451 replies to this topic

[untilthebombs]

So what happens when there's still no agreement come press conference time?

[nighthob]

Look up two posts from yours.

I see someone expressing hate for Ricketts, and refusing to root for his team. Or was there another post?

[Moosbrugger]

Whatever. Onward. Thanks and good luck to Theo. I think he's leaving what will be a very successful team next year.

[priestvalon]

From a perspective, Theo is moving to a higher responsibility position, and is effectively a one-year rental. Its not as if the Sox had him under control for the next 5 years.

My bet is the commissioners office was just done with watching the two sides play the battle out in public, and was determined to stop them doing so, during the world series.

I imagine Bud calls up RS ownership and asks if Theo doesn't move will he have a legitimate GM position. When the answer came back "no," he told them that this had become a done deal.

We don't know what compensation will be, yet. Whatever it is, it is, now... but RS had the opportunity to pre-negotiate compensation terms for an eventual deal, prior to agreeing to let Theo interview.

As for MLB's feelings in this, I'm sure that the vast majority of owners would like to see the Cubs become a viable post season club. That would ultimately mean a great deal of extra interest in the sport, not to mention, more money for all.

[Tyrone Biggums]

Selig absolutely got involved and wanted the distraction away from the world series. Sox got hosed, nothing you can do here. Welcome to Luckyball!!!! Ugh

[stevebsfan]

Look up two posts from yours.

I don't hate the Cubs, I think Rickett's is a piece of shit. He buys the team then thinks he can just grab his "dream team" of front office personnel with complete disregard to their contract status? Fuck that.

And this isn't about the Cubs as a franchise. I was fully prepared to jump on their bandwagon and root for their success just like I rooted for the success of Notre Dame, The Crennel-era Browns, and now the Chiefs. If Rickett simply honored the word "contract" and didn't try to give us a bag of dirt for a top 5 general manager, I'd root for the Cubs possibly as much as the Sox until Theo left.

Edited by stevebsfan, 22 October 2011 - 08:30 AM.

[OnWisc]

I don't hate the Cubs, I think Rickett's is a piece of shit. He buys the team then thinks he can just grab his "dream team" of front office personnel with complete disregard to their contract status? Fuck that.

And this isn't about the Cubs as a franchise. I was fully prepared to jump on their bandwagon and root for their success just like I rooted for the success of Notre Dame, The Crennel-era Browns, and now the Chiefs. If Rickett simply honored the word "contract" and didn't try to give us a bag of dirt for a top 5 general manager, I'd root for the Cubs possibly as much as the Sox until Theo left.

There's no doubt he's a good businessman, but yeah, the way he carries things out leaves a bad taste in your mouth.

First the was the extremely ill-timed (and ultimately ill-fated) attempt to get $200 million in taxpayer funding for Wrigley renovations (having the state sports authority issue a bond, provide the proceeds to Ricketts, and retire the debt using the Amusement Tax). Good from a pure business sense, but not exactly a welcome proposal given the financial situations of both Chicago and Illinois. Not exactly what you'd hope to see from the Chairman of Taxpayers Against Earmarks.

Now he follows up with the attempts to, very publicly, get Theo for nothing. Had the Sox stuck with their request for Garza, the whole 'Red Sox are unreasonable' angle may have flown. But with the Cubs reportedly insisting that even McNutt not be made available, it becomes clear which side is really unreasonable.

Again, from a pure business sense, it's hard to find fault with any of this. I'll continue to pull for the Cubs, but it will be despite Rickett's and his constant grovelling for handouts. I'm surprised Rickett's didn't organize an 'Occupy Yawkey Way' demonstration to insist the Red Sox drop their silly compensation demands and hand over Theo.

As for reports that Kenney was holding things up for his own reasons, well, have fun Theo. You may be fondly remembering Larry before too long.

Edited by OnWisc, 22 October 2011 - 09:05 AM.

[toonsterwu]

To be fair, onwisc, the whole unreasonable narrative can still hold if spun. Simply put, there has never been a front office guy/manager that was traded for a high level talent. I can certainly buy the argument that Theo is unique and the Cubs made a mis-step by having someone leak out contract details with Theo, but the unreasonable argument extended beyond the early request for Garza/Castro. The argument was that based on past precedent, that the Cubs didn't see why a high level talent should be given up. Before anyone points out that Youkilis was the rumored request in the Beane talks a decade ago, it should be noted that no one anticipated Youkilis to be the monster he became offensively.

