it or leave it. THAT would be our compensation be elimination.

#132 OCD SS


  • SoSH Member


  • 6,852 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 05:11 PM

The idea that the Sox are somehow going to dump Lackey, or make a deal that lands them Garza or Castro or even Soto is seriously distorting this discussion. It's already been stated that there are no major league players even being considered as compensation. That people keep bringing it up is akin to the public masturbation you find on ESPN.com message boards.

And not only public perception, although that plays a key role. Ricketts has harpooned his whale, the only one he was chasing. He can't take the chance that in the year intervening Theo will have a change of heart.

We get a big prospect for him and a mediumish one. Anybody else comes with him, the comp is two big prospects.


This is how it will come down. The issue is essentially that the Cubs system is as bad as the Sox's was (or was perceived to be) when they tried to hire Beane. The difference is that if compensation is worked out we don't have to worry about a change of heart.

The Cubs leaked the details because it was in their interest to do so. Before the leak, keeping Theo was a viable option for the Sox; now, it isn't. Theo returning as a lame duck would be an even bigger shit show than what's already transpired this offseason, and Cherington might end up getting tapped for one of the other open GM jobs.

The FO is right to hold out as long as possible for more compensation, but the Sox cannot credibly threaten to walk away, any more than the Cubs can.


I think you have this backwards. The Sox have already told Cherington that he's the new GM; he'll be under contract and not going anywhere. The Sox can just walk away, and they do so by telling Theo to go back to work and let him know that they'll be altering his duties and responsibilities as they need to to accommodate Ben. Theo fills the Lajole role for a year. Problem solved, Ricketts can find someone else or wait for year and in either circumstance Ricketts can explain that to his fanbase.

#133 MoGator71

  • 4,970 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 05:22 PM

The more I think about it - and I am being totally serious here - the Cubs can have Theo as long as they take Lackey. Take it or leave it. THAT would be our compensation be elimination.


I agree. I might even be willing to take a chance on Zambrano if they wouldn't just take Lackey, but I'd rather get Lackey out of here than take any Cubs player/prospect. Even Castro...too many questions about his defense and his makeup for my taste.

#134 someoneanywhere

  • 3,171 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 05:30 PM

I agree. I might even be willing to take a chance on Zambrano if they wouldn't just take Lackey, but I'd rather get Lackey out of here than take any Cubs player/prospect. Even Castro...too many questions about his defense and his makeup for my taste.


If there were a chance of Lackey getting out of here -- and I don't believe there is -- something like this would be how it would be pulled off. But it wouldn't be direct: that is, it wouldn't be Theo/Lackey for Zam and prospects. Instead the deals would be broken up and make separate to satisfy the commish. That is, Theo for the prospys in one deal; Fat Boy for L'Attitude in the other deal.

I still subscribe to what I posted above, and I'm more with OCD's take here about the continued wet-dreaming about getting out from under Lackey (yes, I know how that sounds). But if it were to happen, this or some variant would be how.

#135 EvilEmpire

  • 4,695 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 05:32 PM

Ricketts' fanbase will be probably be just as upset if he gives up quality prospects than than they would be if he hired another GM. I just can't see how he is boxed in here. Potential GM's who aren't afraid of advanced statistics are not a rarity any more. He won't make a big splash if he goes with an unknown, but better that than gutting his farm system. Fans will understand that he tried to do something big but it fell through. Bottom line, This won't hurt him if he walks away.

#136 Mystic Merlin


  • SoSH Member


  • 21,964 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 05:36 PM

Ricketts' fanbase will be probably be just as upset if he gives up quality prospects than than they would be if he hired another GM. I just can't see how he is boxed in here. Potential GM's who aren't afraid of advanced statistics are not a rarity any more. He won't make a big splash if he goes with an unknown, but better that than gutting his farm system. Fans will understand that he tried to do something big but it fell through. Bottom line, This won't hurt him if he walks away.



You make a fatal assumption here: that the Cubs fanbase by and large even knows or cares who their top prospects are.

#137 EvilEmpire

  • 4,695 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 05:41 PM

Sports radio will tell them what to think, just like in NY and Boston. If Ricketts gives up top prospects the storyline will be that he got fleeced.

#138 Jed Zeppelin


  • SoSH Member


  • 15,663 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 05:44 PM

Sports radio will tell them what to think, just like in NY and Boston. If Ricketts gives up top prospects the storyline will be that he got fleeced.


The storyline could just as easily be that the system is barren anyways, and that's why he gave up the prospects to get the guy who will turn it around. What is more impressive, Theo's resume or a couple decent prospects?

#139 zenter


  • slumdog idol


  • 4,802 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 05:45 PM

I agree. I might even be willing to take a chance on Zambrano if they wouldn't just take Lackey, but I'd rather get Lackey out of here than take any Cubs player/prospect. Even Castro...too many questions about his defense and his makeup for my taste.

Wait. Why would the Cubs be willing to take Lackey? And why in any deity's name would the Red Sox want Carlos "81 ERA+ in the NL Central Clubhouse Cancer" Zambrano?

#140 rembrat


  • SoSH Member


  • 23,554 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 05:49 PM

Sports radio will tell them what to think, just like in NY and Boston. If Ricketts gives up top prospects the storyline will be that he got fleeced.

Would it matter if they gave up top prospects at this point? Theo is getting Strasburg money to play on his BlackBerry.

Cashman's last contract was 3yrs barely $6MM and his organization overpays everyone and their mamas. The Not Getting Fleeced S.S. has already left the port, dude.

#141 knucklecup


  • hi, I'm a cuckold


  • 4,236 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 05:52 PM

Sports radio will tell them what to think, just like in NY and Boston. If Ricketts gives up top prospects the storyline will be that he got fleeced.


