Bleacher Bums Forum
General Category => Archives => Topic started by: CurtOne on August 21, 2011, 03:36:32 pm
-
Ng topic!
-
Buster Olney on ESPN radio suggested that the Cubs are looking for a veteran GM, such as Cashman, Beane or Friedman, rather than a bright, young GM prospect currently serving in a lesser role. I certainly hope he is wrong.
-
Why is that? There are some excellent GMs out there.
-
Buster Olney on ESPN radio suggested that the Cubs are looking for a veteran GM, such as Cashman, Beane or Friedman, rather than a bright, young GM prospect currently serving in a lesser role. I certainly hope he is wrong.
If the Cubs go after Friedman, you certainly won't find me complaining about it. He probably should be the #1 candidate for the job if he's available.
-
Cashman is used to huge payrolls. I fear Beane, with a higher budget, would turn into a kid in a candy store. I don't have a problem with Friedman.
-
That's where Ricketts' long-term plan of building from within must be shared by the new GM. They must be willing to develop the core and add FAs to fill in the gaps. Anything less should not be tolerated. Personally, I would like to see us bring in someone that has previously built a winner.
-
If the Cubs go after Friedman, you certainly won't find me complaining about it. He probably should be the #1 candidate for the job if he's available.
I totally agree.
-
The Cubs have also reached out to Greg Maddux, an assistant to Hendry on a part-time basis. Maddux had not responded as of Sunday night. The Cubs would like to keep Maddux in the organization, though the new general manager will bring in his own people, and Maddux is very close to Hendry.
-
Rogers expects Sandberg to manage the Cubs in 2012:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/chi-your-morning-phil-sandberg-danks-big-z-20110822,0,1064268.story
-
I have a hard time imagining someone like Friedman or Cherington coming in and making their first move a pure PR move designed to get the fans on their side. They seem like they'd be more concerned with winning.
-
Pretty funny that Rogers can put a % likelihood on what an unknown person is likely to want in a new manager. Maybe he can first tell us who the new GM is going to be.
-
Chicago White Sox vice president and assistant general manager Rick Hahn has a clause in his contract that allows him to interview with a handful of team for a GM position, and the Chicago Cubs are on that list, a major league source told ESPNChicago.com's Bruce Levine
http://espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/story/_/id/6885246/chicago-white-sox-assistant-general-manager-rick-hahn-clause-interview-chicago-cubs
-
Pretty funny that Rogers can put a % likelihood on what an unknown person is likely to want in a new manager. Maybe he can first tell us who the new GM is going to be.
This is the guy who gave us the great trade evaluation system of identifying which team acquired more major leaguers...
Mariners trade us King Felix, and we send them Grabow and Hill, the Mariners win the trade! They get two major league players, we only get one. Stinking ripoff.
-
Rogers expects Sandberg to manage the Cubs in 2012:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/chi-your-morning-phil-sandberg-danks-big-z-20110822,0,1064268.story
Hard to take seriously a person who is predicting the actions of someone he does not even know.
-
The list continues to grow
Larry Beinfest
http://miamiherald.typepad.com/fish_bytes/2011/08/marlins-beinfest-loses-trading-partner-in-cubs-jim-hendry.html
-
Buster Olney speculates about Theo Epstein and others and, more generally, about Cubs GM search:
it's fairly apparent that the Cubs will have an opportunity to hire a big name for their next general manager, if they so choose. Executives say privately that they view the Cubs' job as an opportunity with enormous potential, under Tom Ricketts, because it's evident he is devoted to the idea of turning the team -- the ballpark and the baseball operations -- into something great, as John Henry's group did when it took over the Boston Red Sox. The Cubs have the potential to be to the NL Central what the New York Yankees and the Red Sox have been to the AL East, one rival executive explained this week.......Whoever gets the Cubs' job, though, is almost certainly going to be a heavyweight. "It seems like it's more a matter of who they want, as opposed to who would agree to go there," one high-ranked executive said.
-
https://twitter.com/#!/SI_JonHeyman/status/106523486759034880
-
One thought if we do hire away someone like Friedman, Beane, Epstein, or Cashman, there's probably a good chance we'd have to give up compensation to their current employers.
Anybody like the idea of giving up say Brett Jackson for Andrew Friedman? Or Andrew Cashner?
-
I might give up Jackson for Kinky Friedman, but not Andrew.
-
One thought if we do hire away someone like Friedman, Beane, Epstein, or Cashman, there's probably a good chance we'd have to give up compensation to their current employers.
I say we offer to let them talk to Hendry.....
-
Not sure if this has been discussed here, but Ricketts and Friedman share a background in finance. Per wikipedia on Friedman, "Friedman was then an analyst with Bear Stearns from 1999–2002, and then was an associate at MidMark Capital, a private equity firm, from 2002-04." And Ricketts, of course, "Thomas S. "Tom" Ricketts is chairman of the Chicago Cubs, and the chief executive officer of Incapital LLC, a Chicago investment bank that packages corporate bonds for retail investors. "
Not sure if that matters, but it does mean they probably value some similar evaluative tools, but in terms if finance & investment, and baseball.
-
Brian Cashman and Andrew Friedman are both in the last year of their contracts.
-
Ned Colletti?
http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/cubs/7261934-417/friedman-colletti-cashman-on-ricketts-radar.html
-
Just adding the New York perspective, I feel like Cashman would be more than willing to leave the Yankees for the right position. His relationship with the Steinbrenner kids has been very tenuous. Things seemed to peak when the Steinbrenner's forced the huge $$$ signing of setup man Rafael Soriano. In one of the more bizarre things I've seen, Cashman came out and said it wasn't his idea, and he thought it was a bad move.
Cashman is used to the big budget, but has shown the propensity to hold onto young talent over the last few years, even to the owner's dismay.
-
Colletti would be a disaster. A less personable version of Jim Hendry is the last thing the Cubs need.
That article also talks about Ryne Sandberg being willing to come back to the organization now that Hendry is gone. I find it interesting that Sandberg seems to be the only guy in baseball who can't get along with Jim Hendry. I don't know if that's a personality trait I'd want in a manager...if his ego/sense of entitlement about the manager's job is so big that he can't get along with one of the most popular guys (personality wise) in professional baseball, that doesn't give me much hope that he'd be successful at managing the people side of a major league team.
-
"While Colletti is viewed by many as cut from similar old-school-GM cloth as Jim Hendry, one attraction to him, a source said, is the likelihood he would try to bring Ryne Sandberg back to the organization as the Cubs’ manager. Sandberg has told those close to him that with Hendry out, he wouldn’t hesitate to return to the Cubs." (from the Sun Times article)
That strikes me as rather bizarre reasoning. I can't imagine that Ricketts has a major consideration in hiring his GM whether or not he's likely to bring Sandberg back. In any event, it wouldn't take Colletti to do that.
"Another long-odds scenario Ricketts has talked about this week, according to sources, is trying to woo New York Yankees GM Brian Cashman and getting a package deal for Cashman and managerJoe Girardi." (also from that article)
Girardi has two years left on his contract after this season. Why on earth would the Steinbrenners want to release him from that, particularly at the same time as they are having to replace their GM?
-
I don't know any of these guys, of course. I think Bullinger's idea is interesting, that Cashman might be happy to get a fresh start with different ownership and a different media market. Of course, I have zero idea whether or not Cashman is actually any good as a GM, or would help the Cubs. He inherited a bunch of young stars and had a limitless payroll. I have no idea how he'd do if he came into a deal where he inherited Tyler Colvin, Tony Campana, Casey Coleman, and Randy Wells, that's not quite Jeter, Mariano, Posada, and Bernie Williams. And with a $125 payroll instead of $203, that could be a little different. Might be different without the ability to have a dozen starters with averages salary of $14, and then still have $35 million left to fill out the rest of the roster.
Friedman obviously seems like the guy. He's young, energetic, really smart, and has been enormously successful within very limited resources at Tampa. If he was interested, how could you not be interested in a guy like that? Who knows whether he's interested, good chance he isn't. But certainly worth calling and asking. Maybe he's after the Yankees job instead?
Colletti, I don't get that at all. He's been around a long time, and his Dodgers are only a couple of games better than the Cubs. I don't get how he'd be the guy. Not sure how much all the McCourt stuff may have limited him, though.
For a while Dodgers seemed to have a really productive draft-and-developement system going, but I think they've been on a very low-budget procurement situation for some time. Perhaps if he did come, and got the Ricketts procurement budget, and brought over some of the best scouts, so that Wilken ended up with the better half of the Dodger scouts and the better half of the Cub scouts, maybe you'd end up with a stellar scouting staff, I don't know.
But the Suntimes notion that you'd hire Colletti because he'd give you a 5-day PR boost by hiring Sandberg, that is absurd to the extreme. Sandberg's status as a player won't help much as soon as the team dips below .500 next season.
-
If Sandberg felt he didn't get a real shot, I could understand that logic. If Sandberg felt that Hendry was so buddy buddy with the players that it effected his decisions about them, I could understand that logic.
-
If Sandberg felt like he didn't get a real shot, then that tells me that his ego or sense of entitlement is out of control. At least IMO. Very few managers are in the major leagues after 4 years of minor league managing experience and no major or minor league coaching experience. If it takes less time than that, it's usually someone who had been pegged as a future manager since he was a 24 year old rookie player (Girardi, Scioscia).
I only know what's in the press, obviously...so maybe there was more behind the scenes. But I think it's probably easier to argue that Sandberg didn't even deserve the token interview he got than it is to argue they didn't give him enough consideration. Most managers with 4 years experience (who had also never shown serious interest in coaching before he got his first managing job) wouldn't even get a sniff from a major league team.
-
Sandberg seems like a very unusual, perhaps even unique, case. He's a Hall of Famer whose entire major league career was with the Cubs, and someone who is known for his devotion to "playing the game the right way." How may HOFers have ever managed in the minors, for one year, much less four? I have no idea. Hendry told him to go get minor league managing experience in order to prove he could manage. And his record managing in the minor leagues has been very good, at least, it seems to me. If he was told, as one interview said, that he wasn't even in the top several candidates being seriously considered, from his point of view, I can see why he would not only be disappointed, but perhaps feel a bit disrespected.
Hendry has always been someone who valued lots of experience. Maybe four years in the minor leagues just didn't rate high enough for serious considerations, when compared to guys with major league experience and even Quade who had lots more years in the managing and coaching trenches than Sandberg.
Who knows what kind of manager he really is, or that he would be in the major leagues. And he hasn't coached at the major league level. Maybe there were specific, performance based reasons Hendry didn't consider him.
-
If Sandberg felt like he didn't get a real shot, then that tells me that his ego or sense of entitlement is out of control. At least IMO. Very few managers are in the major leagues after 4 years of minor league managing experience and no major or minor league coaching experience. If it takes less time than that, it's usually someone who had been pegged as a future manager since he was a 24 year old rookie player (Girardi, Scioscia).
I only know what's in the press, obviously...so maybe there was more behind the scenes. But I think it's probably easier to argue that Sandberg didn't even deserve the token interview he got than it is to argue they didn't give him enough consideration. Most managers with 4 years experience (who had also never shown serious interest in coaching before he got his first managing job) wouldn't even get a sniff from a major league team.
