451 replies to this topic

[untilthebombs]

It appears that early reports of an Epstein for cash trade were premature:

The Cubs only want to send money to the Red Sox, while the Red Sox are insistent on receiving back a package of players. The two sides reportedly didn't give much ground Thursday, so it's at a stand-still right now (Chicago Tribune).

The Boston Globe notes the Red Sox have interest in some of the few attractive prospects from the Cubs system, like Brett Jackson, Matt Szczur, Alberto Cabrera, Jay Jackson and Trey McNutt. The Globe has also reported the Red Sox like major-league utility player Jeff Baker, but he alone wouldn't be enough. In that same entry, it is noted that the Red Sox would love the Cubs to take John Lackey and his gaudy contract, but that is very unlikely.

The Boston Herald says the Red Sox are looking for "something real" in return for Epstein.

Thoughts on the rumored players of interest? Anyone you'd like to see involved that isn't currently rumored?

[Tyrone Biggums]

It appears that early reports of an Epstein for cash trade were premature:



Thoughts on the rumored players of interest? Anyone you'd like to see involved that isn't currently rumored?

Good thread, I wouldn't mind seeing Brett Jackson being the player in return

[KyleTheCubsFan]

From a Cubs fan point of view (which you may all feel free to mock), I don't think the Cubs are going to have to give up anything significant. Asking for Brett Jackson, let alone Starlin Castro, is a non-starter.

Some seem to think that the Red Sox hold all the cards because they don't have to release Epstein. But let's examine that for a minute.

If the reports on his contract with Boston is true, then Epstein will be owed $1.5 million for 2012. He also has a "conclusion bonus" in his contract, which would be $3.5 million if he left Boston this year, and it escalates to $5 million next year. The Cubs are offering to pay the $3.5 million at the moment.

So if the Red Sox choose to sit on Epstein when he wants to leave, that's going to cost them $6.5 million.

You also have to factor that this is not a strictly lateral move. Epstein will be given more baseball authority with the Cubs. So if they tank the deal, then the Red Sox will be violating protocol by denying an executive a chance to take a promotion (and double his salary). What does that do to their reputation with any other young, brilliant minds who might be trying to break into the business? "Come work for the Red Sox, where we will hold back your career in ways that no other team would."

So the Cubs are already offering $3.5 million in financial compensation. It makes no sense that a team as intelligent as the Red Sox would waste $6.5 million and tarnish their reputation in order to try to extract a prospect the Cubs aren't willing to give. The only player the Cubs have that would even be worth trying to make a bluff like that is Castro, and if Castro becomes the sticking point, the Cubs will hang up immediately and call Rick Hahn or something.

What does make a lot more sense, however, is that negotiations are hanging (temporarily) on the issue of other front office personnel. I'm guessing Epstein wants to bring someone(s) with him, and the Red Sox want an agreement in place that he won't take anyone for a certain amount of time.

The Cubs and/or Red Sox will spend the next few days posturing, and they'll either agree to a "better prospect/Epstein brings some people with him" deal or Epstein will agree to bring no one with him and the Red Sox will get the $3.5 million and maybe a marginal prospect (not roster-fill, just a lottery ticket like Vitters).

[SoxLegacy]

I started checking some Cubs prospects sites, and Jackson does appear to be their top position player. He split time between AA and AAA this year, hit .274 with a .379 OBP, .490 SLG and .869 OPS. His numbers at AAA slightly better than those at AA. He does bat lefthanded, though, so I am not sure where he would fit in with Reddick/Kalish, and he's a centerfielder. I don't know if the Sox get him and package him or Reddick or Kalish along with others for something else. From my brief foray into Cubs prospects, they don't appear to have a lot--Trey McNutt's name comes up as a pitching prospect.

[Cellar-Door]

From a Cubs fan point of view (which you may all feel free to mock), I don't think the Cubs are going to have to give up anything significant. Asking for Brett Jackson, let alone Starlin Castro, is a non-starter.

Some seem to think that the Red Sox hold all the cards because they don't have to release Epstein. But let's examine that for a minute.

If the reports on his contract with Boston is true, then Epstein will be owed $1.5 million for 2012. He also has a "conclusion bonus" in his contract, which would be $3.5 million if he left Boston this year, and it escalates to $5 million next year. The Cubs are offering to pay the $3.5 million at the moment.

So if the Red Sox choose to sit on Epstein when he wants to leave, that's going to cost them $6.5 million.

You also have to factor that this is not a strictly lateral move. Epstein will be given more baseball authority with the Cubs. So if they tank the deal, then the Red Sox will be violating protocol by denying an executive a chance to take a promotion (and double his salary). What does that do to their reputation with any other young, brilliant minds who might be trying to break into the business? "Come work for the Red Sox, where we will hold back your career in ways that no other team would."

So the Cubs are already offering $3.5 million in financial compensation. It makes no sense that a team as intelligent as the Red Sox would waste $6.5 million and tarnish their reputation in order to try to extract a prospect the Cubs aren't willing to give. The only player the Cubs have that would even be worth trying to make a bluff like that is Castro, and if Castro becomes the sticking point, the Cubs will hang up immediately and call Rick Hahn or something.

What does make a lot more sense, however, is that negotiations are hanging (temporarily) on the issue of other front office personnel. I'm guessing Epstein wants to bring someone(s) with him, and the Red Sox want an agreement in place that he won't take anyone for a certain amount of time.

The Cubs and/or Red Sox will spend the next few days posturing, and they'll either agree to a "better prospect/Epstein brings some people with him" deal or Epstein will agree to bring no one with him and the Red Sox will get the $3.5 million and maybe a marginal prospect (not roster-fill, just a lottery ticket like Vitters).

I agree that Castro isn't happening, probably no Jackson either. However, this isn't really a promotion, it is essentially the same position with slightly different responsibilities. More I think you undervalued the impact backing off of Theo has for the Cubs. The majority of fans are not going to be thrilled with Rick Hahn when the biggest name was available and could have been had for a prospect. The openness with which the Cubs pursued Theo and the amount of media play its is getting puts the pressure on the Cubs. While the Red Sox lose nothing by keeping Theo and having him play out his contract. I do think this gets done for a few prospects, but the Cubs have far more to lose than the
Sox.

[CK Dexter Haven]

I agree that Castro isn't happening, probably no Jackson either. However, this isn't really a promotion, it is essentially the same position with slightly different responsibilities. More I think you undervalued the impact backing off of Theo has for the Cubs. The majority of fans are not going to be thrilled with Rick Hahn when the biggest name was available and could have been had for a prospect. The openness with which the Cubs pursued Theo and the amount of media play its is getting puts the pressure on the Cubs. While the Red Sox lose nothing by keeping Theo and having him play out his contract. I do think this gets done for a few prospects, but the Cubs have far more to lose than the
Sox.

Is Castro not happening simply as 'the' compensation piece for Theo? Or, not happening, ever, for any reason, in any context whatsoever?

Forgive my newbielicious ignorance, but why not:

Starlin to Boston
Theo to Chicago.
Plus, Boston picks up Scutaro's option and sends him along with Theo. And pays him.