Just to be clear, I'm not debating the value of McNutt in this comment as it seems clear the Cubs viewed him above past precedent (one could certainly argue that a MLB player like Randy Winn is a better bet than any prospect's upside, or that Youkilis' small sample size in 2002 in AA might've been an indicator that he was close to ready to take off), or debating what is fair. I'm not debating power in negotiations. Furthermore, as noted, I don't think I would make McNutt untouchable. What I am saying is that the narrative, the argument on what is reasonable or not, is dependent upon perspective in the negotiation. As adamant as Sox fans are about things being unreasonable, there are as many Cubs fans that felt that McNutt was too much. Furthermore, complicating factors in the whole discussion was that one side felt this was a promotion (and typically, teams don't block promotions, obviously, no written rule on that) while the Red Sox probably viewed this as a lateral move.

Nvm on the Kenney stuff, I hadn't checked up on the latest news. I guess, if the tweet is right (and both sides have used the local media to blame someone higher up on the opposing side, with WCVB tweeting on Kenney, and Levine (or Kaplan) blaming Henry), that Kenney isn't too happy about losing his power. That said, all signs still point to the power structure as Ricketts to Theo on the baseball side.

Edited by toonsterwu, 22 October 2011 - 10:34 AM.

[OnWisc]

To be fair, onwisc, the whole unreasonable narrative can still hold if spun. Simply put, there has never been a front office guy/manager that was traded for a high level talent. I can certainly buy the argument that Theo is unique and the Cubs made a mis-step by having someone leak out contract details with Theo, but the unreasonable argument extended beyond the early request for Garza/Castro. The argument was that based on past precedent, that the Cubs didn't see why a high level talent should be given up. Before anyone points out that Youkilis was the rumored request in the Beane talks a decade ago, it should be noted that no one anticipated Youkilis to be the monster he became offensively. He was an average veteran, decent starter.

Just to be clear, I'm not debating the value of McNutt in this comment as it seems clear the Cubs viewed him above past precedent (one could certainly argue that a MLB player like Randy Winn is a better bet than any prospect's upside, or that Youkilis' small sample size in 2002 in AA might've been an indicator that he was close to ready to take off), or debating what is fair. I'm not debating power in negotiations. Furthermore, as noted, I don't think I would make McNutt untouchable. What I am saying is that the narrative, the argument on what is reasonable or not, is dependent upon perspective in the negotiation. As adamant as Sox fans are about things being unreasonable, there are as many Cubs fans that felt that McNutt was too much.

Btw, what reports said Kenney was holding things back? The only thing were those idiotic comments from Gammons, which were baseless (suggesting that the Cubs didn't have anyone involved that knew the system). Chicago media (and I take everything out of the media about this process with a grain of salt as it seems clear both sides were using the local media - that said, Levine and Kaplan were close to right in that they thought things would be done Friday) had reported Henry holding things up. There should be absolutely zero issue with Crane Kenney - it's clear the Cubs baseball structure goes Ricketts then Theo, with Kenney not involved in any way.

Because the Cubs are relying way too much on the notion of historical comparables. The fact that organizations in the past negotiated poorly for their exiting GMs should have no bearing on Theo's package. That's the problem with using comps to value anyting. A couple people f&*$#(g things up can skew valuations significantly. Not to mention the issue of the Cubs anointing Theo as a savior, claiming they're making a break from the way things have been done in the past, and then turning around and claiming that the compensation for Theo should be completely determined by how things have been done in the past.

What is unreasonable is the Cubs sticking to this 'historical precedent' mentality and refusing to offer not just fair value, but any value. Again, his approach may be good from a bottom-line perspective, but if Ricketts was shooting to establish a 'tough negotiator' rep, I think he fell short. 'Stubborn baby' seems, to me, the more appropriate description. Someone else got their GM on the cheap in the past, and actual value be-damned, Rickett's wanted the same thing.

As for Kenney's involvement, there was a post in the Theo thread on the main board regarding comments from Mike Lynch at ABC in Boston. I haven't looked at the source, however.

Edited by OnWisc, 22 October 2011 - 10:21 AM.

[toonsterwu]

Because the Cubs are relying way too much on the notion of historical comparables. The fact that organizations in the past negotiated poorly for their exiting GMs should have no bearing on Theo's package. That's the problem with using comps to value anyting. A couple people f&*$#(g things up can skew valuations significantly. Not to mention the issue of the Cubs anointing Theo as a savior, claiming they're making a break from the way things have been done in the past, and then turning around and claiming that the compensation for Theo should be completely determined by how things have been done in the past.