I agree with this entirely. Everybody is unique, and perhaps there are some extraordinary qualities that Sandberg has that make him freakishly qualified. But to get even an interview only four years into a coaching/managing career is extraordinary indeed. To expect to not only be interviewed but to also be hired, that's pretty amazing. No idea what or why he would be so exceptionally qualified that he'd be the best candidate. Perhaps he is, of course, what do I know.
It would be surprising, though, since he never was a very good interview or was particularly articulate as a player. Since communication skills are probably pretty important for a manager, I'd think he'd start out with a strike against him. So to be a supreme manager candidate after only four years despite that would require being a pretty extraordinary teacher and leader and scout and decision-maker in other ways. Maybe he is, beats me.
-
My choices:
1. Hahn. He knows Chicago, has 9 years with a successful organization, gets the SABRmetrics approach to baseball
2. Friedman. Has done lots with little, although he had the advantage on high draft choices early on.
3. The Red Sox asst GM.
No on Cashman. He's had unlimited $$$ to work with.
No on Colletti. He's Hendry lite.
-
Agree on Colletti. He is the least attractive candidate of those mentioned in the basebal media.
Billy Beane would be fun, but I'd like to hire one of the young, smart candidates out there.
-
Where does Byrnes fit in for you, Clark?
-
Sandberg seems like a very unusual, perhaps even unique, case. He's a Hall of Famer whose entire major league career was with the Cubs, and someone who is known for his devotion to "playing the game the right way." How may HOFers have ever managed in the minors, for one year, much less four? I have no idea. Hendry told him to go get minor league managing experience in order to prove he could manage. And his record managing in the minor leagues has been very good, at least, it seems to me. If he was told, as one interview said, that he wasn't even in the top several candidates being seriously considered, from his point of view, I can see why he would not only be disappointed, but perhaps feel a bit disrespected.
Hendry has always been someone who valued lots of experience. Maybe four years in the minor leagues just didn't rate high enough for serious considerations, when compared to guys with major league experience and even Quade who had lots more years in the managing and coaching trenches than Sandberg.
I think Ron pretty much nails it.
I am not saying that Sandberg should have been hired to manage the Cubs this year, but Sandberg appears to be quite sincere about his desire to manage the Cubs, and if his dealings with Hendry caused him to believe that he never would get that shot from Hendry, or at least not any time in the reasonable future, it is perfectly understandable that he left, and also understandable that with Hendry gone he might return.
I don't recall Sandberg ever trashing Hendry (or anyone), or ever even saying anything particularly negative about him, but simply indicating that he felt the way he was handled when the Cubs were looking for a permanent manager last fall made him feel Hendry would never have him manage in Wrigley.
-
if (Sandberg's) ego/sense of entitlement about the manager's job is so big that he can't get along with one of the most popular guys (personality wise) in professional baseball, that doesn't give me much hope that he'd be successful at managing the people side of a major league team.
If Sandberg felt like he didn't get a real shot, then that tells me that his ego or sense of entitlement is out of control.
Going to the minor leagues for four years, when he was financially secure and had no need to return to baseball, and certainly could have done so somewhere as a coach in the majors, does not shout of a "sense of entitlement."
-
Billy Beane has significant equity in the A's...don't know why he's been mentioned as a possibility for our next GM.
I'll agree that Freidman and Hahn both appear very interesting and a major upgrade!
-
Just askin'. How have Beane's teams done since they **** down on roids? Just askin'.
-
I don't think steroids are to blame for Beane's loss of competitiveness. Sure, he had some high profile steroids suspects when they were competing (Giambi and Tejada), but it was the loss of Hudson, Mulder, and Zito that killed that team. He hasn't been able to build a competitive team since they left.
Plus, as usual, I'm going to point out that (A) we don't have any idea how much steroids help (but there is good reason to think it is less than is generally assumed), and (B) the decline in offense was small after drug testing began until they got serious about amphetamines. Then offense crashed.
-
I agree with this entirely. Everybody is unique, and perhaps there are some extraordinary qualities that Sandberg has that make him freakishly qualified. But to get even an interview only four years into a coaching/managing career is extraordinary indeed. To expect to not only be interviewed but to also be hired, that's pretty amazing. No idea what or why he would be so exceptionally qualified that he'd be the best candidate. Perhaps he is, of course, what do I know.
It would be surprising, though, since he never was a very good interview or was particularly articulate as a player. Since communication skills are probably pretty important for a manager, I'd think he'd start out with a strike against him. So to be a supreme manager candidate after only four years despite that would require being a pretty extraordinary teacher and leader and scout and decision-maker in other ways. Maybe he is, beats me.
Ah yes. All those years spent in the minors by Girardi, Piniella, Dusty Baker, Don Baylor, Terry Francona, Bob Brenly, Bobby Cox, Tony LaRussa. Sorry, I forgot. Fact is, few with Ryno's pedigree even look to manage, knowing it's a thankless job. Both of your arguments may have merit, but all I was pointing out is that there was something...perhaps something that Sandberg learned that he wasn't supposed to know or some agreement between the two men that was broken...we don't know, but clearly Sandberg is glad Hendry is gone. Just as some wanted to deify Jimbo when he came on board as gm, some want to deify him in departure. There are lots thankful that he's gone.
-
Sorry, br and craig, I just don't accept this argument about going down to the minors to learn how to manage. The number of great managers who went that route are few and far between. Gardenhire may be the only one I can think of at the moment.
For years this was the argument used against Blacks. Dese black folk just don't have the essentials...I think that's how it was put. There was an implication that they didn't have the work ethic to go to the minors and learn their craft. Meanwhile white guys were using the good old boys network to land prime coaching and managing jobs.
The only concern I would have for someone like Ryno was whether he had the temperament to tolerate some of the things we see the Cubs doing. Any of us on this board could manage a team and probably win 50 games. A HOF player who has seen baseball inside and out for as long as Sandberg doesn't really need to go to the minors to learn how to ride a bus or fill out a scorecard. That's the crap you hand someone when you're stalling. And Sandberg called his bluff and went and did it. End of story.
So, this nonsense about expecting a job after only 4 years in the minors? Lots of managers, most of the great ones as a matter of fact, never smelt a minor league locker room.
There may be solid reasons why Ryno shouldn't manage the Cubs. I'm still not convinced that I'd want to see it, but you'll have to do better than the swill you're serving.
-
This is getting serious. I think this may be the third time Curt and I are in basic agreement in as many (or fewer) days.
Should I be worried? Or should he?
-
No to Colletti. He's the one name I've seen that holds no attraction at all.
-
Sorry, br and craig, I just don't accept this argument about going down to the minors to learn how to manage. The number of great managers who went that route are few and far between. Gardenhire may be the only one I can think of at the moment.
Well, according to their wikipedia entries, that number would seem to include the following:
Earl Weaver: Weaver started his minor league managerial career in 1956 with the unaffiliated Knoxville Smokies in the South Atlantic League. He joined the Orioles in 1957 as skipper of their Fitzgerald club in the Georgia-Florida League. The Orioles moved him to their Dublin, Georgia franchise in 1958, and to their Aberdeen, South Dakota club in 1959. 1960 found Weaver in Wisconsin managing the Fox Cities Foxes in the Class B Three-I League. He moved up to with the AA Elmira Pioneers in 1962 and to the AAA Rochester Red Wings in 1966.
As a minor league pilot, he compiled a record of 841 wins and 697 defeats (.547) with three championships in 11½ seasons. He was promoted to the Orioles as their first-base coach in 1968, and spent a half-season in that role before taking the managerial reins in July.
Tommy Lasorda Lasorda's first off-field assignment with the Dodgers was as a scout from 1961–65. In 1966, he became the manager for the Pocatello Chiefs in the rookie leagues, then managed the Ogden Dodgers to three Pioneer League championships from 1966–68. He became the Dodgers AAA Pacific Coast League manager in 1969 with the Spokane Indians (1969–71) and remained in the position when the Dodgers switched their AAA farm club to the Albuquerque Dukes (1972). His 1972 Dukes team won the PCL Championship. Lasorda was also a manager for the Dominican Winter Baseball League team Tigres del Licey (Licey Tigers). He led the team to the 1973 Caribbean World Series Title in Venezuela with a series record of 5 wins and 1 loss.
Tony LaRussa The White Sox gave La Russa his first managerial opportunity in 1978 by naming him skipper of their Double-A affiliate, the Knoxville Sox of the Southern League. La Russa spent only a half-season at Knoxville before being promoted to the White Sox coaching staff when owner Bill Veeck changed managers from Bob Lemon to Larry Doby. But Doby struggled in the managerial role and was fired at the end of the season; Don Kessinger, former star shortstop of the crosstown Cubs, was named the White Sox' player-manager for 1979, and La Russa was demoted to manager of the Triple-A Iowa Oaks of the American Association.
But Kessinger was not the answer, either. The ChiSox were only 46–60 when he was fired and La Russa was summoned from Iowa, two-thirds of the way through the 1979 season.
Bobby Cox -- Cox began his managerial career in the Yankees farm system in 1971. In 1976, he led the Syracuse Chiefs to the Governor's Cup title. This team featured such future major leaguers as Ron Guidry, Mickey Klutts, Terry Whitfield and Juan Bernhardt. Overall, Cox had a highly successful six-year tenure as a minor league manager, compiling a record of 459 wins and 387 defeats (.543) with two league championships. He then spent the 1977 season as the first base coach on Billy Martin's staff with the World Series-winning Yankees before beginning his MLB managerial career.
Jim Leyland -- Leyland then served as a coach for the Rocky Mount Leafs in the first half of the 1971 season before receiving his first managerial experience with the Bristol Tigers the same season. He managed for 11 seasons at the minor league level in the Tigers organization (1971–81), advancing to the postseason six times and claiming his respective league championship three times. Leyland was selected as the manager of the year in the Florida State League in both 1977 and 1978 with the Lakeland Tigers; and in the American Association in 1979 with the Evansville Triplets.
Leyland left the Tigers organization for the first time in 1982 when he became Tony La Russa's third base coach for four seasons (1982–85) with the Chicago White Sox, including the team's 1983 AL West division title, before being named the 33rd manager in Pittsburgh Pirates history on November 20, 1985.
Walter Alston -- After returning to the minor leagues for several years as a player and then as a manager – including a stint as the player-manager for the first U.S.-based integrated baseball team after 1898, the Nashua Dodgers of the class-B New England League – he was named manager of the Brooklyn Dodgers for the 1954 season.
Gene Mauch -- He first became a manager at age 27 in 1953, when the Braves named him the player-manager of their AA Atlanta Crackers farm team in the Southern Association. From 1954-57, Mauch was strictly a player, first for the Pacific Coast League Los Angeles Angels, then the Red Sox. In 1958-59, he managed the Bosox' AAA affiliate, the Minneapolis Millers of the American Association, reaching the Junior World Series as American Association champion each season, and winning the 1958 JWS championship. He was slated to begin a third season as the Millers' boss in 1960 when, in mid-April, just prior to the start of the American Association's season, the Phillies chose him to replace Eddie Sawyer, who had resigned after the club's opening game of the regular season.