Cubs get a GM-a-macallit and still have a proven ML shortstop, only a couple of years removed from the AllStar game. He hit .300 in the AL East. That's nothing to sniff at.

I dunno. Spitballing. The guys on the 'main' board seem hot for Starlin....

I would have considered Lowrie instead of Scutaro, but i think Jed's going to be something. Plus, i think we need to keep Ellsbury happy at this delicate stage of things.

[Cellar-Door]

I can't see that working. Castro is under team control until 2016, he's by far their best piece for the future. They are probably 3 years away from competing, so Scutaro doesn't do much for them. Castro is really really valuable to the cubs, I can't see any motivation for the to move him.

Is Castro not happening simply as 'the' compensation piece for Theo? Or, not happening, ever, for any reason, in any context whatsoever?

Forgive my newbielicious ignorance, but why not:

Starlin to Boston
Theo to Chicago.
Plus, Boston picks up Scutaro's option and sends him along with Theo. And pays him.

Cubs get a GM-a-macallit and still have a proven ML shortstop, only a couple of years removed from the AllStar game. He hit .300 in the AL East. That's nothing to sniff at.

I dunno. Spitballing. The guys on the 'main' board seem hot for Starlin....

I would have considered Lowrie instead of Scutaro, but i think Jed's going to be something. Plus, i think we need to keep Ellsbury happy at this delicate stage of things.

[jasail]

From a Cubs fan point of view (which you may all feel free to mock), I don't think the Cubs are going to have to give up anything significant. Asking for Brett Jackson, let alone Starlin Castro, is a non-starter.

Some seem to think that the Red Sox hold all the cards because they don't have to release Epstein. But let's examine that for a minute.

If the reports on his contract with Boston is true, then Epstein will be owed $1.5 million for 2012. He also has a "conclusion bonus" in his contract, which would be $3.5 million if he left Boston this year, and it escalates to $5 million next year. The Cubs are offering to pay the $3.5 million at the moment.

So if the Red Sox choose to sit on Epstein when he wants to leave, that's going to cost them $6.5 million.

You also have to factor that this is not a strictly lateral move. Epstein will be given more baseball authority with the Cubs. So if they tank the deal, then the Red Sox will be violating protocol by denying an executive a chance to take a promotion (and double his salary). What does that do to their reputation with any other young, brilliant minds who might be trying to break into the business? "Come work for the Red Sox, where we will hold back your career in ways that no other team would."

So the Cubs are already offering $3.5 million in financial compensation. It makes no sense that a team as intelligent as the Red Sox would waste $6.5 million and tarnish their reputation in order to try to extract a prospect the Cubs aren't willing to give. The only player the Cubs have that would even be worth trying to make a bluff like that is Castro, and if Castro becomes the sticking point, the Cubs will hang up immediately and call Rick Hahn or something.

What does make a lot more sense, however, is that negotiations are hanging (temporarily) on the issue of other front office personnel. I'm guessing Epstein wants to bring someone(s) with him, and the Red Sox want an agreement in place that he won't take anyone for a certain amount of time.

The Cubs and/or Red Sox will spend the next few days posturing, and they'll either agree to a "better prospect/Epstein brings some people with him" deal or Epstein will agree to bring no one with him and the Red Sox will get the $3.5 million and maybe a marginal prospect (not roster-fill, just a lottery ticket like Vitters).

The thing I disagree with in this is that it will tarnish their reputation. How does walking away from a deal where the determination is that the return value of an employee under contract does not match the value you are giving up, tarnish anyone's reputation, specifically if Theo is requesting to bring baseball ops people with him. This is happens all the time with players. Just because a team shops a player, doesn't mean they have to trade him. It's a brave new world and it appears that the league is moving in a direction where this will become more common. Moreover, the Sox have a young gun replacement for Theo in house, so I doubt the way they manage Theo will affect Cherrington and his views of the organization he's been with since 1999. In fact, if I was a young GM I would appreciate this because it shows that the ownership you are working for have a shrewd business sense and an understanding of value.

[touchstone033]

The Cubs won't give up Starlin Castro. No way. He's the future of the franchise. We'll be lucky if we land Brett Jackson, who might someday be Boston's 4th outfielder.

[untilthebombs]

Good thread, I wouldn't mind seeing Brett Jackson being the player in return

Don't know much about him, but saw that he was pulled from a game earlier today.

[untilthebombs]

The thing I disagree with in this is that it will tarnish their reputation. How does walking away from a deal where the determination is that the return value of an employee under contract does not match the value you are giving up, tarnish anyone's reputation, specifically if Theo is requesting to bring baseball ops people with him. This is happens all the time with players. Just because a team shops a player, doesn't mean they have to trade him. It's a brave new world and it appears that the league is moving in a direction where this will become more common. Moreover, the Sox have a young gun replacement for Theo in house, so I doubt the way they manage Theo will affect Cherrington and his views of the organization he's been with since 1999. In fact, if I was a young GM I would appreciate this because it shows that the ownership you are working for have a shrewd business sense and an understanding of value.

I agree. The negative PR will hurt their reputation, but not wanting to get something of value in return for their GM. The problem is that their is no standard for a GM being traded at this point. Oakland wanted Youkilis for Beane, but the Red Sox didn't cave and Beane never made the move.

Hell, the Marlins gave up some guys with at least a decent shot to contribute in the majors just to get a manager.

And as you mention, at least for the foreseeable future, the Red Sox will look to promote from within, as they are content with the current processes in place. The PR while damaging, won't prevent any recent college grads from pursuing a spot with the organization. It would only be potential harmful if or when they seek to bring in talent from other organizations.

[untilthebombs]

Some thoughts:

1) Castro to Boston is a pipe dream, but it shouldn't be. As I mentioned above, the problem is that there is no standard and MLB doesn't necessary have the initiative to start paying front office talent like their on the field talent (though they're headed there whether they like it or not). But if we think about what Epstein will mean to the Cubs, an organization that is operating on outdated philosophies and has struggled in recent years in all facets of player acquisition, you can't argue that he isn't worth. I can't say it better than a piece I read early today:

Imagine, for a moment, if you transformed Epstein into a player on the Red Sox Who would he be? Would he be backup outfielder Darnell McDonald? Or would he be first baseman Adrian Gonzalez, who will pull down an average annual salary north of $20 million?

The Red Sox gave up the top two prospects within their farm system from Gonzalez - though admittedly, neither player is a sure thing. If Epstein is Gonzalez, isn't a similar return reasonable? If I was Lucchino, I'd start with Castro and work my way down. If I was Ricketts, I'd keep Castro off the table knowing that GM's are not currently valued appropriately, but I'd absolutely be willing to go to a package of either two solid prospects and low A throw in, or a major leaguer, a solid prospect, and a low A guy. Epstein is absolutely worth that much to them.



2) I've read what's been posted about Jackson, and might try to find more on the other guys. Don't know much about them but would love to hear more if anyone has anything.



3) Baker isn't acceptable unless as a throw in. The more you look at him, the uglier it gets. Sure he's still got another year of arbitration and can do everything but pitch and catch, but the only thing he actually does well is play defense at 2B. No power, no patience, strikes out a lot, below average defense at all other infield spots.