What is unreasonable is the Cubs sticking to this 'historical precedent' mentality and refusing to offer not just fair value, but any value. Again, his approach may be good from a bottom-line perspective, but if Ricketts was shooting to establish a 'tough negotiator' rep, I think he fell short. 'Stubborn baby' seems, to me, the more appropriate description. Someone else got their GM on the cheap in the past, and actual value be-damned, Rickett's wanted the same thing.

As for Kenney's involvement, there was a post in the Theo thread on the main board regarding comments from Mike Lynch at ABC in Boston. I haven't looked at the source, however.

I can certainly understand that perspective, but again, it goes to what I've noted - it's perspective, dependent upon the perceived value of a variety of things, from negotiating power and so forth. I'm simply saying what is reasonable depends on which side of the negotiation you are on. Considering the arbitration system in baseball, past precedence is something that is valued (and it's largely why there were rumors were that Selig didn't want the package for Epstein to go beyond past precedent, particularly since this was a promotion in title) and that offers one perspective of an argument. The perceived Cubs mis-steps in the negotiating process offers another perspective.

Keep in mind, it was reported that an agreement was supposedly in place awhile ago, but John Henry was blocking it. The suggestion from that report was that the Red Sox front office was largely okay with whatever the agreement was. Now, certainly, it's possible they wanted to do good by their former boss, but we don't know any of that. Anyhow, a lot of this value judgment is based on the perspective that the Boston media has tried to spin, which is that Cubs have a weak system and that McNutt was one of the only desirable chips in the system. I've tried to point out that this isn't the case, but that again partially depends on perspective. A package of say, Dae-Eun Rhee or Jeffry Antigua and, say, Gioskar Amaya (just random picking of an upper level arm and a lower level guy) is a talented package that offers a potential upper level arm (both those guys are slated for AA and have "3" ceilings - keyword being ceiling) and another guy who might be ready for full-season ball next year and has a ceiling potentially similar to Xander Boegarts. If, for some reason, Theo offers to give up Marco Hernandez, I'll be somewhat frustrated, as I would rather give up McNutt.

Yeah, I have my doubts that Kenney was blocking it. He doesn't stand to lose too much power, and it doesn't seem likely that Kenney would be in hot water with the commissioner. This feels like spin from the Boston media, but certainly, one can view some of the reports out of Chicago as spin as well (such as the noted blocking by Henry).

Edited by toonsterwu, 22 October 2011 - 10:50 AM.

[Cellar-Door]

So, now that Theo is a Cubs employee he is free to become involved in his own compensation negotiations. Personally I think this is better for the Red Sox, in terms of getting value in the upcoming compensation. Sure Theo like any GM wants to keep as much value as possible, however since he wash't involved in bringing them in he certainly has less of an irrational attachment to players.

[stevebsfan]

Come on George, you don't need to get fired. Just have the Mets offer a bag of balls. Having a contract apparently means nothing if you're working in a front office.

[ivanvamp]

So, now that Theo is a Cubs employee he is free to become involved in his own compensation negotiations. Personally I think this is better for the Red Sox, in terms of getting value in the upcoming compensation. Sure Theo like any GM wants to keep as much value as possible, however since he wash't involved in bringing them in he certainly has less of an irrational attachment to players.

My question is this: Theo is now officially the President of Baseball Ops for the Chicago Cubs. He is officially no longer in the employ of the Boston Red Sox. Was Theo's hiring contingent upon them settling the issue of compensation? If the answer is yes, what happens if they simply cannot agree? Does Selig simply dictate what that compensation will be?

And if the answer is no, what's to stop the Cubs from simply being ridiculously hard about this and eventually just walking away. After all, they now *already* have their man.

[Cellar-Door]

My question is this: Theo is now officially the President of Baseball Ops for the Chicago Cubs. He is officially no longer in the employ of the Boston Red Sox. Was Theo's hiring contingent upon them settling the issue of compensation? If the answer is yes, what happens if they simply cannot agree? Does Selig simply dictate what that compensation will be?

And if the answer is no, what's to stop the Cubs from simply being ridiculously hard about this and eventually just walking away. After all, they now *already* have their man.

I'm sure the agreement covers that, hence the process for determining compensation. I would assume it includes a clause. Probably something like if compensation isn't agreed to by a certain date an agreed upon neutral third party will set compensation.

[walkoffblast]

If Bud really wanted to end this he would just make it legal to trade draft picks.

[mcpickl]

My question is this: Theo is now officially the President of Baseball Ops for the Chicago Cubs. He is officially no longer in the employ of the Boston Red Sox. Was Theo's hiring contingent upon them settling the issue of compensation? If the answer is yes, what happens if they simply cannot agree? Does Selig simply dictate what that compensation will be?