Ralph Houk -- Houk's last years as an active player were actually spent as the Yankees' full-time bullpen coach, thus beginning his managerial apprenticeship. In 1955, he was named manager of the Yanks' AAA affiliate, the Denver Bears of the American Association. Following three highly successful seasons at Denver, Houk returned to the Bronx as Stengel's first-base coach from 1958 to 1960. From late May through early June 1960, Houk served as acting manager of the Yanks for 13 games while Stengel, 70, was sidelined by illness. (The team won 7 and lost 6.) Then, after the Yanks lost the 1960 World Series to the Pittsburgh Pirates — and with Houk one of the hottest managerial candidates in baseball — the Yankees "discharged" Stengel (to use Stengel's own words) and promoted Houk.
Dick WIlliams -- On October 14, 1964, after a season during which Williams hit a career-low .159, the Red Sox gave him his unconditional release. At 35, Williams was at a career crossroads: Richards gave him a spring training invitation but no guarantee that he would make the 1965 Astros' playing roster; the Red Sox offered Williams a job as playing coach with their Triple-A farm team, the Seattle Rainiers of the Pacific Coast League. Looking to begin a post-playing career in baseball, Williams accepted the Seattle assignment. Within days, a shuffle in 1965 affiliations forced Boston to move its top minor league team to the Toronto Maple Leafs of the International League. This caused Boston's Triple-A manager, Edo Vanni, a Seattle native, to resign in order to remain in the Pacific Northwest. With an unexpected opening for the new Toronto job, Williams was promoted to manager of the 1965 Leafs. As a novice pilot, Williams adopted a hard-nosed, disciplinarian style and won two consecutive Governors' Cup championships with teams laden with young Red Sox prospects. He then signed a one-year contract to manage the 1967 Red Sox.
Sparky Anderson -- In 1964, at the age of 30, Anderson accepted Cooke's offer to manage the Leafs. He later handled minor league clubs at the Class A and Double-A levels, including a season (1968) in the Reds' minor league system.
During this period, he managed a pennant winner in four consecutive seasons: 1965 with the Rock Hill Cardinals of the Western Carolinas League, 1966 with the St. Petersburg Cardinals of the Florida State League, 1967 with the Modesto Reds of the California League and 1968 with the Asheville Tourists of the Southern League. It was during the 1966 season that Sparky's club lost to Miami 4–3 in 29 innings, which remains the longest pro game played (by innings) without interruption.[5]
He made his way back to the majors in 1969 as the third-base coach of the San Diego Padres during their maiden season in the National League. Just after the 1969 season ended, California Angels manager Lefty Phillips, who as a Dodger scout had signed the teenaged Anderson to his first professional contract,[6] named Anderson to his 1970 coaching staff.
I mean other than those bums, I can't think of any. All of those guys are in the top 20 in all-time wins, and the only other managers on that top 20 list all ended their careers by 1956, with the exception of Casey Stengel (who managed in the minors before reaching the Yankees, after having started as a major league manager and getting fired a couple of times and then built a name for himself as a minor league manager) and Joe Torre, who started as one of the last player managers.
So, yea, other than those guys, I guess there haven't been any good major league managers who came up thru the minors.
-
Just get the GM hire right. Load up on talent and even a dopey field manager can win.
-
Ned Colletti is probably getting mentioned because of his past relationship with the Chicago media (he was in PR when he worked for the Cubs previously) more than anything.
He certainly doesn't fit the description that Tom Ricketts threw out during his initial press conference.
I wonder if Colletti's old pals are floating his name in order to try to pressure Ricketts to give him an interview.
-
As far as managing in the minors, it's kind of a mixed bag. Earl Weaver managed 10 years in the minors. Casey Stengel and Bobby Cox each managed 5 or 6 years in the minors. Jim Leyland--many minor league years of course.
A number of great managers did not get this kind of seasoning. Have no clue whatsoever if Ryno would be a good manager or not but I think he's a bit of a risk for the new GM to hire. Maybe it's a good risk.
-
Reb, as I pointed out, other than Joe Torre, or guys who were managing in the majors more than 70 years ago, EVERY manager on the list of top 20 winningest managers managed in the minors.
Saying it is a "mixed bag" does not seem close to accurate.
-
Ron and Reb, thanks for the comments. I'm sure that are dozens of great managers who did time in the minors. Currently I can only think of Gardenhire, but there were lot of great ones in the past like Stengel and Weaver. My response to br and craig was in response to their implication that 4 years in the minors was insufficient to expect a serious interview. Few HOFers would have endured the minors for 4 years, and I doubt many HOF players have. Ryno may one day be a first.
-
I would like the new GM to replace the entire coaching staff, regardless of who he (or she, Curt) hires to be the manager.
-
heh, I'm pushing for Ng to drive Jiggy nuts.
-
I'm sure that are dozens of great managers who did time in the minors.
Yea... like nearly all of them.
-
If we are able to bring in Andrew Friedman, do you think he would keep Tim Wilken?
When Friedman was hired in Tampa, Wilken only stayed on for one year before he moved on to us.
-
I think that's more of a reflection of what he had to work with in Tampa Bay as opposed to Chicago. Also his connection with Jim Hendry.
-
I like Friedman as a GM possibility, and losing Wilken certainly wouldn't be a deal breaker. I'd take that trade-off any day.
-
Yeah, Tim Wilken is far from irreplaceable.
-
What has Friedman done of note?
-
Any of us on this board could manage a team and probably win 50 games.
This may be the best compliment I've ever gotten from you, Curt.
-
Hey, if Quade can do it...
-
Was listening tonight on local San Francisco radio and a local sportswriter reported that Billy Beane's friends are saying he would be interested in speaking with Tom Ricketts and that he's intrigued by the Cubs situation.
This writer suggested that Beane's equity position in the A's wouldn't be a deal killer, as the owner and MLB would allow him to put his stock in a trust etc.
-
After hearing all these "name" GMs "interested" in the job, I hope we're not going to be disappointed with the final hire.
-
If Theo Epstein is really interested - and that's a huge if - he blows all the other candidates out of the water.
-
My favorite would be Epstein but I wouldn't want to have to pay any compensation to the Red Sox-- for me that would be a deal breaker.
-
Have the A's built a large stockpile of young talent or do they have a wealth of riches in their farm system as the result of Beane's incredibly astute drafts or of handling arbitration and draft picks?
Or is he really just sort of a middling GM who acquired the reputation for genius as a result of a book which focused on the application of a SABR approach to the old market advice of buying straw hats in winter?
Buying assets which are undervalued is not really an incredibly brilliant approach, and it is one which the discipline imposed by small budgets lends itself to.
At this point virtually any GM interested in combining traditional scouting with a statistical or SABR based analysis to roster, draft or player development decisions, would seemingly make roughly the same decisions Beane made.
I wouldn't be upset if the Cubs had Beane. The fact that he has long embraced adding a statistical component to such decisions would be a major improvement over Hendry.... but doesn't Beane also have a history of essentially imposing rigid controls over his field managers... controls which have not really had a great record of success?
-
Well, if Billy Beane came to the Cubs it would be interesting. Either they would become the greatest baseball franchise ever (given the Cubs' resources and Beane's brilliance) or ...
Seriously, I'm not entirely sure how I'd feel about that. I have a lot of respect for Beane, but I'm not at all convinced that the reality matches the hype.
Still, it's good that there are signs that Ricketts could end up just about having his pick of potential GMs.
-
Any time "genius" is used in front of Beane's name, it should be preceded by "self-described".
-
Billy Beane hasn't had a winning record since 2006.
I think he's probably past his sell by date. He started the stats based trend, but there are GM's out there now who are younger, more driven, and do it better than he does. We need to focus on one of those guys.
-
Theo could be made President/GM and it would be a promotion and no compensation would be needed.
-
I'd let Epstein have whatever title he wants. Grand Pooobah, Head Janitor, Ayatollah, whatever.
-
That would be great except Ricketts doesn't want to displace Crane Kenney, who is indispensable, for some unknown reason.
-
Ricketts seemed to make clear that Kennedy's role would be limited to the business (non-baseball) side of things. So I'm not sure if his role will have any effect on hiring a GM (and whatever other titles come with the role).
-
It's been proven on WC site many times that Hendry did more with his resources than Theo did with his. Why on earth would we want to take a step backwards?
-
No wonder P2 didn't respond to my Ng man pun. It's pronounced "ang." Most people that have the Ng name that I know pronounce it "new." Sorry about that.
-
No wonder P2 didn't respond to my Ng man pun. It's pronounced "ang." Most people that have the Ng name that I know pronounce it "new." Sorry about that.
Don't worry, Curt. You'll get the Ng of it.
-
That's a pun with a British twist.
-
Don't worry, Curt. You'll get the Ng of it.
Specially if we're playing Ng-man.
-
I know someone whose last name is Ng, and she pronounces it "eng." But what does she know?
-
Forbes piece on hiring a new GM:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/sportsmoney/2011/08/30/cubs-need-a-dynamic-duo-instead-of-cashman-or-epstein/
-
Ngo way
-
Forbes piece on hiring a new GM:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/sportsmoney/2011/08/30/cubs-need-a-dynamic-duo-instead-of-cashman-or-epstein/
That would actually be an exciting front-office combo.
-
From Barry Rozner article - The next GM doesn't need to understand the culture. He needs to get rid of terrible contracts and transparent dogs and get better players who understand winning and aren't comfortable playing for managers and GMs who make life so pleasant and relaxed that even in 90-loss seasons, complacent players don't want to leave for a chance to win a ring.
-
break up the country club atmosphere? ridiculous!
-
Article on Cubs' website re potential GM candidates includes Terry Ryan, Rick Hahn and other good ones.
I'm feeling that, without question, we will have a substantial upgrade.
That's no guarantee of results, but it should help a lot!
A great GM is worth FAR, FAR more than the best free agent!
-
I'm feeling that, without question, we will have a substantial upgrade.
I think there's plenty of question about that. J.P. Ricciardi coming out of Oakland would have looked like a major upgrade over Hendry, but he's still the one who gave ridiculous contracts to Vernon Wells and Alex Rios and never accomplished much in Toronto. I think Josh Byrnes is a very promising candidate for the job, but he's also the one who gave Eric Byrnes a big contract extension and traded off Carlos Quentin in the process. He got fired in the middle of a 65-97 season after 4 1/2 years on the job. Coming out of very forward thinking organizations didn't stop either of those guys from showing some Hendry type mistakes.
This isn't going to be as simple as looking up the Red Sox directory or hiring someone who graduated from Harvard 10 years ago. We may hire someone with sterling credentials, a good educational background, someone with experience in a winning and forward thinking organization, etc. Still, that's no guarantee that the new GM won't cave under pressure if there's a fan favorite like Byrnes that everyone wants to re-sign, that there might be an Adrian Gonzalez for Adam Eaton trade down the road, or that we might get saddled with Vernon Wells or Alex Rios albatross contracts. There's certainly no guarantee that a Red Sox/Ivy League GM would work as hard as Jim Hendry, develop the relationships Hendry did, or might be gunshy to make deals while Hendry was pretty aggressive at making deals.
We need to get this idea out of our heads that hiring some "smart" sabermetric guy is going to be the answer to all of our problems and is a guaranteed upgrade over what we had. There was definite risk in firing Hendry. I think it's a move we needed to do, but the new guy may not be nearly the upgrade we think he will be even if he comes in with a sparkling resume and sparkling credentials.
-
JR is a killjoy.