4) A player I'd love to get in return - Sean Marshall - a great strikeout/groundball pitcher lefty out of the pen. Still has another year of arbitration. Would give the Red Sox their first trustworthy lefty out of the pen since Okie's good years. If Bard is actually moved into the rotation, could slide right in as the set up man. Chicago should have no problem parting with him as the centerpiece of a trade. Relief pitchers are volatile and on a team years away from winning, they're also the least valuable players.



5) Lackey - if I were the Cubs, if the Red Sox were willing to pay a significant chuck of his salary, I would absolutely take him on as part of the deal. While Lackey is clearly no longer the pitcher that he was in '05/'06, a move to the NL Central (though the least pitcher friendly division in the NL) and possibly free of the personal problems that plagued him throughout the season could result in a turnaround. Lackey could absolutely get back to being the pitcher he was in '09/'10, assuming that his problems lie more in mechanics and the AL East, and less in any long-term physical ailments .

[KyleTheCubsFan]

The thing I disagree with in this is that it will tarnish their reputation. How does walking away from a deal where the determination is that the return value of an employee under contract does not match the value you are giving up, tarnish anyone's reputation, specifically if Theo is requesting to bring baseball ops people with him. This is happens all the time with players. Just because a team shops a player, doesn't mean they have to trade him. It's a brave new world and it appears that the league is moving in a direction where this will become more common. Moreover, the Sox have a young gun replacement for Theo in house, so I doubt the way they manage Theo will affect Cherrington and his views of the organization he's been with since 1999. In fact, if I was a young GM I would appreciate this because it shows that the ownership you are working for have a shrewd business sense and an understanding of value.

There is a long-term, unwritten rule in baseball that you do not stand in the way of an executive attempting to improve his circumstances. This is not a strictly lateral move for Epstein (although that's a bit of a gray area, he's clearly being given more responsibility with the Cubs than he has in Boston. He will report directly to the owner here, not to a Lucchino figure), and he's going to be doubling his salary.

Young executives hope to prove themselves and move up, and given the small number of jobs they can't realistically expect to move up in-house regularly. If an assistant has a chance to move up with another organization, it's been tradition to let him do so. I obviously can't read anyone's future minds, so maybe none of those young executives will care, but my guess is that if the Red Sox were silly enough to follow through with the threat to waste millions of dollars to make Epstein sit out a year, it would tarnish their reputation.


Now I'll grant that Epstein going from GM to GM+ isn't quite the same as an assistant making the move to GM. Which is why Boston will get some sort of compensation. A minimum of $3.5 million in cash is already on the table.

But they have a little more to lose if this falls apart than the Cubs do. The sentiment in Chicago among Cubs fans, fair or not, is that the Red Sox are trying to be bullies here and that the Cubs shouldn't cave. So the Cubs will either have to wait a year or go with their second choice as GM. (One quiet report that got lost in all the noise is that Ricketts was able to interview multiple candidates while no leaks came out other than Epstein when the deal was agreed upon). Cubs fans seem inclined to applaud their owner for not being the type to be pushed around. Even if we don't believe the Red Sox tarnish their reputation in any way, they still lose something very tangible: $6.5 million dollars (if the reports are accurate).

Now, getting an outgoing executive to sign an agreement saying he won't poach his old organization is not unprecedented. Ultimately, I believe that's what this will really end up being about. There is posturing by both sides right now, but in the end, the Red Sox want assurances that Epstein won't poach, and the Cubs are willing to give up a small amount of minor league talent for the right to poach, and they'll come to an agreement somewhere in that range. The Cubs aren't really going to walk away from Epstein and the Red Sox aren't really going to eat $6.5 million and make him twiddle his thumbs.

[ivanvamp]

I think the Cubs have more to lose than the Red Sox do. They can easily afford to pay Theo, what, $1.5 million, for 2012 to sit around and assist Cherington. The Cubs are committed to Theo. Their fan base is frothing at the prospects at Theo coming. I can't imagine they'd happily sit around for another year waiting for Theo. I could be wrong though.

All I wanted, if Theo was going to Chicago, was that he be forced to take Lackey with him. Clearly that's not going to happen. Nor will the Red Sox get Starlin Castro or Matt Garza. The Sox will get a prospect or two, and some cash, and that'll be it. I'm sure the Cubs don't want to give up Brett Jackson, but I think the Sox will hold firm and they'll end up getting him.

Here are some of the best prospects in the Cubs' system:

OF Brett Jackson - 20+ hr potential
OF Matt Szczur - very good speed and defense, could be a solid CF
P Trey McNutt - power arm, ability is better than his stats show
P Rafael Dolis - reportedly can hit 100mph with the fastball
3b Josh Vitters - plenty of potential, struggles with working the count

Ok, of this group, who would help the Red Sox the most? Jackson is the best player, probably, but the Sox already are locked in with Ellsbury and Crawford, and it's not entirely clear to me that Jackson is *that* much better than Reddick or Kalish. He might very well be. But he might not be. He's also a left-handed hitter, so he can't provide a young platoon with either Reddick or Kalish.

Szczur brings to the table what Jacoby Ellsbury does - minus the power. Not sure he's the best fit.

Vitters has ability, but the Sox already have a top-notch 3b prospect in Middlebrooks.

That leaves the two pitchers. McNutt really struggled in 2011 (4.55 era, 1.67 whip, 6.2 k/9 in AA), but was lights-out in 2010 (2.48 era, 1.12 whip, 10.2 k/9 at 3 different levels). Just 21 years old, has the kind of arm that teams really love. Could be used as a future piece for the Sox or could be traded - plenty of teams out there would like to get this guy.

And Dolis is 23 in AA and put up a line of 3.22 era, 1.32 whip, and 5.9 k/9 this past season. Not super encouraging, but I like what he can bring with his velocity.

Ideally, I guess, the Sox would get McNutt and Jackson, because those are - whether they fit the Sox' needs or not - the two best prospects the Cubs have, I suppose. Not sure the Cubs will give up both of them. But it would give Boston some more prospects to plug into the system or deal for other pieces.

[Tyrone Biggums]

The Cubs system isn't really that great...how about this guy?

1. Jeimer Candelario (3b), Dominican Republic. Technically Candelario was born in New York City but his family has since moved back to the Dominican Republic where he played baseball. Candelario is a remarkably advanced hitter for his age (17). The switch-hitter has dominated the DSL with his combination of hitting skills, emerging power, and plate discipline. Candelario is not as advanced on defense but he has plenty of time to improve. Even if he doesn't, he has the bat to profile in LF or 1B should he need to switch positions. The 6'1", 180 lbs Candelario had a slash line of .340/.447/.471 and has just 41 strikeouts in almost 300 plate appearances.

Season Team G PA H HR R RBI SB BB% K% ISO BABIP AVG OBP SLG wOBA wRC+ Fld Bsr WAR
2011 Cubs ®72 305 84 5 50 53 4 16.4 % 13.8 % .141 .382 .337 .443 .478 .450 166

I think its very encouraging numbers for a guy who is extremely young, and I would think perhaps the highest ceiling out of the Cubs prospects.