And if the answer is no, what's to stop the Cubs from simply being ridiculously hard about this and eventually just walking away. After all, they now *already* have their man.

According to reports out there, yes Selig would arbitrate if they can't conclude this themselves by Tuesday.

Now that Theo is there, I'd imagine negotiations will be between him and Cherington, rather than between ownerships. I'd be surprised if they can't come to an agreement.

[Lost Number]

If Bud really wanted to end this he would just make it legal to trade draft picks.

I doubt the Cubs would give up anything above the 25th round.

At this point, I'd just assume to have Selig decide. It was obvious we were getting dreck with Ricketts involved. Now we'll likely get dreck, with the possibility of something of value.

It won't be Garza or Castro, but an arbitrator could point at Theo's draft history and give us someone like Jackson or a McNutt/Vitters package.

[Cellar-Door]

Alex Speier had the same idea I did about Theo valuing the Cubs prospects differently from those negotiating for the Cubs. http://fullcount.wee...ubs/#more-45603 He also notes that members of other organizations also thought the Cubs were overvaluing their top prospects.

Edited by Cellar-Door, 22 October 2011 - 05:45 PM.

[stevebsfan]

Well, as the deal is announced today, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that if Ben Cherrington can sign free agents with a track record of success more than failure, the Sox may actually be better off with Theo gone.

Look, I'm not trying to kick the guy while he's on the way out the door. I think he had a huge part in turning around the complete minor league system, and wasn't too proud to surround himself by some really good people. Aside that, however, was he a tad overrated?

- He's had a boatload of draft picks in his time, and has picked up a few gems. There is no denying that. However, that was more of a product of the great player development machine he helped build (which like mentioned, deserves credit). That machine is not leaving, and hopefully Ben will find ways to improve it even further.

- His early free agent gems were a product of the "moneyball" system not yet being exposed, and being able to sign a bunch of players and throw shit against the wall to see who sticks. He had some gems like Ortiz, but some forget that Jeremy Giambi was an almost identical pickup that slid down the wall instead of sticking.

- Once his system was exposed, everyone was grabbing from the shit pile to throw it against their own walls, so it was time for the "big money fa" era, which he failed miserably. We all know the list, which is bad on the offense side, but brutal on the pitching side.

So what has Epstein been able to do since the system was exposed? Rely on his farm system and old moves.

Luckily, despite him taking over the Cubs, we get to keep the farm system.

I will always appreciate him turning around the franchise, rebuilding the farm system and turning the team into 'winners'. However, we may have lucked out as long as Cherrington doesn't suck at FA signings. We get to keep the farm system, and possibly actually score on free agent signings again.

[Wake's knuckle]

Just wondering... I know that draft picks can't be used as compensation for players.... but what about executives? If it's not explicitly against the rules, wouldn't Chicago's #1 draft pick be good compensation for Theo?

[Tyrone Biggums]

Well, as the deal is announced today, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that if Ben Cherrington can sign free agents with a track record of success more than failure, the Sox may actually be better off with Theo gone.

Look, I'm not trying to kick the guy while he's on the way out the door. I think he had a huge part in turning around the complete minor league system, and wasn't too proud to surround himself by some really good people. Aside that, however, was he a tad overrated?

- He's had a boatload of draft picks in his time, and has picked up a few gems. There is no denying that. However, that was more of a product of the great player development machine he helped build (which like mentioned, deserves credit). That machine is not leaving, and hopefully Ben will find ways to improve it even further.

- His early free agent gems were a product of the "moneyball" system not yet being exposed, and being able to sign a bunch of players and throw shit against the wall to see who sticks. He had some gems like Ortiz, but some forget that Jeremy Giambi was an almost identical pickup that slid down the wall instead of sticking.

- Once his system was exposed, everyone was grabbing from the shit pile to throw it against their own walls, so it was time for the "big money fa" era, which he failed miserably. We all know the list, which is bad on the offense side, but brutal on the pitching side.

So what has Epstein been able to do since the system was exposed? Rely on his farm system and old moves.

Luckily, despite him taking over the Cubs, we get to keep the farm system.

I will always appreciate him turning around the franchise, rebuilding the farm system and turning the team into 'winners'. However, we may have lucked out as long as Cherrington doesn't suck at FA signings. We get to keep the farm system, and possibly actually score on free agent signings again.