-
I think there's plenty of question about that. J.P. Ricciardi coming out of Oakland would have looked like a major upgrade over Hendry, but he's still the one who gave ridiculous contracts to Vernon Wells and Alex Rios and never accomplished much in Toronto. I think Josh Byrnes is a very promising candidate for the job, but he's also the one who gave Eric Byrnes a big contract extension and traded off Carlos Quentin in the process. He got fired in the middle of a 65-97 season after 4 1/2 years on the job. Coming out of very forward thinking organizations didn't stop either of those guys from showing some Hendry type mistakes.
This isn't going to be as simple as looking up the Red Sox directory or hiring someone who graduated from Harvard 10 years ago. We may hire someone with sterling credentials, a good educational background, someone with experience in a winning and forward thinking organization, etc. Still, that's no guarantee that the new GM won't cave under pressure if there's a fan favorite like Byrnes that everyone wants to re-sign, that there might be an Adrian Gonzalez for Adam Eaton trade down the road, or that we might get saddled with Vernon Wells or Alex Rios albatross contracts. There's certainly no guarantee that a Red Sox/Ivy League GM would work as hard as Jim Hendry, develop the relationships Hendry did, or might be gunshy to make deals while Hendry was pretty aggressive at making deals.
We need to get this idea out of our heads that hiring some "smart" sabermetric guy is going to be the answer to all of our problems and is a guaranteed upgrade over what we had. There was definite risk in firing Hendry. I think it's a move we needed to do, but the new guy may not be nearly the upgrade we think he will be even if he comes in with a sparkling resume and sparkling credentials.
One of the better and more sober posts on the issue I have seen in some time.
-
I think there's plenty of question about that. J.P. Ricciardi coming out of Oakland would have looked like a major upgrade over Hendry, but he's still the one who gave ridiculous contracts to Vernon Wells and Alex Rios and never accomplished much in Toronto. I think Josh Byrnes is a very promising candidate for the job, but he's also the one who gave Eric Byrnes a big contract extension and traded off Carlos Quentin in the process. He got fired in the middle of a 65-97 season after 4 1/2 years on the job. Coming out of very forward thinking organizations didn't stop either of those guys from showing some Hendry type mistakes.
This isn't going to be as simple as looking up the Red Sox directory or hiring someone who graduated from Harvard 10 years ago. We may hire someone with sterling credentials, a good educational background, someone with experience in a winning and forward thinking organization, etc. Still, that's no guarantee that the new GM won't cave under pressure if there's a fan favorite like Byrnes that everyone wants to re-sign, that there might be an Adrian Gonzalez for Adam Eaton trade down the road, or that we might get saddled with Vernon Wells or Alex Rios albatross contracts. There's certainly no guarantee that a Red Sox/Ivy League GM would work as hard as Jim Hendry, develop the relationships Hendry did, or might be gunshy to make deals while Hendry was pretty aggressive at making deals.
We need to get this idea out of our heads that hiring some "smart" sabermetric guy is going to be the answer to all of our problems and is a guaranteed upgrade over what we had. There was definite risk in firing Hendry. I think it's a move we needed to do, but the new guy may not be nearly the upgrade we think he will be even if he comes in with a sparkling resume and sparkling credentials.
Amen JR.
-
Oh, way to go, bistro, now we'll never get rid of him...
-
JR is on the money
-
Of course he is, tico, but don't TELL him.
-
There would be a lot of Ngst around here if she were hired
-
It would help to have a GM versed in modern baseball theory backed by data. But it would also help to have someone who demands that we have strong teachers and firm disciplinarians at the minor league level so that the youngsters we draft are drilled in fundamentals.
-
And a GM who makes sure a red hot AAA hitter isn't called up in September and played in the outfield for the first time in his career.
-
I believe LaHair has more than 100 minor league OF games
-
I don't get all this angst about LaHair. He's almost 29 years old. He's not a prospect.
-
Sort of depends on what you call "all this angst," and that you consider a prospect.
LaHair could easily prove to be a guy who would have a couple of OPS+ seasons of 110-120, a guy hitting .260-.290 with 20-25 HR That would have real value, particularly when he would be paid just about league minimum.
Is that likely? Not at all. But entirely possible, and all that it takes to start finding out is to play him instead of a guy who is hitting .158 with RISP.
-
Ahh, love the ignore list. Have no clue what jes said, and have no desire to know.
-
That article also talks about Ryne Sandberg being willing to come back to the organization now that Hendry is gone. I find it interesting that Sandberg seems to be the only guy in baseball who can't get along with Jim Hendry. I don't know if that's a personality trait I'd want in a manager...if his ego/sense of entitlement about the manager's job is so big that he can't get along with one of the most popular guys (personality wise) in professional baseball, that doesn't give me much hope that he'd be successful at managing the people side of a major league team.
Maybe Jimbo has a Cindy Sandberg connection. Rumors were it wasn't only Davey Martinez.
You think it would fry Ryno's ass if Ricketts decided on Andrew Freidman from Tampa Bay as the new GM and then Freidman hired someone he's worked with the last few years, say the bench coach of the Rays, Davey Martinez, as the new Cubs manager? ;D
-
I am betting that even without any input from Sandberg that Ricketts would veto that hire. Considering his age, the fact that he was a Cubs fan at that time, and the indications Ricketts sometimes exerts much more direct influence in GM decisions than most owners, I would be very surprised to see either Martinez or Rafeal Palmiero hired to manage the Cubs.
-
Of course, hiring effectively is never easy or certain and Jim hendry is a great guy who is easy to root for.
However, zero playoff victories in 8 seasons and considering the lowly state of the franchise now - all with a huge payroll - does not speak well for our former gm.
Cub franchise desperately needs to think differently and better...while hiring a great baseball executive is very uncertain, I personally believe that hiring someone who will think differently and better is not setting the bar real high. If Tom rickets continues to spend, cubs will get better over time, hopefully by a lot.
My expectation is that, 8 seasons from now, the franchise will be in far better shape and we will have won playoff games. I believe we are headed in a better direction...how much better remains to be seen.
-
Of course the primary reason the team didn't do better with it's budget and is in the current state is because it didn't produce a volume of low-cost young and sustainable talent. When the guys he already had or acquired in 2003 (Wood, Z, Prior, Lee, Aram) wore out, no new young talent replaced them.
That's Hendry's fault, of course, because he was the draft and farm boss, so the talent that was graduating up to him was talent that he had drafted and whose teachers/coaches he had hired. And the drafters and farm boss and farm development people have all subsequently been hired by Hendry or guys hired by Hendry.
But Fleita's been the boss for years now. So if the farm has been inadequate in producing championship players, it's either a function of:
1. Bad luck
2. Bad work by Fleita
3. Bad work by Wilken
4. Inadequate moneys to Fleita and Wilken to do the job well.
It may be that #4 is the case, and/or a combination of #1 and #4. So Fleita and Wilken may be terrific, and if they are now funded well (#4), that they are ready to hit a hot streak of talent, development, and good luck.
But I can't help but wonder if #2 isn't part of the issue. And if Ricketts is committed to sustaining #2 and #3, the only way the next GM is going to have excellent success even if he/she is really gifted is if the explanation for the farm problems is #'s 1 and 4 and not #'s 2 and 3. I'd sure have preferred to get a crack at changing factor #2, Fleita.
Hopefully Ricketts knows exactly what he's doing, and has wisely and effectively evaluated Fleita as being more than qualified to be a championship level farm boss.
-
However, zero playoff victories in 8 seasons and considering the lowly state of the franchise now - all with a huge payroll - does not speak well for our former gm.
You and I agree that Hendry had to be replaced, but the idea that the number of playoff victories in 8 seasons should have been the measure, or even a consideration, in that decision seems strange.
Reaching or not reaching the playoffs is certainly a major consideration, and there were too many years when the Cubs did not reach.
The length of time involved in a performance review is certainly a major consideration, but cutting off the period reviewed to eliminate another playoff appearance, and one in which the Cubs nearly made it to the WS seems to be cherry picking at its finest.
Performance based on available resources is certainly a major consideration, and Hendry seemingly showed little meaningful ability to take advantage of that resource edge other than in the first couple of years in making a few trades which were Cub favorable because of the budget to absorb salary.
But to focus on playoff wins in particular, instead of playoff appearance.... The Braves under Scheurholz only won what, one WS in 15 seasons of trips to the playoffs? So by that measure would he be a failure? If a GM puts together a team which makes it to the playoffs, he has been successful. What happens from there is more crapshoot than anything else, and teams which focus on building to win in the playoffs do stupid things like signing Milton Bradley because they were not lefthanded enough the last trip to the playoffs.
-
How much money is committed to Fleita over these four years? A drop in the bucket compared to player salaries, I'm guessing. So, if the new GM--in a year or two--decides there are more capable farm directors available, seems like the GM could dump Fleita. It's not like getting stuck with Soriano or Z.
-
I wonder if Fleita can play CF?
-
I personally don't think that extending Fleita will prevent a top flight GM candidate from coming to the Cubs as Rosenbloom suggests:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/rosenblog/chi-ricketts-found-a-new-way-to-mess-up-cubs-gm-search-20110904,0,7123057.column
-
I haven't seen it mentioned here so I will:
Ricketts may have been concerned that he was going to lose Fleita to the Detroit Tigers.
-
He was. The problem is that he should have been grateful instead.
-
That Tigers story seems fishy to me. Wouldn't they have had to wait until after the season to talk to Fleita unless the Cubs gave him permission? It doesn't seem like there should've been an immediate need right now to get the extension done. Regardless, I don't think he's viewed as an elite farm director by anyone. While they may want to keep him, I don't think he's the type of guy you just can't afford to lose. It just doesn't make sense to give him the extension now.
I wonder if there's some chance that Fleita's job title/description may be in flux. Maybe Ricketts really wants him in the organization for whatever reason, but he doesn't necessarily think it needs to be in the farm director's role. Maybe the new GM will be allowed to bring in his own farm director if he wants, and Fleita will be transitioned into one of those vague special assistant GM roles like Maddux has.
-
Sullivan story on the Fleita contract including the news that the Cubs gave permission for the Tigers to talk to him.
Plenty of quotes from Ricketts too.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/chi-cubs-stress-continuity-with-fleita-extension-20110904,0,5340043.story
-
Given their performance over the past century plus, how can "continuity" be a good thing for the Cubs?
-
In the history of professional sports, there have been few if any teams more consistent than the Cubs.
-
The original Washington Senators?
-
I personally don't think that extending Fleita will prevent a top flight GM candidate from coming to the Cubs as Rosenbloom suggests:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/rosenblog/chi-ricketts-found-a-new-way-to-mess-up-cubs-gm-search-20110904,0,7123057.column
I'm curious as to who Rosenbloom thinks he is appealing to by referring to Ricketts as "Fanboy Owner." Not once, or twice, but 13 times in that column, and several other times in prior columns.
If that is the wittiest bit of writing Rosenbloom can produce, or even is so near the best of what he can do that he wants to repeat it 13 times in one column, the guy really should be looking for other work.
-
Minneapolis Star Tribune columnist Jim Souhan has written a piece on the demise of the Twins and what needs to be done to fix things. His solution
Smith's other option is advisable and possible. He should hire Wayne Krivsky.