[KyleTheCubsFan]

Their fan base is frothing at the prospects at Theo coming. I can't imagine they'd happily sit around for another year waiting for Theo.

Speaking as a Cubs fan who talks to other Cubs fans and listens to Chicago sports radio, for the moment the "Red Sox are being bullies and we won't be bullied" meme is playing very well here. True or not, that's how Chicago fans seem inclined to see it. We don't want to wait a year or go to the 2nd choice, and I don't think we'll have to, but there won't be a PR hit for doing so.

[KyleTheCubsFan]

Ideally, I guess, the Sox would get McNutt and Jackson, because those are - whether they fit the Sox' needs or not - the two best prospects the Cubs have, I suppose. Not sure the Cubs will give up both of them. But it would give Boston some more prospects to plug into the system or deal for other pieces.

Jackson is off the table.

If you really, really, really want McNutt, I can do that. You can have Vitters to make it two (I like him more than most Cubs fans, but I see little chance he's ever an MLB regular at this point. He's got to improve his power, his patience *and* his defense to become viable. He has the potential to improve any of the three, but all three seems unlikely).

$3.5 million in cash, McNutt and Vitters, but Epstein gets to bring one top-level or two lower-level executives with him.

Deal?

Edited by KyleTheCubsFan, 15 October 2011 - 09:52 AM.

[pdub]

There's no chance in hell the Cubs give up their player of the future (Castro) for a GM.

[ivanvamp]

Jackson is off the table.

If you really, really, really want McNutt, I can do that. You can have Vitters to make it two (I like him more than most Cubs fans, but I see little chance he's ever an MLB regular at this point. He's got to improve his power, his patience *and* his defense to become viable. He has the potential to improve any of the three, but all three seems unlikely).

$3.5 million in cash, McNutt and Vitters, but Epstein gets to bring one top-level or two lower-level executives with him.

Deal?

Nope.

[jdm2008]

I do not know why people think the sox have leverage here If this falls apart Theo will surely not be the GM here or have much of any value to the Redsox. The Redsox will have to him his completion bonus to be a "special assistant". If the Redsox blow this up theo will surely be a distraction, the chances of a contribution from Theo this year are nill. And theo will be available next year most likely so the cubs can sign him then.

I think the Cubs have more to lose than the Red Sox do. They can easily afford to pay Theo, what, $1.5 million, for 2012 to sit around and assist Cherington. The Cubs are committed to Theo. Their fan base is frothing at the prospects at Theo coming. I can't imagine they'd happily sit around for another year waiting for Theo. I could be wrong though.

All I wanted, if Theo was going to Chicago, was that he be forced to take Lackey with him. Clearly that's not going to happen. Nor will the Red Sox get Starlin Castro or Matt Garza. The Sox will get a prospect or two, and some cash, and that'll be it. I'm sure the Cubs don't want to give up Brett Jackson, but I think the Sox will hold firm and they'll end up getting him.

Here are . some of the best prospects in the Cubs' system:

OF Brett Jackson - 20+ hr potential
OF Matt Szczur - very good speed and defense, could be a solid CF
P Trey McNutt - power arm, ability is better than his stats show
P Rafael Dolis - reportedly can hit 100mph with the fastball
3b Josh Vitters - plenty of potential, struggles with working the count

Ok, of this group, who would help the Red Sox the most? Jackson is the best player, probably, but the Sox already are locked in with Ellsbury and Crawford, and it's not entirely clear to me that Jackson is *that* much better than Reddick or Kalish. He might very well be. But he might not be. He's also a left-handed hitter, so he can't provide a young platoon with either Reddick or Kalish.

Szczur brings to the table what Jacoby Ellsbury does - minus the power. Not sure he's the best fit.

Vitters has ability, but the Sox already have a top-notch 3b prospect in Middlebrooks.

That leaves the two pitchers. McNutt really struggled in 2011 (4.55 era, 1.67 whip, 6.2 k/9 in AA), but was lights-out in 2010 (2.48 era, 1.12 whip, 10.2 k/9 at 3 different levels). Just 21 years old, has the kind of arm that teams really love. Could be used as a future piece for the Sox or could be traded - plenty of teams out there would like to get this guy.

And Dolis is 23 in AA and put up a line of 3.22 era, 1.32 whip, and 5.9 k/9 this past season. Not super encouraging, but I like what he can bring with his velocity.

Ideally, I guess, the Sox would get McNutt and Jackson, because those are - whether they fit the Sox' needs or not - the two best prospects the Cubs have, I suppose. Not sure the Cubs will give up both of them. But it would give Boston some more prospects to plug into the system or deal for other pieces.

Edited by jdm2008, 15 October 2011 - 10:54 AM.

[ivanvamp]

I do not know why people think the cubs than the redsox. If this falls apart Theo will surely not be the GM here or have much of any value to the Redsox. The Redsox will have to him his completion bonus to be a "special assistant". If the Redsox blow this up theo will surely be a distraction, the chances of a contribution from Theo this year are nill. And theo will be available next year most likely so the cubs can sign him then.

The Sox will pay Theo to do essentially nothing....but relatively speaking, compared to the team payroll, Theo makes practically nothing, so they can absorb that cost without much trouble at all. The Sox still have the leverage in these negotiations with the Cubs. It is in everyone's interest to complete a deal, but the Sox probably can live with it more if they cannot. Theo just gets demoted, paid to sip iced tea in the Bahamas for a year while Cherington takes over and Chicago tries to figure out now what the hell do we do?

[jdm2008]

The Sox will pay Theo to do essentially nothing....but relatively speaking, compared to the team payroll, Theo makes practically nothing, so they can absorb that cost without much trouble at all. The Sox still have the leverage in these negotiations with the Cubs. It is in everyone's interest to complete a deal, but the Sox probably can live with it more if they cannot. Theo just gets demoted, paid to sip iced tea in the Bahamas for a year while Cherington takes over and Chicago tries to figure out now what the hell do we do?

The downsides for this falling apart for the cubs are not very large. If this falls apart the cubs will tell their fans they were trying to rip us off so we declined, and there are other Gms or they can wait till next year just like the Sox did in 2002 when they were after bean.

Edited by jdm2008, 15 October 2011 - 11:25 AM.

[Tyrone Biggums]

Jackson is off the table.

If you really, really, really want McNutt, I can do that. You can have Vitters to make it two (I like him more than most Cubs fans, but I see little chance he's ever an MLB regular at this point. He's got to improve his power, his patience *and* his defense to become viable. He has the potential to improve any of the three, but all three seems unlikely).

$3.5 million in cash, McNutt and Vitters, but Epstein gets to bring one top-level or two lower-level executives with him.

Deal?

Depends how the Cubs truly view Jackson...if they view him as a solid piece for the future then they would only be inclined to give him up and no one else. I think whats going on is that Lucchino is asking for more than just Jackson, since Theo wants to bring more than himself to Chicago. McNutt isn't that intriguing to me, I do however like Candelario.