Aside from Lowell Lackey Lugo Renteria and Jenks what FA signings have really sucked? Drew wasn't terrible, overpaid? sure but he was solid for 5 years. The problem was that fans expected Trot Nixon and got a more patient less emotional player. Dice-K had 2 good seasons, Aceves was a great pickup, Beltre was awesome, Salty (trade) was an absolute steal, Gonzalez was handed over to us by Hoyer. Theo has made plenty of moves although I would say his two worst would have to be John Lackey and trading Arroyo for WMP. Still...every GM has terrible moves

[MikeM]

Aside from Lowell Lackey Lugo Renteria and Jenks what FA signings have really sucked? Drew wasn't terrible, overpaid? sure but he was solid for 5 years. The problem was that fans expected Trot Nixon and got a more patient less emotional player. Dice-K had 2 good seasons, Aceves was a great pickup, Beltre was awesome, Salty (trade) was an absolute steal, Gonzalez was handed over to us by Hoyer. Theo has made plenty of moves although I would say his two worst would have to be John Lackey and trading Arroyo for WMP. Still...every GM has terrible moves

*cough* Crawford *cough*

[walkoffblast]

I am starting to think the Cubs plan in some arbitration type setting is to play up this pretend promotion and claim that historically means essentially no compensation is actually owed.

[Tyrone Biggums]

*cough* Crawford *cough*

Its been 1 year though, you can't really look at it like that. In the beginning of the season people were blasting the Yankees for trading Austin Jackson and Phil Coke for Granderson...look how that turned out

[toonsterwu]

I am starting to think the Cubs plan in some arbitration type setting is to play up this pretend promotion and claim that historically means essentially no compensation is actually owed.

That's always been the argument that was expected on the Cubs side, that Theo is President now. Not saying that's fair or not, but that's the way the argument has always been presented. The other argument from the Cubs side has always been that, historically, there has never been a high return given for an executive.

But again, I'd point this out - the Cubs system is relatively similar to the Red Sox system in that both systems are thin in upper level talent, but have more pieces in the lower levels. The reason the Sox system will be a few slots ahead (roughly seems like the Sox are viewed as a system in that 16-20 range right now, with the Cubs more in that 18-24 range.) is that they had a few more of their upside guys get into the A ball ranks It's certainly quite possible, if not likely, that grabbing a couple A ball or lower guys will get you better raw talents to develop, even excluding this past draft, than most of the options in the upper levels.

[toonsterwu]

I'm reading the Members Theo compensation thread, and I feel like something should be pointed out there - the Marlins giving up two top 10 prospects in their system speaks more to how bad their system is (one of the worst in the game) than it speaks to the quality of the prospects that they gave up (a hard thrower with debatable secondary pitches and a possible utility infielder at best). Using that as an example is probably more beneficiary to the Cubs - the Cubs could offer, say, Alberto Cabrera (better slider than Marinez and equal if not better fastball) and Marwin Gonzalez (younger than Martinez and toolsy enough to hope for a bit more growth) and that would arguably be a more talented package than what the White Sox got for Guillen.

That's just a bad comparison to use. There is a reason why the Marlins re-organized their front office this off-season - the top of the system had dried up and they wanted to get new voices in there. It's probably one of the 5 worst systems in the game, if not bottom 3 (although they have a solid crop of talent in Low A).

[ivanvamp]

Aside from Lowell Lackey Lugo Renteria and Jenks what FA signings have really sucked? Drew wasn't terrible, overpaid? sure but he was solid for 5 years. The problem was that fans expected Trot Nixon and got a more patient less emotional player. Dice-K had 2 good seasons, Aceves was a great pickup, Beltre was awesome, Salty (trade) was an absolute steal, Gonzalez was handed over to us by Hoyer. Theo has made plenty of moves although I would say his two worst would have to be John Lackey and trading Arroyo for WMP. Still...every GM has terrible moves

Drew wasn't solid for 5 years. He was very good for one year (2009: 133 ops+, 5.6 bWAR). He was good for one year (2008: 137 ops+, 2.7 bWAR). He was a little above average for two years (2007: 105 ops+, 2.7 bWAR; 2010: 109 ops+, 2.5 bWAR). He was worthless in 2011 (68 ops+, -0.5 bWAR).

Cumulative during his time with the Sox:

TOTAL: 606 g, 2012 ab, 339 r, 80 hr, 286 rbi, 13 sb, 11 cs, .264/.370/.455/.824, 114 ops+, 13.0 bWAR
AVG YEAR: 121 g, 402 ab, 68 r, 16 hr, 57 rbi, 3 sb, 2 cs, .264/.370/.455/.824, 114 ops+, 2.6 bWAR

It's a useful player....someone you wouldn't at all mind having on your team. From (http://www.fangraphs...ained-part-six/), we can see that from 2007-2011 a win was worth about $4.5 million. So that means that Drew was worth about $58.5 million, for an average of $11.7 million per year. Drew made $70 million ($14 million per year), so he was overpaid, but not grossly so.