Krivsky served as an assistant GM to Ryan when the Twins were becoming one of the most admired franchises in sports. He left to become the general manager of the Cincinnati Reds in 2006 and now works for the Mets.
Krivsky is an evaluator. He's also experienced and tough. He can stare down a powerful agent, put a player on notice and make an unpopular trade without holding his finger to the wind.
http://www.startribune.com/sports/twins/129241983.html (http://www.startribune.com/sports/twins/129241983.html)
-
Reds perspective of Krivsky http://redreporter.wikidot.com/wayne-krivsky
-
Bruce Levine:
Will Tom Ricketts extend Tim Wilken?
It’s possible that some GM candidates may initially balk at having both a minor league director and scouting director in place. However, Ricketts is staunchly supportive of the current and future value of Fleita and Wilken in the Cubs organization.
http://espn.go.com/blog/chicago/cubs/post/_/id/6338/will-ricketts-extend-scouting-directors-deal-next (http://espn.go.com/blog/chicago/cubs/post/_/id/6338/will-ricketts-extend-scouting-directors-deal-next)
-
Maybe it’s that the Cubs don’t have a new GM in place that they wanted to low-key this. But if they’ve got a food drive, a bike ride or 5K race, they announce it to the world.
Oh, you can always take issue with the way the Cubs have developed players, such as why on-base percentage isn’t stressed enough throughout the system or why Doug Davis, Dave Bush, Rodrigo Lopez and Ramon Ortiz had to be signed to fill pitching spots.
http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20110904/sports/709049833/#ixzz1X5QsuBBR (http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20110904/sports/709049833/#ixzz1X5QsuBBR)
-
Davis, Bush, Lopez and Ortiz are simply place holders. They are short-termers occupying space in the clubhouse, but not in a manner which will block anyone coming up. I don't fault the Cubs at all for those moves.
-
LOL
-
“There’s a lot of things,” he [Fleita] said. “But at the end of the day, the truth of it is, this is a match with Tom and I and the family and something I believe in. We’ve been given support to sign players internationally that I’ve never had. Timmy (scouting director Wilken) was given great support to go out and do what he did in the draft. This is an opportunity now to work for a great family, the Ricketts family. We’ve been given resources to compete, and that makes it a lot of fun for everybody involved.”
I suggested that there were 4 considerations for why the farm hasn't done better than it has: luck, Fleita, Wilken, or resources.
Not surprisingly, Fleita basically attributes it to the limited "resources".
Ricketts seems to feel the same. (Otherwise he wouldn't be extending Fleita and seemingly favoring Wilken extension as well.) Hopefully his judgment will be vindicated, and the system will soon be ripe with championship-caliber prospects.
Read more: http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20110904/sports/709049833/#ixzz1X6U1coaU (http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20110904/sports/709049833/#ixzz1X6U1coaU)
-
Ken Rosenthal doesn't like the Fleita contract extension
Oneri Fleita, the Cubs’ vice-president of player personnel, is very good at his job, but I don’t care if he’s the second coming of Branch Rickey. Cubs owner Tom Ricketts should not have awarded Fleita a four-year extension before naming a new general manager.
Never mind that Fleita reportedly had interest from the Tigers; Ricketts is now on a slippery slope. Cubs scouting director Tim Wilken logically is next in line for an extension; some rival executives consider him more invaluable to the team than Fleita. The new GM might be left to hire a few special assistants, and nothing more.
It’s the wrong way to operate, and it shows that Ricketts may be dangerously naive. Just as managers must be allowed to pick their coaches, GMs must be given authority over baseball operations — and that includes the selections of their farm and scouting directors.
Whether or not Ricketts’ move scares off GM candidates remains to be seen; the Cubs’ job is highly coveted, and a new GM might have kept Fleita, Wilken and other quality employees, anyway.
The question is one of control. Ricketts, highly regarded by Cubs executives, could develop into a fine owner. But he already has diminished the power of his next GM.
-
Rosenthal doesn't like anything Cubs.
-
That puts him on equal footing with several of our regulars here. ;)
-
Not surprisingly, Fleita basically attributes it to the limited "resources".
While nice facilities in the minors or in the Dominican Republic are just that, nice, I really can't see how having better facilities was going to have made chicken salad out of chicken sh*t the last several years.
Not having the budget to go broad and deep in the draft certainly can make a difference in procurement, but in development the added resources would seem to be much less of a factor, unless better coaches and instructional staff were hired.
Is there any reason whatsoever to believe the Cubs have made any meaningful change change in personnel by way of bringing in better people in the minors? (I know that the often shuffle bodies, but did they bring in more or better bodies? Did they perhaps upgrade their communication system between the minors and Flieta so that the minor league managers now have phones and used to use carrier pigeons?).
Ken Rosenthal doesn't like the Fleita contract extension
Oneri Fleita, the Cubs’ vice-president of player personnel, is very good at his job, but I don’t care if he’s the second coming of Branch Rickey. Cubs owner Tom Ricketts should not have awarded Fleita a four-year extension before naming a new general manager.
Never mind that Fleita reportedly had interest from the Tigers; Ricketts is now on a slippery slope. Cubs scouting director Tim Wilken logically is next in line for an extension; some rival executives consider him more invaluable to the team than Fleita. The new GM might be left to hire a few special assistants, and nothing more.
It’s the wrong way to operate, and it shows that Ricketts may be dangerously naive. Just as managers must be allowed to pick their coaches, GMs must be given authority over baseball operations — and that includes the selections of their farm and scouting directors.
Naivity should not be a concern with Rickett's and should not be the real concern here.
The concern should be that Ricketts will continue wanting to personally exercise direct control of the franchise, perhaps even wanting Flieta and Wilken to feel personally beholden to him and not to a GM who would hire or extend them, in order to encourage them to report to him instead of the GM, or at least in having them report to him, as well.
It's all Ricketts' money, and he certainly has the freedom to do this.... but the best GM candidates are likely to be somewhat reluctant to sign onto the position if they are concerned with just how complete their authority will be, and how much things will been to be regularly run by Tom Ricketts before anything is done.
-
This is from the ESPN/Bruce Levine article Cactus posted several posts back:
Like Fleita, Wilken will have a number of teams interested in his services. If the Cubs decide to make a further commitment to Wilken, the next general manager will have two vital positions in place when he takes over. There will, however, be some flexibility for Ricketts and his next general manager to make changes to those spots in the near future. Fleita’s deal (and a possible one for Wilkens) will be structured creatively with buyouts and options to benefit both the team and the executives.
That's a pretty significant point that I haven't seen discussed very much. If there are buyouts that will allow the new GM to get out of the deal and Ricketts has no problem with paying the buyout, then there may be some overreaction to the extension.
-
then there may be some overreaction to the extension.
Actually quite a bit.
There is some value in stability, even in an organization needing major changes. If the new GM comes into absolute chaos because everyone was ordered to walk the plank with Hendry, that could create a major problem itself.
If he instead knows that key people are under contract and will be around if he likes them and works well with them, AND he can still order them to walk the plank when or if he likes, it shouldn't serve to discourage any of the better GM options.
-
This is from the ESPN/Bruce Levine article Cactus posted several posts back:
That's a pretty significant point that I haven't seen discussed very much. If there are buyouts that will allow the new GM to get out of the deal and Ricketts has no problem with paying the buyout, then there may be some overreaction to the extension.
Yes. I think that sounds like the best of both worlds. Continuity if you want it, and the chance to get out if you want.
Two execs who have some pretty good reputations if you want them, and the chance to get out if you want.
Sounds really ideal to me.
Fleita, like Hendry, seems like a very gracious, easy-to-work with guy. So I don't think his personality is going to make it a problem to work with him.
Both Fleita and Wilkens seem like pretty widely respected guys. I think a lot of prospective GM's might be thrilled to have the chance to walk into the position and keep either or both of them in place, and hit the ground running. That's a win, and if the GM has somebody even better who's going to be ready right away and hit the ground running even faster, all the better. Or replace one of them in a year or two, that's great too.
Sounds really good.
-
I suspect Ricketts may have already made his selection and has to wait until the season is over to announce it.
-
Ed Lynch, with Jim Frey as assistant GM.
-
Another board is reporting that Billy Beane is a done deal. Just reporting.
-
Must be true. I'm sure whoever (whomever?) it is reporting it has a special connection that enables him/her to know this, even though no one in the business does.
-
Beane is signed through 2014.
-
Curt, do you have a link to the other board?
-
I don't think I can give you the link to the board, but this was the link that was used to base the opinion. Quite a few others are calling it rampant speculation, which it is.
http://www.suntimes.com/sports...-the-money.html
-
It's not actually Billy Beane. It's Brad Pitt. With Jonah Hill as assistant GM.
-
Beane's contract means nothing. Lew Wolff has said he'll let Beane walk if the right opportunity presents itself. It was part of the deal in talking him out of the Boston job.
That said, there is circumstantial evidence pointing towards a Beane possibility, but it's nothing like definitive.
-
If the new GM wants to replace Fleita and/or Wilken, they still would be valuable employees. Fleita's valuable for his international scouting expertise and his knowledge of the farm system, and Wilken is a well-respected evaluator of amatuer talent who is familiar with the strengths and weaknesses of the current scouting staff.
-
I don't think I can give you the link to the board, but this was the link that was used to base the opinion. Quite a few others are calling it rampant speculation, which it is.
http://www.suntimes.com/sports...-the-money.html (http://www.suntimes.com/sports...-the-money.html)
Pretty convincing. Here's what I get from that link:
CHICAGO SUN-TIMES
Error - Page Not Found
The page you have requested could not be found.
SEARCH OUR SITE:
Questions? Contact Us
Subscribe to RSS: RSS
Visit us on Facebook or Follow our Twitter Feeds: Stay Connected!
-
Try this, Ron: http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/cubs/7393986-573/rumors-of-billy-beane-for-cubs-gm-might-be-on-the-money.html
-
So Tom Ricketts joined the team he owns on its trip to San Francisco, and San Francisco is a city which is relatively close to Oakland . . .
All the evidence I need that Beane is the man.
-
Maybe it's Brian Sabean.
-
Most likely, Ricketts had an appointment in LA to finalize his deal with Colletti and he took the opportunity to spend a few days in SF and the wine country.
-
Jeez, that article is nearly a week old. I read it when it was originally published and found it silly at the time.
-
Jeff wants to make sure that we understand his over-the-top hatred is limited to Hendry, but rather applies to all things Cub. Guess the franchise will need to be shut down altogether before he is mollified.
-
Ron et al:
A blogger named John Arguello speculates that Ricketts has already decided on Beane. And, you know, bloggers, like Popes and Curt One, are infallable. So I'm sure it's a done deal. Ahem.
Key section:
"There are rumors that the Cubs met with both Beane and Forst while in SF-- and that Ricketts brought along Tim Wilken, Oneri Fleita, and Ari Kaplan, three key front office execs that the Cubs would like to keep.
The Cubs extended Oneri Fleita not too long after this meeting. It could well just be coincidence ...but Ricketts has said that he would allow the new GM to make these decisions and the fact that he signed him to a 4 year deal makes you wonder if perhaps Beane has signed off on it."
http://www.chicagonow.com/cubs-den/2011/09/the-cubs-may-be-zeroing-in-on-oakland-combo/
-
Don't recall claiming infallibility. Just passed on something I saw elsewhere by a poster who has credibility on another board. I'm really really really sorry I did it. I won't let it happen again.