You're talking about the most casual fans in existence. The least knowledgeable of any city in the country. Living and working here the last couple days, you'd think the Cubs were playing for a World Series this October.

#142 JakeRae


  • SoSH Member


  • 5,311 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 05:53 PM

You make a fatal assumption here: that the Cubs fanbase by and large even knows or cares who their top prospects are.

He is making an even more flawed assumption: that the Cubs have top prospects.

#143 Harry Hooper


  • SoSH Member


  • 14,803 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 05:59 PM

You make a fatal assumption here: that the Cubs fanbase by and large even knows or cares who their top prospects are.



Well, there's the Sons of Rick Wrona. All 63 members.

As already stated, the Cubs will not fail to land Theo over a ml player or two that almost none of their fans have ever heard of.

#144 Savin Hillbilly


  • SoSH Member


  • 11,654 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 06:11 PM

Wait. Why would the Cubs be willing to take Lackey? And why in any deity's name would the Red Sox want Carlos "81 ERA+ in the NL Central Clubhouse Cancer" Zambrano?

As has already been said, because Zambrano's a one-year cancer rather than a three-year one.

I mean, put it this way: if the Cubs could somehow, as their compensation for Theo, lop the final two years off Lackey's contract, wouldn't you consider that a godsend? I would. This is basically the same thing--unless you seriously believe Lackey has a resurgence in him.

Edited by Savin Hillbilly, 14 October 2011 - 06:13 PM.


#145 pokey_reese


  • SoSH Member


  • 5,096 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 06:15 PM

wiki


Is that because he gets to balls that mere mortals cannot?


I live in Chicago and have watched him play on tv and in person, and I don't love him. He rushes a lot of throws or makes them off-balance, missing Pena by a lot. He has no judgement about when not to make a throw, and makes some "concentration" errors, but those can be grown out of. I think he can improve, but I don't see him being a good defensive SS.

Also, while he can hit .300, he is absolutely a hacker and will never walk much (probably), as it isn't a matter of recognition so much as a desire to swing at everything.

He is good for his age, and kind of fun to watch, but I don't want him on the Sox. What's cute now will be annoying if at 27 he still leads the league in errors and doesn't walk.

Edited by pokey_reese, 14 October 2011 - 06:17 PM.


#146 mt8thsw9th


  • anti-SoSHal


  • 14,130 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 06:17 PM

wiki


Is that because he gets to balls that mere mortals cannot?


Great point; what a bum!

#147 JakeRae


  • SoSH Member


  • 5,311 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 06:19 PM

I live in Chicago and have watched gum play on tv and in person, and I don't love him. He rushes a lot of throws or makes them off-balance, missing Pena by a lot. He has no judgement about when not to make a throw, and makes some "concentration" errors, but those can be grown out of. I think he can improve, but I don't see him being a good defensive SS.

Also, while he can hit .300, he is absolutely a hacker and will never walk much (probably), as it isn't a matter of recognition so much as a desire to swing at everything.

He is good for his age, and kind of fun to watch, but I don't want him on the Sox. What's cute now will be annoying if at 27 he still leads the league in errors and doesn't walk.

Players who make the majors and have success at the age Castro has generally turn into absolute studs. That's not to say he definitely will. I think he's gotten more hype than he deserves thus far in his career. But, his performance has been very impressive from the perspective of what he might be as a player by the time he turns 27.

He was playing in the majors, and succeeding, at an age where most top prospects are still in A ball.

#148 Eric Van


  • Kid-tested, mother-approved


  • 10,990 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 06:30 PM

Cubs prospects who made BA league Top 20s, with their pre-season Top 30 rank:

Brett Jackson (#2), CF, 8th in the PCL and 4th in the Southern.
Matt Szczur (#7), CF, 8th in the FSL and 9th in the Midwest.
Reggie Golden (#23), RF, 10th in the Northwest.
Ben Wells, RHP (#24), 12th in the NW.
Pin-Chieh Chen, CF (not on depth chart), 14th in the NW.
Zeke DeVoss, 2B (ditto), 17th in the NW.
Marco Hernandez, SS (depth chart), 6th in the AZL.
Gioskar Amaya, 3B/2B (depth chart), 9th in the AZL.

#149 knucklecup


  • hi, I'm a cuckold


  • 4,236 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 06:33 PM

As has already been said, because Zambrano's a one-year cancer rather than a three-year one.

I mean, put it this way: if the Cubs could somehow, as their compensation for Theo, lop the final two years off Lackey's contract, wouldn't you consider that a godsend? I would. This is basically the same thing--unless you seriously believe Lackey has a resurgence in him.


To add/as has already been said countless times in this thread, the Red Sox would be saving $30 million dollars by making that swap, while ridding themselves of The Most Hated Man In Boston Sports.

#150 BosRedSox5


  • Stuart Smalley devotee


  • 1,258 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 06:35 PM

So the Sox were rumored to give up Youkilis for Billy Beane. Granted, no one knew he was going to become a star but in 2002 he'd crushed minor league pitching to the tune of .310/.436/.424/.860. When Lou Pinella went to the Rays that same year the Mariners got Randy Winn. Winn was an all-star center fielder and one of the Rays few weapons. Just recently when Ozzie Guillen left to manage the Marlins the White Sox got TWO of the Marlins top 10 prospects as compensation.

If the Red Sox get anything less than a good major league player or two decent prospects they'll be getting totally hosed.

The Sox need to play hardball. If Rickets thinks Theo the guy to lead baseball ops AND get a potential team presidency in the deal then why wouldn't he be worth a haul? Why shouldn't we demand one?