The people that rip on Drew as being a waste are off-base. So are the people who say that Drew was well worth it. He was *mostly* worth it and, at the end of the contract, I'm fine that they slightly overpaid him to be their RF. But really, they only got 4 good years out of him. This year was almost completely useless.

[MikeM]

Its been 1 year though, you can't really look at it like that. In the beginning of the season people were blasting the Yankees for trading Austin Jackson and Phil Coke for Granderson...look how that turned out

Ya know, for years my issue with Theo Epstein wasn't so much with him, but with the illusion i felt so many people created around him. One which tended to be infinitely flexible, to the point that in a lot of cases, it really really didn't matter what decision he ultimately made in the end. The need to intimately connect with that decision was so strong, i always felt like some of the most intelligent and respectable posters i've ever had the pleasure of reading/debating would undermine their own individual opinion on a matter because of it. Never mind the fact they just spent 3 months debating the value of a guy like Lugo being X, while claiming anything higher warranted a walk away. Theo signed him for X+ and at an additional year to boot? No Problem. Once that stamp of approval was put in place, post-adjustments would always be made to fit a logic behind what Theo had done, and it was almost like that 3 months of of their previous speculation had never even existed.

Personally, i lost that type of absolute faith in Theo the day that first Varitek re-signing went down. Post-logic adjustments were made at the time, and the courtesy C was handed out (i still maintain the suspicion that originated in the mind of Boras, btw), but the fact Theo took an absolutely unnecessary schooling there always stuck with me. Not enough to sour on him or anything mind you, but enough that i knew he likely wasn't going to be the guy with those ever-consistent "it's not what you say, it's what you do" values many including myself had hoped he'd be. Which honestly was fine at the time, and remained fine for a long time after that. As at the end of the day, and once everything was weighed in, the good outweighed the bad imo.

The last few years took it's toll though, and last season i had a pretty lengthy debate in a thread here on Theo's free agency track record, in which i agreed with what Steve is stating now. I wasn't calling for his head then though, given as bad as i felt it to be, he still hadn't really crossed over that line in my head. That being the one that was drawn every time i heard or read a suggestion we do something like sign Gary Mathews Jr to that 5/$50m contract when he was coming off that one career year, or trade for and pick up the last 4 remaining years of Griffy jr's contract when we needed a bat. I mean I may not have always been sure about what Theo would do, but i always felt the utmost confidence in what i believe he wouldn't.

Then he went out and signed Carl Crawford to a 7/$142m contract. Which not only crossed the line, but transformed him beyond fallen expectations and into THAT guy. That guy being the polar opposite of everything Theo Epstein was supposed to stand for. That guy who once or twice every winter we all at one time or another here point to and laugh at, thankful in the fact that while our guy may make his mistakes, he isn't out there doing anything as idiotic as what that short sighted dumbass over there is doing. $20m/per for 7 freaking years, on a soon to be 30 year old LF'er Carl Crawford? That was the poster child of signings Theo was NOT supposed to be making.

In short, I didn't need the year to look at it that way man. That signing is and will remain a disaster from day 1 imo.

[Wake's knuckle]

The people that rip on Drew as being a waste are off-base. So are the people who say that Drew was well worth it. He was *mostly* worth it and, at the end of the contract, I'm fine that they slightly overpaid him to be their RF. But really, they only got 4 good years out of him. This year was almost completely useless.

What you are neglecting is that Drew was GREAT in the field -- and given the dimensions of Fenway, a great RFer is worth more to the Sox than to most teams. Including fielding -- fan graphs has his fielding worth 40% of his bat during his duration with the sox -- skews the number far closer to the break-even point.

[ivanvamp]

What you are neglecting is that Drew was GREAT in the field -- and given the dimensions of Fenway, a great RFer is worth more to the Sox than to most teams. Including fielding -- fan graphs has his fielding worth 40% of his bat during his duration with the sox -- skews the number far closer to the break-even point.

Well, I included his bWAR, which takes into account his fielding and baserunning..the whole package.

[walkoffblast]

That's always been the argument that was expected on the Cubs side, that Theo is President now. Not saying that's fair or not, but that's the way the argument has always been presented. The other argument from the Cubs side has always been that, historically, there has never been a high return given for an executive.