[KyleTheCubsFan]

Depends how the Cubs truly view Jackson...if they view him as a solid piece for the future then they would only be inclined to give him up and no one else. I think whats going on is that Lucchino is asking for more than just Jackson, since Theo wants to bring more than himself to Chicago. McNutt isn't that intriguing to me, I do however like Candelario.

The Cubs see Jackson as their 2012 opening day CFer. He's not going anywhere. For all practical purposes, he falls under the 'no one from the major-league team' standard the Cubs are adhering to. He's as off the table as Castro is.

Candelario? I'm not sure how much the Cubs like him, so it'd depend on that. He's so far away that numbers don't mean a ton right now, so it'd depend on how high the Cubs are on him if they'd be willing to give him up. I wouldn't say it's out of the question.

[Tyrone Biggums]

The Cubs see Jackson as their 2012 opening day CFer. He's not going anywhere. For all practical purposes, he falls under the 'no one from the major-league team' standard the Cubs are adhering to. He's as off the table as Castro is.

Candelario? I'm not sure how much the Cubs like him, so it'd depend on that. He's so far away that numbers don't mean a ton right now, so it'd depend on how high the Cubs are on him if they'd be willing to give him up. I wouldn't say it's out of the question.

This may be true however as noted by Law and others its fair compensation for an accomplished GM. I think by the reports coming out recently of the Red Sox being bullies and asking for "unreasonable compensation" means that they aren't only asking for Jackson. Its up to the Cubs if they want to do it, you only have to look back to Billy Beane where they were going through prospect lists and what not. To be fair, I think Jackson will be a solid regular which is really one of the only things you can ask for a prospect to be. Not everyone on those top 100 lists or even top 25 will end up being impact players, Jackson's ceiling isn't high enough where it should hinder a deal being made, push come to shove. This isn't Matt Moore or Mike Minor we're talking about here. You could be right about the Cubs not wanting to part with him though, but some of the people in Chicago who feel Theo is worth no more than a middle reliever is pretty hilarious and off base as well.

[walkoffblast]

I do not know why people think the sox have leverage here If this falls apart Theo will surely not be the GM here or have much of any value to the Redsox.

Like the last time he left ... oh wait. I suspect the Cubs leaked most of this information hoping that maybe Boston would feel this way and as such the tremendous leverage the Red Sox have in this situation would be mitigated some. Too bad for them this isn't a front office that lets emotion reign over reason. Time to pay up Cubbies. You wanted him bad enough to give him everything he wanted, now you want us to believe you are going to walk over some minor leaguers?

[KyleTheCubsFan]

This may be true however as noted by Law and others its fair compensation for an accomplished GM.

Keith Law has never, in his life, had anything positive to say about the Cubs or their point of view. He continues to insist that Szczur has Juan Pierre's power potential despite his 10 home runs this season.

I see your Keith Law and raise you a TangoTiger, who examined the issue and decided that a middling middle reliever was about right.

I think by the reports coming out recently of the Red Sox being bullies and asking for "unreasonable compensation" means that they aren't only asking for Jackson. Its up to the Cubs if they want to do it, you only have to look back to Billy Beane where they were going through prospect lists and what not. To be fair, I think Jackson will be a solid regular which is really one of the only things you can ask for a prospect to be. Not everyone on those top 100 lists or even top 25 will end up being impact players, Jackson's ceiling isn't high enough where it should hinder a deal being made, push come to shove. This isn't Matt Moore or Mike Minor we're talking about here. You could be right about the Cubs not wanting to part with him though, but some of the people in Chicago who feel Theo is worth no more than a middle reliever is pretty hilarious and off base as well.

The Cubs interviewed or were interested in half-a-dozen GMs in the Epstein mold. They may not be Epstein, but what do you think his marginal value is over another smart, young, sabermetrically inclined GM?

[KyleTheCubsFan]

Like the last time he left ... oh wait. I suspect the Cubs leaked most of this information hoping that maybe Boston would feel this way and as such the tremendous leverage the Red Sox have in this situation would be mitigated some. Too bad for them this isn't a front office that lets emotion reign over reason. Time to pay up Cubbies. You wanted him bad enough to give him everything he wanted, now you want us to believe you are going to walk over some minor leaguers?

No more than you want us to believe you are going to burn $6.5 million in a pile just to try to extract some minor leaguers.

[walkoffblast]

The Cubs interviewed or were interested in half-a-dozen GMs in the Epstein mold. They may not be Epstein, but what do you think his marginal value is over another smart, young, sabermetrically inclined GM?

Judging by what they paid him? Quite a bit. Isn't the contract total they gave him fairly comparable to the low side estimates of what a first round pick is worth? And that is before you start specualting about the value of other staff he might want to bring. Seems to me one good prospect and something else is about correct here. None of those other GMs has the X-factor of Theo either. The Cubs clearly put a value on that even if it isn't something easy to quantify or even existent in the first place. Losing Theo now could certainly hurt the Cub fanbase enough that they might actually care. Considering how hard that is to do in the first place it is something you can attach some value to.

No more than you want us to believe you are going to burn $6.5 million in a pile just to try to extract some minor leaguers.

Have the Red Sox announced another GM? They still would like Theo if he wanted to be there.

Edited by walkoffblast, 15 October 2011 - 11:59 AM.

[Reid's Nickels]

The Cubs see Jackson as their 2012 opening day CFer. He's not going anywhere. For all practical purposes, he falls under the 'no one from the major-league team' standard the Cubs are adhering to. He's as off the table as Castro is.

Candelario? I'm not sure how much the Cubs like him, so it'd depend on that. He's so far away that numbers don't mean a ton right now, so it'd depend on how high the Cubs are on him if they'd be willing to give him up. I wouldn't say it's out of the question.

Every single person must be on the table...to intimate that this is a promotion at any level is factually incorrect. Theo is the head of baseball operations in Boston and is under contract for another season. You are building all these arguments around the premise that he should be allowed to leave because it is a promotion. If he were a bench coach interviewing for a managerial position I could see your point, but Theo and his knowledge of the Redsox systems are the intellectual property of the Redsox and must be valued properly. Not only would neither of these guys be off the table but a good argument could be made that both should be on the table.

[KyleTheCubsFan]

Judging by what they paid him? Quite a bit. Isn't the contract total they gave him fairly comparable to the low side estimates of what a first round pick is worth? And that is before you start specualting about the value of other staff he might want to bring. Seems to me one good prospect and something else is about correct here. None of those other GMs has the X-factor of Theo either. The Cubs clearly put a value on that even if it isn't something easy to quantify or even existent in the first place. Losing Theo now could certainly hurt the Cub fanbase enough that they might actually care. Considering how hard that is to do in the first place it is something you can attach some value to.

They are paying him $18.5 million for 5 years. Presume they could get someone younger and cheaper for $1.5 million a year. So the Cubs are placing the difference between Epstein and other options at about $11.5 million dollars.