-
I thought Jeff's Colletti comment was pretty funny.
-
Curt One, just in general, I see you as the Pope of BBF.
-
Not only is Beane coming to the Cubs but another blogger insider says that Beane will trade for Brian Roberts. Looking forward to reading those Orioles blogs all Winter.
-
The second cousin of an Orioles' groundskeeper told a friend of mine that Andy MacFail is coming back to the Cubs.
-
Don't recall claiming infallibility. Just passed on something I saw elsewhere by a poster who has credibility on another board. I'm really really really sorry I did it. I won't let it happen again.
Curt - Just to be clear, I didn't mean to taunt you - just the person came up with this silly conclusion.
-
The Arguello thing is explicitly speculative. He doesn't claim he's got dope that it's true.
Beane would be an interesting sign. I wonder. His "Moneyball" stuff used to make him such a talked about guy back a decade ago. I always wondered.
He certainly seemed intelligent, and that doesn't go away. At the same time, there are a lot of intelligent guys around. Being more smart than Hendry might be possible for a lot of guys.
But I also got the sense that he was not necessarily the smoothest people guy, perhaps some arrogance there. He might be a radical change from Hendry. Hendry always gave his players a ton of support and latitude, Prior is about the only guy who didn't love him. And Hendry likewise gave his managers complete latitude, once he hired them he let them do whatever they wanted. Beane had the reputation for being much less permissive with his managers. I assume some of that might carry over to other executives. For whatever reason, I always got the impression that Beane might not be the most enjoyable guy to work under.
I mention that in part because Ricketts strikes me more on the get-along nice-guy side, more up Hendry's alley. I wonder if he'd like to work with somebody like Beane? Or if soon enough Beane would be acting like he's the know-it-all and that Ricketts is dumb, and Ricketts might not like it? Of course, it could be that have a know-it-all in charge who notices and doesn't tolerate dumb stuff underneath him might be a welcome change for the organization.
Could also be a situation where Ricketts was one of the guys who a decade ago got swept up in the Moneyball, Beane-is-genius mania, and wished his favorite team could have somebody smart like that, and now he's got a chance to make that wish come true.
I admit I always wondered about whether Beane really was especially good? I thought some of his thinking was intelligent. 1. WE've got a limited scouting and procurement budget, we don't have enough scouts to do a good job on everybody or enough money to overslot as HS picks require. So we may as well focus our scouting on guys we can sign and given our small staff scout well on some guys (college) than scout badly on everybody (once HS pool added.) 2. I also thought his process of trading pitchers early (Mulder, Hudson) before they got free-agency dollars and before their arms went bad, made a lot of sense. 3. And of course I liked some statistical analysis, rather than "We liked Burnitz because he hit well with runners in scoring position last year..." stuff, even though it was a fluke stat and had no long-term substance. 4. Of course I liked his appreciation of OBP and walks and encouraging young players along those lines.
But I admit I always wondered whether all the Moneyball stuff really produced success, or if it was coincidence. Beane had some really good teams. But why?
*Jason Giambi, Eric Chavez, Miguel Tejada. Giambi and Chavez were both high draft picks, and Tejada was a Latin who worked out. Chavez was a HS pick, not one of Beane's college pick; and Tejada never walked much, contrary to Beane's values. So 2/3 of his cornerstones were in some sense anti-Beane type guys.
*Mulder, Hudson, and Zito. Mulder and Zito were very high picks, nothing cheap or "finding market inefficiencies" to draft talent in the top ten. Those two weren't genius selections, they weren't "inefficiencies" steals, they were just standard market-dollar draft choices who happened to stay healthy for 4-5 years before their arms went out. He had plenty of other high draft picks that didn't work out, so it's not as if his staff illustrated some extraordinary vision for talent scouting. For all I know, he just got randomly lucky.
Hendry hit on Lee and Aram, ten years ago, doesn't mean he's a good GM now. Himes hit on Ventura and Frank thomas in the 80's, didn't mean he was good GM for Cubs in the 90's. That Beane had some hits in the 90's wouldn't ensure that he'd be a good GM for the Cubs now. He might, but it's hard to know.
Hendry hit on Lee and Aram, and rode them to some good teams and a long run as GM. But it didn't mean he'd be able to keep making good choices. Larry Himes hit on Frank Thomas and Robin Ventura, and Jack McDowell. Beane's former Mulder/Giambi/Zito hits wouldn't guarantee the same for us.
-
But I also got the sense that he was not necessarily the smoothest people guy.... He might be a radical change from Hendry. Hendry always gave his players a ton of support and latitude, Prior is about the only guy who didn't love him.... For whatever reason, I always got the impression that Beane might not be the most enjoyable guy to work under.
Those qualities might well help the country club Cubs.
-
Hendry hit on Lee and Aram, and rode them to some good teams and a long run as GM. But it didn't mean he'd be able to keep making good choices. Larry Himes hit on Frank Thomas and Robin Ventura, and Jack McDowell. Beane's former Mulder/Giambi/Zito hits wouldn't guarantee the same for us.
ARam helped the Cubs in 2003. Lee, not so much. Both were still around and productive in 2007 and 2008, but those years did not show Hendry's strength so much as they actually showed his weakness. The Cubs won in 2007 and 2008 because ownership said spend whatever it takes. If there had been no ARam or Lee on the roster, but the order was the same, Hendry (or any remotely competent GM) could presumably have done the same and bought a couple of pennants in a weak division. But as a GM with an open checkbook, Hendry was only able to buy pennants in 2007 and 2008 by locking the team into so many ugly contracts that it left the Cubs where they are now.
So I would have to argue with the idea that Hendry got lucky with the ARam and Lee deals in 2003 and then rode them for several years. Regardless how good either of them did, there was not much "ride" in 2004, or 2005 or 2006.
-
Curt One, just in general, I see you as the Pope of BBF.
You are definitely going to get me kicked out of the Lutheran church.
-
Jes, I think Lee and Aram were the core of the team for a lot of years. The 3+4 hitters, and very good ones for most of their years with the Cubs. Without those two critical trades, I don't think the Cubs would have won nearly as many games as they did. Without those two trades, I don't think Hendry would have lasted nearly this many years. IMO.
Regardless, my point is that sometimes guys make a couple of good moves. Those two moves that Hendry made in 2003 were incredibly good and successful. But in retrospect we see that they were kind of random, not a proof that Hendry could make consistently good moves year after year after year. He must have made some good moves since, but when his best moves have been Lilly, DeRosa, and maybe Reed Johnson, it's not like he's strung together a long list of effective moves. But a guy can survive for a pretty long time when you build an effective middle-of-the-lineup with moves like Aram and Lee.
-
Jes, I think Lee and Aram were the core of the team for a lot of years.
They were. And for most of those years, the Cub teams were pretty crappy. Lee was not around in 2003, other than to help beat the Cubs in the playoffs, and ARam was only around for the last couple months of 2003. I will admit, however, that they were both around during the dynamic, memorable seasons of 2004, 2005, 2006, 2009 and 2010. Key parts of those teams.
The Cubs won in 2007 and 2008 because Hendry was given an open checkbook. It was not because of ARam and Lee. Had they not been on the Cubs, and Hendry had an open checkbook, presumably he could have won then, too.
I really don't consider myself in the Hendry bashing camp, but the reality is that very little he did which anyone would consider positive was a result of anything other than deep pockets for the Cubs. The ARam and Lee deals were both a result of the Cubs being able to absorb salary. And 2007 and 2008 were the result of a wild spending spree. But given a nice budget advantage during most of his tenure, Hendry was able to do little with it, and nothing which was not a direct result of budget advantage, and even then he spent the money in a way which tied the teams hands in 2009 and 2010 and left us in a deep hole in 2011 and beyond.
Nice guy. Tried hard. But really did not do well.
-
I'm thinking the Cubs being way out of contention, this not being a draft or trade period, and things so up in the air may possibly lead to a bit of over-thinking (not to mention over-speculating). Maybe.
-
Barry Rozner reports that Phillies Assistant GM Chuck LaMar has abruptly resigned.
-
Hmm. That is odd and interesting, I have to admit. He certainly isn't my first (or second, or third) choice.
-
Hopefully he's headed to Houston because that would not be ideal.
-
BleacherNation with a lot of speculation on Chuck LaMar and news that he has a somewhat tenuous Cubs connection. Lots of questions are asked without any answers.
http://www.bleachernation.com/2011/09/07/obsessive-cubs-gm-watch-chuck-lamar-abruptly-resigns-from-phillies-might-there-be-a-connection/
-
Wasn't it Lamar that hired Sandberg? Can't remember.
-
Chuck LaMar has the commitment to player development Ricketts was looking for, but he doesn't meet any of his other criteria. No way he is the guy.
That sounds more like a bunch of Cub fans scared TR is inevitably going to make a dumb decision and is in the process of already doing it.
-
That sounds more like a bunch of Cub fans scared TR is inevitably going to make a dumb decision and is in the process of already doing it.
Well, regardless who the owner might be, we are talking about the Cubs here.
-
A different take than what we've heard in most places on the Fleita extension:
http://www.bleachernation.com/2011/09/08/obsessive-cubs-gm-watch-at-least-one-candidate-loved-the-oneri-fleita-extension/
-
I think even Flieta's harshest critics believe he does some important things very well.
Unfortunately one of them is not managing the development of Cub prospects.
-
David Haugh on how Oneri Fleita will work with the new GM and lots of other comments
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/ct-spt-0909-haugh-cubs-chicago--20110909,0,3111027.column
-
David Haugh on how Oneri Fleita will work with the new GM and lots of other comments
Haugh: Would an ambitious leader really pass up a chance at making baseball history because he can't make every hire?
Probably not.
But that "ambitious leader" might pass it up if he was not going to be allowed to make the key hires for the organization, and it is hard to be too much more "key" to the Cubs than Director of Player Development, if the organization is going to take the route Ricketts has promised and develop talent from within.
-
David Haugh on how Oneri Fleita will work with the new GM and lots of other comments
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/ct-spt-0909-haugh-cubs-chicago--20110909,0,3111027.column
Thanks Cactus. Good article.
-
On another board, a poster said, "I don't think extending Fleita hurts the Cubs one bit in landing Epstein, Friedman or Cashman. Primarily because those guys aren't going anywhere."
-
If the ownership situation in Houston weren't up in the air, Friedman would almost assuredly be heading there. Let's hope that doesn't work out...
-
Why would Friedman be heading to Houston if ownership there were not up in the air?
-
Ricketts Should Not Fall For “The Verducci Effect”
http://paullebowitz.com.previewyoursite.com/blog/?p=2364 (http://paullebowitz.com.previewyoursite.com/blog/?p=2364)
-
Epstein is the gold standard. If there's any chance he'd take the job, I'd wait out the Red Sox season and take my chances. I suspect Byrnes would be a fallback candidate with some appeal to Ricketts, and we could certainly do worse.
-
The catch-22 is that anyone who would actually want the job isn't someone with the intelligence to get the job done.
-
If the ownership situation in Houston weren't up in the air, Friedman would almost assuredly be heading there. Let's hope that doesn't work out...