It is an interesting case but one that I think ultimately Selig would have to favor the Sox on, at least to an extent. Do I think Theo had total control on baseball operations with the Red Sox? No. Do I think he will with the Cubs? No. Do I think he might have more theoretical control with the Cubs? Probably. Do I think teams should be able to sign away executives under contract for more theoretical "freedom" in the same position? No, but I would be interested to know what Selig thought. If that precedent is set then we will see a lot of dumb title manipulation to skirt the issue of buying guys away.

[toonsterwu]

I actually think Theo will have total control of baseball ops here. The debate at hand is whether or not total control of baseball ops equates to a raise from GM. Typically, most teams Presidents also have their hand in business ops as well, like Lucchino, and I can't think of many situations where it is split in baseball ops and business ops in regards to having two separate Presidents.

[OnWisc]

It is an interesting case but one that I think ultimately Selig would have to favor the Sox on, at least to an extent. Do I think Theo had total control on baseball operations with the Red Sox? No. Do I think he will with the Cubs? No. Do I think he might have more theoretical control with the Cubs? Probably. Do I think teams should be able to sign away executives under contract for more theoretical "freedom" in the same position? No, but I would be interested to know what Selig thought. If that precedent is set then we will see a lot of dumb title manipulation to skirt the issue of buying guys away.

I haven't got my hands on the job description, but I would be surprised if Theo has more than a marginally enhanced role. CK will be handling the business side of things. And on the baseball side, Theo's comments at the press conference and on the radio out here are much more geared toward what you'd expect to hear from a GM. I anticipate his responsibilities are going to be essentially the same as the were in Boston. Ricketts obviously isn't paying Theo the money he is to set travel budgets or try to eliminate grounds crew inefficiencies.

I don't think Selig is going to settle on a big package here, however. I believe that the precedent he may be looking to set isn't the 'price' for executives, but rather that teams should settle on compensation prior to allowing a top exec. to speak to another team. I imagine he's pretty frustrated that this situation came up in the first place.

Best thing that could happen right now is what the Cubs insist on parting with is of such low value that it annoys Selig further and he ends up favoring the Sox slightly in the determination. Although I still don't expect a nice haul, I don't think we'll get a handful of 22 or 23 year olds repeating LoA.

Edited by OnWisc, 09 November 2011 - 11:03 AM.

[toonsterwu]

OnWisc - It does seem like Epstein is going to be assuming some business ops roles, at least, perhaps enough to legitimately justify this as promotion. They are putting him in charge of the renovations at Wrigley, which for other organizations, often falls under the purview of the President moreso than a GM (although I'm sure most GM's would have a voice in it).

[rglenmt]

We still have much respect and admiration for Terry Francona. Interesting that the Cubs may be considering Francona as its next Manager. Of course Terry is also being considered to replace the retiring Tony LaRussa. The Red Sox ownership did not want Francona to consider as its Manager, otherwise the Option for 2012 and 2013 would have been exercised, that than way things transpired after the September collapse. It could well be that Epstein did want to exercise the Option on Francona while Theo may not appear as much of a scapegoat because of the way Theo smoothly moved to the Cubs with a significant raise and, more power and titles, particularly evidenced by Jed Hoyer being brought to the Cubs as the GM. IMHO, Francona's loyalty to his players, even those high paid stars who did not have the loyalty to Terry, if Theo Epstein does make an effort to hire Francona as the new Cub's Manager, it is going to tell us much. While the Cardinals may prevent that from happening, the baseball world and the Cardinals and the Cubs are showing Francona the respect and admiration he deserves.

[walkoffblast]

So they are likely going to delay until after the rule 5 draft now. Makes me wonder if they are going to try some sketchy workaround as part of the compensation.

[Towney007]

I personally think that working off of past deals as precedent at this point is kind of silly considering how much more important the role of a GM is now that it was back when say - McPhail went to the Cubs from the Twins and the Cubs coughed up a top 10 prospect. If Theo is worth 1 WAR, then he's worth a top prospect. A Trey McNutt or a Brett Jackson to me - isn't asking too much in the big picture. But now that the Sox just kind of let him go, it's fogged things up much worse.

[jackno]

I wanted to be the first to start the rumor that payment for Theo will be Ian Stewart. He of the 900+ minor league OPS. You heard it here first

[ivanvamp]

The Cubs just traded Sean Marshall to Cincy for lefty starter Travis Wood. Theo is wheeling and dealing, trading players and prospects back and forth....and still, the Red Sox and Cubs haven't sorted out the compensation issue.

It's absolutely mind-boggling. I don't think I'm in the minority when I say that it appears that the Red Sox are, ultimately, going to get nothing for Theo.