The last player the Cubs paid about that much for was two years of John Grabow. You can have someone of similar value to him

[KyleTheCubsFan]

Every single person must be on the table...to intimate that this is a promotion at any level is factually incorrect. Theo is the head of baseball operations in Boston and is under contract for another season. You are building all these arguments around the premise that he should be allowed to leave because it is a promotion. If he were a bench coach interviewing for a managerial position I could see your point, but Theo and his knowledge of the Redsox systems are the intellectual property of the Redsox and must be valued properly. Not only would neither of these guys be off the table but a good argument could be made that both should be on the table.

That's not the entire base of my arguments. I've acknowledged that you can set aside that argument if you want.

Let's set it aside. We'll also set aside the possibility that the Cubs and Epstein might decide to just wait the year out.

With those two things set aside, the issue is now the marginal value of Theo Epstein to the Cubs vs. their second choice for GM. The immedate MLB value of Castro and Jackson immediately exceed that marginal value, so they are off the table. 2nd choice + Jackson >>> Epstein from the Cubs' point of view.

Edited by KyleTheCubsFan, 15 October 2011 - 12:09 PM.

[Tyrone Biggums]

Keith Law has never, in his life, had anything positive to say about the Cubs or their point of view. He continues to insist that Szczur has Juan Pierre's power potential despite his 10 home runs this season.

I see your Keith Law and raise you a TangoTiger, who examined the issue and decided that a middling middle reliever was about right.



The Cubs interviewed or were interested in half-a-dozen GMs in the Epstein mold. They may not be Epstein, but what do you think his marginal value is over another smart, young, sabermetrically inclined GM?

I read the Tango thing, a middle reliever for a guy who has won 2 world titles isn't a good analysis at all. The worst thing you can do is place a value on a guy based on monetary comparison, for example Brandon Lyon isn't more valuable than someone who evaluates and scouts talent and pieces together a working front office structure that will be in place long after he retires. Middle relievers by nature are very inconsistent year in and out, the only one in that pen that would be okay is Marshall. There has to be a give and take on each end, I think the value of Epstein is much higher to be honest.

2 Reasons

1) They have already committed publicly to Epstein being "The Guy", while they could make through the P.R. backlash the same way as the Sox did back in 2002 when Beane rejected them, they wont. Plus Boston has enough money to pull a Parcells and make Theo a "consultant". For an ownership that has wasted money on the SS position for the last decade, I'm sure paying Epstein a conclusion bonus would be akin to giving a retiree a gold watch.

2)Those smart sabermetic GMs that you refer to, how many have ever run a team in a major market? That plays into a lot of things, stress and being able to not make moves solely because of fan pressure. Epstein has been able to sustain a competitive team for the past decade, something that only the Yankees have been able to do year in and out. Never underestimate the pressure of playing or running a team in a big market with a die hard fan base.

[KyleTheCubsFan]

1) They have already committed publicly to Epstein being "The Guy", while they could make through the P.R. backlash the same way as the Sox did back in 2002 when Beane rejected them, they wont. Plus Boston has enough money to pull a Parcells and make Theo a "consultant". For an ownership that has wasted money on the SS position for the last decade, I'm sure paying Epstein a conclusion bonus would be akin to giving a retiree a gold watch.

Boston fans don't exactly have the pulse of Chicago on this situation. You keep talking about a PR backlash. But as someone who is a Cubs fan, who talks to Cubs fans, who reads Chicago newspapers and listens to Chicago sports radio, I'm telling you there is no backlash. Whether it's true or not, the Cubs' spin will be that the Red Sox tried to bully them and that the new owner is too tough to be pushed around, and that spin will play well in Chicago. It already is.

2)Those smart sabermetic GMs that you refer to, how many have ever run a team in a major market? That plays into a lot of things, stress and being able to not make moves solely because of fan pressure. Epstein has been able to sustain a competitive team for the past decade, something that only the Yankees have been able to do year in and out. Never underestimate the pressure of playing or running a team in a big market with a die hard fan base.

That's not an answer on the marginal value. That's a reason why he is different. But exactly (or ballpark) how much marginal value is that worth to the franchise? Phrase it in whatever terms you want, money or WAR or whatevs.

[walkoffblast]

They are paying him $18.5 million for 5 years. Presume they could get someone younger and cheaper for $1.5 million a year. So the Cubs are placing the difference between Epstein and other options at about $11.5 million dollars.

The last player the Cubs paid about that much for was two years of John Grabow. You can have someone of similar value to him

If Cubs offered a ~2.5 WAR player just for next season that they would pay the entire contract of then this would already be done. This is the value you are suggesting Epstein is worth marginally. Garza likely gets paid 8-9 mil while maybe estimated at a 4 war player fits this nicely as well.

Boston fans don't exactly have the pulse of Chicago on this situation. You keep talking about a PR backlash. But as someone who is a Cubs fan, who talks to Cubs fans, who reads Chicago newspapers and listens to Chicago sports radio, I'm telling you there is no backlash. Whether it's true or not, the Cubs' spin will be that the Red Sox tried to bully them and that the new owner is too tough to be pushed around, and that spin will play well in Chicago. It already is.

Of course it is playing well while they think it is going to work. The question is how will they react when it doesn't? Especially when the team sucks again next year and the Red Sox bounce back?I have a hard time believing they have more hope placed in decent minor league players than they do in Theo at this point.

Edited by walkoffblast, 15 October 2011 - 12:28 PM.

[Tyrone Biggums]

That's not the entire base of my arguments. I've acknowledged that you can set aside that argument if you want.

Let's set it aside. We'll also set aside the possibility that the Cubs and Epstein might decide to just wait the year out.

With those two things set aside, the issue is now the marginal value of Theo Epstein to the Cubs vs. their second choice for GM. The immedate MLB value of Castro and Jackson immediately exceed that marginal value, so they are off the table. 2nd choice + Jackson >>> Epstein from the Cubs' point of view.

Castro shouldn't even be discussed as I agree with you he shouldn't be going anywhere. That's just a pipe dream, however there is no way that Randy Bush stays GM for a year or that the Cubs do this. In theory you bring up a good point, but it would be moronic to go into the season without a real GM. Again with the Jackson thing is that I've always felt that unless you are an exceptional MiLB talent, a player should be on the table if it helps out the MLB team for the distant future. All prospects are really lottery tickets, it just depends which ones hit and which ones miss. I remember the Sox had this outfielder named Michael Coleman in their system way back when, was supposed to be this great can't miss prospect and of course Boston hyped him as the next big thing...15 years later, Who's Michael Coleman?

The Yankees had a big can't miss arm named Brien Taylor...injuries derailed him...Who's Brien Taylor? Obviously these are just two of many examples but you get my drift.

My point is obviously that you can project all you want but the players play the game, not a computer. Outfielders are also the easiest position to find someone to fill the gap at, so what is Jackson's chances of displacing Marlon Byrd next year? That's the question you have to ask, unbiased. If Cubs brass feel its a lock then keep him, if not then you make this deal and get the sure thing.

[Tyrone Biggums]

Boston fans don't exactly have the pulse of Chicago on this situation. You keep talking about a PR backlash. But as someone who is a Cubs fan, who talks to Cubs fans, who reads Chicago newspapers and listens to Chicago sports radio, I'm telling you there is no backlash. Whether it's true or not, the Cubs' spin will be that the Red Sox tried to bully them and that the new owner is too tough to be pushed around, and that spin will play well in Chicago. It already is.