I'd still have to think he'd go to the Cubs over the Astros, even with him being from Houston. He didn't stay in Houston when more promising career opportunities came along for him on Wall Street and with Tampa. The Cubs job is a better situation than Houston's, and I think that probably wins out over any hometown considerations.
-
I probably overstated things in my first post. That said, I know a guy who is pretty well connected to the Houston organization, and based on conversations I've had with him, that's my take on the matter.
-
The catch-22 is that anyone who would actually want the job isn't someone with the intelligence to get the job done.
Silly me. I figured with Hendry fired, Jeff's tone/approach would change, at least somewhat. But if Jeff thinks that, by definition, anyone who becomes the new GM will be incompetent, that suggests that there is nothing the Cubs can do that will allow for an open mind on their future. Beats me why anyone with that perspective would not move on to some other team.
-
I remember from my military time - that "a Sailor wasn't happy unless he had something to complain about"
-
I remember from my military time - that "a Sailor wasn't happy unless he had something to complain about"
I could say that about a lot of people I work with.
-
Indians Shapiro "intrigued" by Cubs GM opening
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/chi-indians-shapiro-intrigued-by-cubs-gm-opening-20110913,0,2454066.story
-
If the Cubs hire Walt Jocketty that might lead to him bringing in Tony LaRussa and then Tony might bring in Albert Pujols.
http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/cubs/7645317-573/walt-jocketty-as-cubs-gm-could-start-whirlwind-that-brings-pujols.html (http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/cubs/7645317-573/walt-jocketty-as-cubs-gm-could-start-whirlwind-that-brings-pujols.html)
Wittenmyer says it is not as far fetched as it seems.
-
Walt Jocketty I could live with and truth be known I'd have to hold my nose a little if Pujols came over to the Cubs but Tony LaRussa would be a deal breaker-- I've loved the Cubs practically my whole life but I could never learn to stomach LaRussa and his f-ing arrogance.
-
Walt Jocketty I could live with and truth be known I'd have to hold my nose a little if Pujols came over to the Cubs but Tony LaRussa would be a deal breaker-- I've loved the Cubs practically my whole life but I could never learn to stomach LaRussa and his f-ing arrogance.
Look on the plus side - Tony LaRussa would bring in Dave Duncan.
-
If Ricketts truely wasa cubs fan before he bought the team there is no way in hell that he bring in LaRussa.
-
Oh and that would probably end my fandom. I hate the guy and all his bullshit games he plays.
-
I think Wittenmeyer is just looking for something distinctive to write about. There will probably be even more bizarre suggestions in the coming months.
-
If the Cubs hire Walt Jocketty that might lead to him bringing in Tony LaRussa and then Tony might bring in Albert Pujols.
http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/cubs/7645317-573/walt-jocketty-as-cubs-gm-could-start-whirlwind-that-brings-pujols.html (http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/cubs/7645317-573/walt-jocketty-as-cubs-gm-could-start-whirlwind-that-brings-pujols.html)
Wittenmyer says it is not as far fetched as it seems.
But it's still very very very damn farfetched.
-
If the Cubs hire Walt Jocketty that might lead to him bringing in Tony LaRussa and then Tony might bring in Albert Pujols.
Wittenmyer says it is not as far fetched as it seems.
Perhaps it would not be far fetched, but it would be mis-guided.
LaRussa is getting rather long in the tooth, particularly for a team which is rebuilding. And, for that matter, so is Pujols, considering the contract he will command.
-
If Tony LaRussa was introduced as manager of the Cubs on opening day, he would get loudly booed.
-
If Tony LaRussa was introduced as manager of the Cubs on opening day, he would get loudly booed.
It would start at the Cubs convention.
-
If the Cubs hire Walt Jocketty that might lead to him bringing in Tony LaRussa . . .
Hey Walt Jocketty as GM could also mean the return of Dusty!
-
If LaRussa were named manager, the two faced jerk would say all the right things to win over as many fans as possible to overshadow the boo crowd. But I think even HE has said that he could never manager the Cubs.
-
I remember thinking that I'd never be able to cheer for Jim Edmonds, too.
-
It's just another hack beat reporter playing Phil Rogers.
Jocketty is 60, and most likely an old school guy. Ricketts is looking for somebody who is going to be around for a while, with a combination of sabermetrics and scouting. Jocketty doesn't fit.
LaRussa is the most far fetched of all. He has been quoted that he'd never manage the Cubs, and even though I eventually accepted Edmunds I'd never accept LaRussa.
-
Be careful with the "never" word. If he won us a WS, we'd accept him. Or except him. Whichever.
But it's not going to happen, so why fret?
-
Cubs chairman Tom Ricketts has decided to keep the Cubs’ player development staff intact for 2012 while he searches for a new general manager. Fleita recently received a four-year contract extension while Wilken is under contract for next year and on Monday, was assured that the team wants him to stay.
-
Ricketts met with scouting director Tim Wilken for roughly 90 minutes on Sunday and gave him the authority to renew contracts – which are set to expire at the end of October – and make new hires within his department.
http://www.csnchicago.com/09/19/11/Wilken-Cubs-baseball-operations-get-gree/landing_insider_mooney_loud3r.html?blockID=564954&feedID=661
-
Thanks, Cactus, interesting stuff. I think that makes a lot of sense. I'd never known what the timeline was for scouting contracts. End of October makes sense (jives with the player contract year, more or less.)
I think keeping Wilken and renewing contracts makes sense. Otherwise, if all the scouts know everything is up in the air and that a new GM won't be coming in until October and that Ricketts may or may not want Wilken back, any of the good scouts would be well motivated to be talking to their friends in the industry and lining up other jobs.
If I'm the South Florida area scout, and I know some scouting directors whose Florida scouts are retiring and need somebody, and if I know I'd get a raise and be in a good organization, why not take that, rather than wonder if a GM to be named later will bring in a new scouting director to be named later who might have his own favorite scouting buddy who really likes South Florida as his preferred area? The risk that a new guy might give my area to his friend could be pretty significant. If I'm good and confident and have no doubt that they'll want to keep me, and if I don't mind if I get relocated to Colorado or the Virginias or whenever, I might be fine to stay with the Cubs. But if I had family reasons or scouting connections that were kind of tied to a particular reason and I didn't want to move, I think it would be pretty uneasy.
-
Ricketts is actually handling Hendry's removal pretty well, including having it announced in August to give other GMs the opportunity to think about it before feeling any pressure to renew their own contracts with their current teams.
-
Ricketts is actually handling Hendry's removal pretty well, including having it announced in August to give other GMs the opportunity to think about it before feeling any pressure to renew their own contracts with their current teams.
Good point that the summer decision was good in giving outsiders a chance to think about it. Also for giving Ricketts a chance to talk to people about candidates without having it be on the sneak. I thought his telling Hendry early, but still keeping him on to use his gifts in draft signings at which he is pretty good, that was wise and practical. I'm not sold that Fleita is a real value, but he seems respected in the game, so extending him with a flexible contract so that there is some stability/continuity if new GM wants but in which the GM can replace him if he wants seemed quite practical, too. And some of this Wilken stuff seems pretty practical and realistic.
It takes a long time to build through procurement/development. I can see how hiring a new regime might crumble the staff for a while, and it might take a while, years plural perhaps, to reassemble an optimal new staff after a dysfunctional interlude. Hopefully the process and next GM will introduce nothing but improved function rather than even a temporary drop into dysfunctionality.
-
I'm not sold that Fleita is a real value, but he seems respected in the game, so extending him with a flexible contract so that there is some stability/continuity if new GM wants but in which the GM can replace him if he wants seemed quite practical, too.
If Flieta is primarily responsible for the Cubs becoming a real factor in mining Latin American talent, then I am sold that he has real value.... just not in player development.
It takes a long time to build through procurement/development.
You entirely write off the W/L record for at least the firs two years.....
-
With the Red Sox collapsing, Theo Epstein is starting to get some criticism...this is the second article in two days:
http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/09/20/the-blame-theo-train-gains-steam/
-
And now they are just piling on Theo. http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=Ai7LNfCdTUn6fbsWOlLxVSwRvLYF?slug=jp-passan_10_degrees_red_sox_choke_blame_091911
-
More blaming Theo:
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/Red-Sox-Theo-Epstein-blame-GM-for-reeling-bosox-bare-staff-091911
Also notable is the last line of the article, which follows a couple paragraphs that compare Epstein to Friedman:
Winner goes to the playoffs. Loser takes over the Cubs.
-
Talk about fighting for your life...
-
Thanks for the link, brj..."Loser (between Epstein and Freidman for WC race) takes over the Cubs..."
Man, does that sound good!!!
-
Is it possible to get that authorized by the commissioner?
-
We should be so lucky.
-
Gary Hughes, special assistant to the GM since 2002, will not be back in 2012.
-
Gary Hughes was a mentor to Hendry and they were very, very close. I'm not sure anyone exemplifies the "old school" side of Jim Hendry's brain more than Hughes. It's not especially surprising that he won't be back.
I have a Gary Hughes story, that could, if you believe some pundits also involve someone in the Cubs' future. I believe it must have been during the AFL, I was sitting behind home plate, maybe in the second row - everybody in the immediate vicinity was a scout or some other baseball professional. Hughes came and sat down right in front of me (you couldn't miss Gary Hughes, if you had every seen him). A guy sitting to my right, with an empty seat between us, said hello to Hughes and asked if it was true that the Cubs had just traded Juan Cruz. I think he said something about always liking Cruz. Hughes confirmed the trade and told the guy who the Cubs were getting back. That's how I found out Cruz had been traded. They chatted for a while more.
I asked the scout who was sitting to my left who the guy talking to Hughes was. It was Billy Beane.
-
Hughes was a big Mike Quade fan.
-
Quade really ought to look at the departure of Hendry and Hughes as good news -- he'll likely get paid fairly well to do nothing next year.
Could a major league team assign their major league manager to the minors after removing him for his major league position? I know it would be a simple matter of what the contract covers, and I am unaware of any team ever doing it, but couldn't a team at least word the contract to allow it?
-
Mike Quade needs to be far, far away from the Chicago Cubs organization.
He's a world class dope.
-
Jocketty is off the list of possibilities...not that he was ever really on the list anyway:
http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/09/23/reds-and-gm-walt-jocketty-agree-to-three-year-extension/
-
That's a good thing for the Cubs.
Not that he would have been seriously considered anyway.
-
Saw Moneyball tonight...mostly pure Hollywood, but still a fun baseball movie.
Couple items i believe the movie got substantially wrong:
* the movie suggests Billy Beane introduced a new methodology to baseball...ridiculous! He changed relatively little from what Alderson introduced to MLB more than a decade previously.
* the movie suggests the Red Sox followed Beane's approach and his different way of thinking led them to the WS title within two years...also a gross oversimplification (that is to be expected from Hollywood). Alderson and/or Beane would say that sabermetrics is an arrow in the quiver, not the holy grail...many more arrows are needed to produce a WS product; of course, going back many years, some teams have been VERY unwise to not significantly leverage sabermetrics (part of the reason i'm most pleased to see Hendry go).
Couple items i believe the movie got substantially correct:
* motivation for Beane to turn down Red Sox offer (he had a young daughter in California...she's much older now)
* it was amazing that the A's won 20 straight on that payroll and after losing the guys they had lost
My best guess is that Beane is now fed up with small-market issues and ready to move on from Oakland. It's also my guess that the other top candidates, if available (e.g. Epstein, Freidman, Hahn) know about what he knows and are, also, very hard working dudes who can lead others in the organization to do what is needed.