[untilthebombs]

The Cubs just traded Sean Marshall to Cincy for lefty starter Travis Wood. Theo is wheeling and dealing, trading players and prospects back and forth....and still, the Red Sox and Cubs haven't sorted out the compensation issue.

It's absolutely mind-boggling. I don't think I'm in the minority when I say that it appears that the Red Sox are, ultimately, going to get nothing for Theo.

Really looks that way. A promise to stop poaching the Red Sox FO for the next three years, after ample time to, appears like it will be the majority of the "compensation." Absurd.

[pjr]

According to the Chicago Tribune both teams have submitted written proposals to Selig.
He said he wants to get it done as"expeditiously" as possible.


http://www.chicagotr...0,1131327.story

Edited by pjr, 28 January 2012 - 10:37 AM.

[Reggie's Racquet]

An interesting take today from Cubbie's Crib on the possible compensation:

cubbiescrib.com/2012/01/29/significant-player-headed-to-the-boston-red-sox/

Edited by Reggie's Racquet, 29 January 2012 - 12:30 PM.

[Tyrone Biggums]

An interesting take today from Cubbie's Crib on the possible compensation:

cubbiescrib.com/2012/01/29/significant-player-headed-to-the-boston-red-sox/

Its going to have to be someone not on the Cubs 40 man, probably a top 10 prospect if anything. The Sox can't afford to take on someone like Randy Wells let alone Garza (who the Cubs wouldn't give up anyways).

[keninten]

Trade Iglesias with Epstein for Castro

[Eck'sSneakyCheese]

Its going to have to be someone not on the Cubs 40 man, probably a top 10 prospect if anything. The Sox can't afford to take on someone like Randy Wells let alone Garza (who the Cubs wouldn't give up anyways).

It was posted on the main board that Wells will only cost 2.7m next year. We can afford that. Garza or Castro ain't happening. I like the comment about getting Barney and moving Pedroia to short. Either way non of those are going to play out. Theo and the Cubs should be forced to pay half of Lackeys remaining salary. Seems fair, right?

[Sampo Gida]

It was posted on the main board that Wells will only cost 2.7m next year. We can afford that. Garza or Castro ain't happening. I like the comment about getting Barney and moving Pedroia to short. Either way non of those are going to play out. Theo and the Cubs should be forced to pay half of Lackeys remaining salary. Seems fair, right?

Red Sox were paying Theo 3 million per year, so I guess thats what his value was to the Red Sox. How does 15 million figure to be fair compensation for losing him?. Also, the Cubs do prefer a financial settlement over prospects/players.

[Eck'sSneakyCheese]

Red Sox were paying Theo 3 million per year, so I guess thats what his value was to the Red Sox. How does 15 million figure to be fair compensation for losing him?. Also, the Cubs do prefer a financial settlement over prospects/players.

...it was a joke.

[Reggie's Racquet]

The story behind the story of this whole debacle, when all is said and done, is going to be why seemingly accompllished business people like Lucchino. Werner and Henry let Theo go before they worked out the compensation issue.

Didn't it occur to any of the owners that this might be a very bad idea?

We have been negotating in public against a person that was under contract to us. A person who has used his skill and intelligence against us to try and minimize the compensation for his new employers.

There are simple noncompete agreements. If they were going to let Theo go why would they not have precluded him from taking part in any compensation negotiations?

However this is resolved this untenable situation is squarely on ownership and somebody in the media needs to take them to task and ask some hard questions.

[TOleary25]

Before Billy Beane backed out of coming here, wasn't the agreed compensation Youkilis at the time? Youk was a top 3 prospect so it's very reasonable for the Sox to look for something like that. I realize Theo got a higher position, but he was still under contract as GM of the Sox. This whole thing is pretty frustrating when the pretty obvious compensation was at the very least a top ten prospect.

[Cellar-Door]

The story behind the story of this whole debacle, when all is said and done, is going to be why seemingly accompllished business people like Lucchino. Werner and Henry let Theo go before they worked out the compensation issue.

Didn't it occur to any of the owners that this might be a very bad idea?

We have been negotating in public against a person that was under contract to us. A person who has used his skill and intelligence against us to try and minimize the compensation for his new employers.

There are simple noncompete agreements. If they were going to let Theo go why would they not have precluded him from taking part in any compensation negotiations?

However this is resolved this untenable situation is squarely on ownership and somebody in the media needs to take them to task and ask some hard questions.

Impossible to know without knowing where the negotiations were at the time and what the paramaters set in letting him leave were. There is a possibilty the Red Sox didn't want Theo back, but also felt that they were more likely to get value if the compensation issue landed on Selig's desk than they were likely to get from the Cubs.