That's not an answer on the marginal value. That's a reason why he is different. But exactly (or ballpark) how much marginal value is that worth to the franchise? Phrase it in whatever terms you want, money or WAR or whatevs.

The bully thing is true, its a solid spin and as I said also you could use the same spin as the whole Billy Beane thing. However you again discount the fact that being a GM in a huge market is a major advantage coming into a job like the Cubs, Red Sox, Yankees etc...What is Epstein's value to the Cubs? Is it more or less than Hahn or any of the other young up and comers? How many of those young up and comers flame out? You pay for the sure thing when you can get it 10 out of 10 times. Ricketts wants to get a sure thing, if not Epstein he'll get someone else who has previous GM experience.

[Reid's Nickels]

Boston fans don't exactly have the pulse of Chicago on this situation. You keep talking about a PR backlash. But as someone who is a Cubs fan, who talks to Cubs fans, who reads Chicago newspapers and listens to Chicago sports radio, I'm telling you there is no backlash. Whether it's true or not, the Cubs' spin will be that the Red Sox tried to bully them and that the new owner is too tough to be pushed around, and that spin will play well in Chicago. It already is.



That's not an answer on the marginal value. That's a reason why he is different. But exactly (or ballpark) how much marginal value is that worth to the franchise? Phrase it in whatever terms you want, money or WAR or whatevs.

Kyle just saying that you have the pulse of the Cubs fanbase does not make your assumptions correct.

The fanbase is rabid...look at poor Steve Bartman the guy had to pick up and move because the Cubs didn't have a bullpen.

I don't know if your spin could work...bottom line is the Cubs have screwed this up...They have no leverage and the Sox should make them pay in terms of a legitimate prospect.

I know it must be frustrating to hear, but maybe in the future Theo can keep Ricketts under wraps and they can keep their leverage intact, but in this case they have none.


Peter Abraham hits the nail on the head here:

http://www.boston.co...t_sox-cubs.html

Edited by Reid's Nickels, 15 October 2011 - 12:32 PM.

[Tyrone Biggums]

Kyle just saying that you have the pulse of the Cubs fanbase does not make your assumptions correct.

The fanbase is rabid...look at poor Steve Bartman the guy had to pick up and move because the Cubs didn't have a bullpen.

I don't know if your spin could work...bottom line is the Cubs have screwed this up...They have no leverage and the Sox should make them pay in terms of a legitimate prospect.

I know it must be frustrating to hear, but maybe in the future Theo can keep Ricketts under wraps and they can keep their leverage intact, but in this case they have none.

I actually do kind of disagree with you Reid because the Cubs do have some leverage in the deal, its because the Red Sox had a similar thing that happened 9 years ago and it worked out well for them, so they could in theory go another direction. But never the less the price of Theo should be someone tangible otherwise pay him as a consultant and then let him go on his merry way. My thoughts is that the reports that Lucchino is negotiating the Sox side of things, this thing is going to fall through.

PS: Please never reference Peter Abe again...hes the Carlos Mencia of the sports writing game

Edited by Tyrone Biggums, 15 October 2011 - 12:34 PM.

[KyleTheCubsFan]

The bully thing is true, its a solid spin and as I said also you could use the same spin as the whole Billy Beane thing. However you again discount the fact that being a GM in a huge market is a major advantage coming into a job like the Cubs, Red Sox, Yankees etc...What is Epstein's value to the Cubs? Is it more or less than Hahn or any of the other young up and comers? How many of those young up and comers flame out? You pay for the sure thing when you can get it 10 out of 10 times. Ricketts wants to get a sure thing, if not Epstein he'll get someone else who has previous GM experience.

Sure, you want the proven commodity if you can get it. That's why the Cubs are doubling Epstein's salary and taking over the $3.5 million conclusion bonus as compensation to the Red Sox.

Take someone like Brett Jackson, though. Jackson is likely to be the Cubs' starting CFer immediately, and he profiles to step in and be at least an average MLBer immediately (he's basically considered a prospect with a relatively low ceiling and a very high floor).

So the Cubs can expect to pay Jackson around $2 million for the next three seasons, and I don't think a total of 6.0 WAR is unreasonable as a baseline projection for those three seasons. Fangraphs is currently valuing 1 WAR at $4.5 million, so Brett Jackson is worth roughly $25 million in marginal value to the Cubs over the next three seasons. And then they get three more seasons of arbitration after that, and they get his upside as well.

Young MLB contributors are worth their weight in gold. I have no problem, and neither will or should the Cubs, going to the second choice as GM, in order to hold on to an extra one of those.

The problem arises in that the Cubs don't have a lot of prospects in that next tier. You have Jackson and Cashner, who are young and cheap and should contribute immediately. Their value undoubtedly is worth more than the marginal value of Epstein vs. 2nd Choice.

Then they have some lottery ticket, question-mark prospects like Vitters (who can't do anything but make contact) or McNutt (blisters, underperformance). If they had some prospects in between, then there might be something to negotiate over. But if you aren't interested in that type of prospect in addition to the cash compensation, then there's nothing to talk about and good luck with your consultant.

[Reid's Nickels]

I actually do kind of disagree with you Reid because the Cubs do have some leverage in the deal, its because the Red Sox had a similar thing that happened 9 years ago and it worked out well for them, so they could in theory go another direction. But never the less the price of Theo should be someone tangible otherwise pay him as a consultant and then let him go on his merry way. My thoughts is that the reports that Lucchino is negotiating the Sox side of things, this thing is going to fall through.

PS: Please never reference Peter Abe again...hes the Carlos Mencia of the sports writing game

One could also make the point that Theo has "left" the sox and came back again and it worked out ok...well with the exception of dealing with a few Gorilla suit jokes from Yankee fans each Halloween.

[walkoffblast]

I have never understood why most people do not include a time-value of money adjustment when theorizing on the value of prospects. Also, 6 WAR for someone like Jackson over the next three years is a decent guess at production more than a baseline. If you are lucky his baseline is zero. What you think it is fair to guess will happen isn't the meaning of a baseline. There is no way the worst case scenario for a guy like that is 2 WAR per season for the first three years of his MLB career.

Edited by walkoffblast, 15 October 2011 - 12:48 PM.

[Reid's Nickels]

Sure, you want the proven commodity if you can get it. That's why the Cubs are doubling Epstein's salary and taking over the $3.5 million conclusion bonus as compensation to the Red Sox.

Take someone like Brett Jackson, though. Jackson is likely to be the Cubs' starting CFer immediately, and he profiles to step in and be at least an average MLBer immediately (he's basically considered a prospect with a relatively low ceiling and a very high floor).

So the Cubs can expect to pay Jackson around $2 million for the next three seasons, and I don't think a total of 6.0 WAR is unreasonable as a baseline projection for those three seasons. Fangraphs is currently valuing 1 WAR at $4.5 million, so Brett Jackson is worth roughly $25 million in marginal value to the Cubs over the next three seasons. And then they get three more seasons of arbitration after that, and they get his upside as well.

Young MLB contributors are worth their weight in gold. I have no problem, and neither will or should the Cubs, going to the second choice as GM, in order to hold on to an extra one of those.

The problem arises in that the Cubs don't have a lot of prospects in that next tier. You have Jackson and Cashner, who are young and cheap and should contribute immediately. Their value undoubtedly is worth more than the marginal value of Epstein vs. 2nd Choice.

Then they have some lottery ticket, question-mark prospects like Vitters (who can't do anything but make contact) or McNutt (blisters, underperformance). If they had some prospects in between, then there might be something to negotiate over. But if you aren't interested in that type of prospect in addition to the cash compensation, then there's nothing to talk about and good luck with your consultant.

Not the Sox fault the Cubs system is too barren to get "proper value". Onus is on the Cubs overpay with a legitmate prospect, get a third team involved or the Sox walk away. I am sure the Sox will gladly go back to Plan A and have Theo be a sounding board for Cherrington this year.

[Tyrone Biggums]

Sure, you want the proven commodity if you can get it. That's why the Cubs are doubling Epstein's salary and taking over the $3.5 million conclusion bonus as compensation to the Red Sox.

Take someone like Brett Jackson, though. Jackson is likely to be the Cubs' starting CFer immediately, and he profiles to step in and be at least an average MLBer immediately (he's basically considered a prospect with a relatively low ceiling and a very high floor).

So the Cubs can expect to pay Jackson around $2 million for the next three seasons, and I don't think a total of 6.0 WAR is unreasonable as a baseline projection for those three seasons. Fangraphs is currently valuing 1 WAR at $4.5 million, so Brett Jackson is worth roughly $25 million in marginal value to the Cubs over the next three seasons. And then they get three more seasons of arbitration after that, and they get his upside as well.

Young MLB contributors are worth their weight in gold. I have no problem, and neither will or should the Cubs, going to the second choice as GM, in order to hold on to an extra one of those.

The problem arises in that the Cubs don't have a lot of prospects in that next tier. You have Jackson and Cashner, who are young and cheap and should contribute immediately. Their value undoubtedly is worth more than the marginal value of Epstein vs. 2nd Choice.

Then they have some lottery ticket, question-mark prospects like Vitters (who can't do anything but make contact) or McNutt (blisters, underperformance). If they had some prospects in between, then there might be something to negotiate over. But if you aren't interested in that type of prospect in addition to the cash compensation, then there's nothing to talk about and good luck with your consultant.

-Agreed, however this is a team that eats contracts all of the time (not really a good thing) so by taking 3.5 million dollars off the hands of a guy who owns the Red Sox, Liverpool, and a racing team probably isn't going to matter a lot. Doesn't help the Sox for the future so that's probably out as an option.

-This is how I also view Jackson, you do know what you're going to get with him if the projections hold true. The 2nd choice will probably end up being the GM, however Epstein will be used as a consultant for the Sox this season. I mean I don't exactly have any inside info or sources to really back this thought up, except that we have Larry Lucchino negotiating our side of the deal.

-Cashner has had issues the last year though with injuries if I'm not mistaken and projects to be a reliever more than a starter at this point. Young and cheap players are excellent to have but if they never pan out then you run the "What If" risk of looking back and wondering in hindsight should you have given these players up for someone who is proven. So IF they pan out then yes their value would be higher, but you have to look at opportunity and talent in order to see if they will pan out. If Brett Jackson turns out to be Randy Winn then the cost equals the price of Epstein, if he turns out to be twice as good then good move in keeping him. Hendry not being able to draft well isn't the Red Sox problem and the cost is the cost. With Epstein, I think fans don't realize how lucky we are to have so many home grown players on this roster right now.

-I think the only way this gets done is if Cherrington handles the negotiations over Lucky Lucchino.

All this talk has made me want to get back into doing this stuff, miss being at ballparks and such. Oh well...

[Tyrone Biggums]

One could also make the point that Theo has "left" the sox and came back again and it worked out ok...well with the exception of dealing with a few Gorilla suit jokes from Yankee fans each Halloween.

So I guess if this happens again we could refer to Theo Epstein as the Jay-Z of the Red Sox.

[jdm2008]

Judging by what they paid him? Quite a bit. Isn't the contract total they gave him fairly comparable to the low side estimates of what a first round pick is worth? And that is before you start specualting about the value of other staff he might want to bring. Seems to me one good prospect and something else is about correct here. None of those other GMs has the X-factor of Theo either. The Cubs clearly put a value on that even if it isn't something easy to quantify or even existent in the first place. Losing Theo now could certainly hurt the Cub fanbase enough that they might actually care. Considering how hard that is to do in the first place it is something you can attach some value to.



Have the Red Sox announced another GM? They still would like Theo if he wanted to be there.

Edited by jdm2008, 15 October 2011 - 01:01 PM.

[untilthebombs]

If Epstein isn't worth Jackson and McNutt (I want him in a Sox uniform now solely because of his name), then what the hell do the Cubs want him for?

I understand that the Cubs could just hold out and wait to get Epstein next year, but is ownership really willing to just throw a year down the drain? The press would be terrible. Now that an agreement has been reached, that it's out there that Epstein is their clear cut #1 choice despite his current situation of essentially not being available, if they signed another GM and he doesn't get them a WS ring, that guy will forever be "the guy who should have been Theo Epstein."

With regards to just getting "sabermetrics guy," that's not all that he's bringing to the table. A LOT of people are strongly against sabermetrics as an evaluation tool. Who would those people within the Cubs organization that will still be around be most likely to listen to? Theo Epstein and his 2 WS rings. Or some guy they've never heard of.

[ivanvamp]

No more than you want us to believe you are going to burn $6.5 million in a pile just to try to extract some minor leaguers.

What are you talking about, $6.5 million? Theo isn't projected to make nearly that much next year. They could easily afford to pay him his million or so dollars. Again, the Sox have the leverage here, as much as you want to think otherwise.

[Tyrone Biggums]

What are you talking about, $6.5 million? Theo isn't projected to make nearly that much next year. They could easily afford to pay him his million or so dollars. Again, the Sox have the leverage here, as much as you want to think otherwise.

I think hes referring to the amount of the conclusion bonus at the end of next year, quite frankly I don't think it matters much anymore, since this is a long shot to happen. Never underestimate the ability of Larry Lucchino and his ability to be so level headed during negotiations...

I would probably place the chances of Theo becoming the next Cubs GM at less than 50% at this point, how many public negotiations with Larry Lucchino have ever gone well?

Edited by Tyrone Biggums, 15 October 2011 - 02:38 PM.

[KyleTheCubsFan]

I have never understood why most people do not include a time-value of money adjustment when theorizing on the value of prospects. Also, 6 WAR for someone like Jackson over the next three years is a decent guess at production more than a baseline. If you are lucky his baseline is zero. What you think it is fair to guess will happen isn't the meaning of a baseline. There is no way the worst case scenario for a guy like that is 2 WAR per season for the first three years of his MLB career.

Sorry, poor choice of words. I meant "reasonable projection to be used for this sort of rough calculation."