Though it will likely take some number of years to turn the Cubs' MLB product around, my sense is that we are headed in the right direction...finally! Let's hope we get lucky and Ricketts hires the best possible guy to lead the franchise from here. If so, we're gonna have lots of fun down the road a bit!
-
By the way, one other thing i believe the movie got right was casting Brad Pitt as Billy Beane...Pitt did one helluva job!
Billy Beane has a ton of machismo and, yet, is a very charming, interesting guy! Pitt nailed his personality (at least on a superficial level).
-
One additional item i believe the movie got right: the necessity of "thinking differently" in order to get different results.
The movie is correct that the Red Sox did that in order to gain a different outcome.
Cub leadership will need to think differently in order to overcome:
* a weak MLB team,
* more day games than other teams, and
* the stigma of more than a century without a WS, which is probably the biggest hurdle (particularly since the players hear about it constantly from the media and it even impacts Cub fan behavior at games).
Seems to me that Ricketts is generally headed in the right direction with emphasis on the farm system/long term etc. Let's hope he hires the right guy to lead the baseball operation and that he keeps spending at very high levels to help execute the plan!
-
One additional item i believe the movie got right: the necessity of "thinking differently" in order to get different results.
The movie is correct that the Red Sox did that in order to gain a different outcome.
Cub leadership will need to think differently in order to overcome:
* a weak MLB team,
* more day games than other teams, and
* the stigma of more than a century without a WS, which is probably the biggest hurdle (particularly since the players hear about it constantly from the media and it even impacts Cub fan behavior at games).
Seems to me that Ricketts is generally headed in the right direction with emphasis on the farm system/long term etc. Let's hope he hires the right guy to lead the baseball operation and that he keeps spending at very high levels to help execute the plan!
-
One additional item i believe the movie got right: the necessity of "thinking differently" in order to get different results. The movie is correct that the Red Sox did that in order to gain a different outcome.
How so? What was the different thinking in Boston that gained a different outcome?
Cub leadership will need to think differently in order to overcome:
* more day games than other teams
Again, how so?
I know that for 42 years now we have heard that excuse for Cub failures, and I am still waiting to have real explanation for it.
The Cubs should BENEFIT from more day games, because they will be used to it.
Excusing Cub failings on day games would be like the Packers excusing failings on playing in the cold. No. They know they are going to play in the cold and it is if anything an advantage for them.
Columnists write that Cub players suffer from being young men pursuing Chicago nightlife after day games, staying out late and coming to the ballpark too tired to play well.
But there are TWO teams on the field, and the Cub players are going to be more used to the schedule and should therefore be less likely to be affected by it than the visiting teams who will be just as likely to have players staying out until 2AM. The Cubs have also always been able to build teams with more "stable" players who are less likely to go out and party.
Or the excuse goes that all of those day games simply wear players down and that come September they are all tuckered out and that opposing teams are fresher because they have played fewer day games. Well the difference between the number of day games and night games played by the Cubs has narrowed considerably since the late 1980's.... and the Cub tendency to die in the fall has remained just as strong, so that explanation also doesn't work.
Just what different "thinking" is required to "overcome" some imaginary disadvantage?
-
One additional item i believe the movie got right: the necessity of "thinking differently" in order to get different results.
The movie is correct that the Red Sox did that in order to gain a different outcome.
Cub leadership will need to think differently in order to overcome:
* a weak MLB team,
* more day games than other teams, and
* the stigma of more than a century without a WS, which is probably the biggest hurdle (particularly since the players hear about it constantly from the media and it even impacts Cub fan behavior at games).
Seems to me that Ricketts is generally headed in the right direction with emphasis on the farm system/long term etc. Let's hope he hires the right guy to lead the baseball operation and that he keeps spending at very high levels to help execute the plan!
While I agree that some fans believe a century without a WS win is important, the results of the 1945 World Series aren't that big of a deal to the current players.
And I've always wondered why the Cubs seemingly always believed that the correct response to all those day games was to employ as many older, slower, bigger, injury-prone players as they could.
-
Agree with Ben -- it was a really fun movie! The scouts sitting around the table should all have been wearing Cubs hats for better effect!
-
Jes, the Boston turnaround roughly coincided with their "different thinking" re running the franchise...e.g. bringing in a VERY young guy as GM (Epstein) and moving toward a VERY sabermetrics-friendly approach. Without question, there were some other items lining up, such as some good players on the team and a farm system with guys like Henley Ramirez who enabled the Beckett trade, that allowed Epstein to make some moves.
I'll defer to East on the above issue as he follows the Red Sox much more closely than I. I'm pleased Ricketts seems to be benchmarking the Red Sox, perhaps among other organizations. Let's hope the spending continues.
I'm uncertain about the true impact of day games and "legacy of losing" etc., and I certainly hope we build a team of mentally-tough dudes who are not the least bit impacted by such. Still, it's hard for me to believe the above factors don't make it a bit tougher for the Cubs to succeed. On the other hand, i believe that extra burden should be more than offset by being a large-market team that spends as a large-market team. I'll hope the new baseball leadership can prove that's true.
-
Interesting point by Cubsin that, historically, the Cubs have employed more established veterans who may wilt a bit more in the heat.
The implication is that younger guys probably could hang tougher despite the day games, which could be true. Certainly doesn't appear that Castro has been worn down one bit by the day games we play!
On the other hand, he seems to be more than a bit special in every way! Sure glad we have that kid to build around (at the nice price for at least awhile)!
-
I love how when young crappy players like Darwin Barney and Ryan Theriot turn back into pumpkins, everyone makes excuses for them by saying that they're tired or that they're worn down because they've never played this many day games or whatever.
I caught a little bit of a game last week and Len Kasper was trying to give Barney a pass for his horrible second half at the plate because he's young and he hasn't played so many games before.
It could just be that he hit a wall because he's just not that good and that he's a utility infielder that's been miscast as an every day starter due to the Cubs being so thin at second base.
I remember the same things being said about Ryan Theriot a few years ago.
It's amazing that guys that have actual Major League starter's talent don't seem to wear down. Starlin Castro has been better in the second half both of his seasons.
-
I also like how some people are just now realizing that Barney is "wearing down" when he's actually been pretty terrible since May 1. July was the only post-April month where he posted an OPS above .659, and even July was nothing to get excited about (.714).
-
Barney has lost 15 pounds since the start of the season.
-
Well, his weight loss hasn't made him any worse in August or September than he was in May or June. I could buy that excuse if he'd gradually lost effectiveness...but instead, he has just been steadily bad since April ended.
The weight loss is a red herring...he's just not a major league caliber starting second baseman.
-
Barney could weigh 80 pounds or 320, it wouldn't matter - he's not an everyday player. Hopefully whoever our new GM and field manager are, they'll recognize that.
-
With all the high-priced lardasses on this team, I'm continually surprised by the apparent dislike for Barney. While he will never be an All-Star, he's a good defensive 2B, plays hard, runs well and hits a little bit. More walks and more extra-base hits would make him a more valuable player, of course. But it's hard to argue that DeWitt or Baker would be better than Barney at 2B.
-
It's amazing that guys that have actual Major League starter's talent don't seem to wear down. Starlin Castro has been better in the second half both of his seasons.
Without commenting on the main point of the post, Castro is in the extreme elite of players, and comparing other players to him as a yardstick is absurd.
-
I don't dislike Barney. I can't speak for StrikeZone or Deeg, but I don't think they dislike him either. He has just undeniably been a well below average hitter who doesn't do anything else well enough to make up for his lack of bat. He has hit .278/.313/.358 (including a brutal .269/.307/.339 line in 452 PA since May 1), which is in Neifi territory. The only way a winning team can afford to carry someone like that is if the rest of the lineup is good enough to pick up the slack...and that obviously does not describe the Cubs.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again...the only reason anyone wants Barney as an everyday player is because it feels good to see players come out of the Cubs minor league system. If the Cubs had picked him up as a free agent or in a trade, he'd be about as popular as Blake DeWitt.
-
Jes, the Boston turnaround roughly coincided with their "different thinking" re running the franchise...e.g. bringing in a VERY young guy as GM (Epstein) and moving toward a VERY sabermetrics-friendly approach. Without question, there were some other items lining up, such as some good players on the team and a farm system with guys like Henley Ramirez who enabled the Beckett trade, that allowed Epstein to make some moves.
I'll defer to East on the above issue as he follows the Red Sox much more closely than I. I'm pleased Ricketts seems to be benchmarking the Red Sox, perhaps among other organizations. Let's hope the spending continues.
I'm uncertain about the true impact of day games and "legacy of losing" etc., and I certainly hope we build a team of mentally-tough dudes who are not the least bit impacted by such. Still, it's hard for me to believe the above factors don't make it a bit tougher for the Cubs to succeed. On the other hand, i believe that extra burden should be more than offset by being a large-market team that spends as a large-market team. I'll hope the new baseball leadership can prove that's true.
I can accept the fact that East, or someone else might have a more complete knowledge of the "better ideas," but the only thing you seem to mention about is, " bringing in a VERY young guy as GM (Epstein) and moving toward a VERY sabermetrics-friendly approach," and yet YOU were the one who wrote about Boston becoming a winning team because of "thinking differently"... and a young GM is not exactly an "idea," and at this point most teams would seem to have adopted a "sabermetrics-friendly approach."
The Red Sox may well have executed better than other teams, or may have had a nice run of luck, but neither of those constitute "thinking differently."
You were the one who mentioned needing to "think differently" and who wrote that "Red Sox did that in order to gain a different outcome." I simply thought you might be able to offer some examples of the different thinking you mentioned.... since you mentioned it.
-
Interesting point by Cubsin that, historically, the Cubs have employed more established veterans who may wilt a bit more in the heat.
I've heard that before, and even said it myself.... but is it true?
Is there anyplace to find the average age of a team's players, compared to the league? Position players/starters/overall roster/and having the age average weighted to reflect innings played?
-
I don't dislike Barney either - I just don't think he's done anything anywhere in his career, minors or majors, to indicate he can produce enough to play everyday. And I don't think it's at all difficult to argue Baker or DeWitt would be better - I think it's patently obvious they would be, mediocre as they are. And I certainly want to find out if Flaherty or Lemahieu can be better.
-
Barney is a perfectly tolerable, low cost placeholder for a team which is rebuilding.
He appears to have the right attitude and will help develop the clubhouse culture needed to win, even if he doesn't provide the on the field play required to do that.
But so long as the rest of the roster is not close to being playoff caliber, and he is cheap, and he certainly won't be blocking anyone coming up thru the farm who appears to be a real prospect, he's not at all a bad guy to have around.
Should the Cubs try to find someone better?
Sure. There are 7 position players who take the field on any day who the Cubs need to be looking to replace with someone who either is better or who has a reasonable prospect of being better in 2014 and beyond than the player the Cubs now have at that position will be by then. But as long as he is cheap and plays the game right, even if not well, until this team becomes competitive, the attention in finding better players might be better focused on some of the other positions.
-
With all the high-priced lardasses on this team, I'm continually surprised by the apparent dislike for Barney. While he will never be an All-Star, he's a good defensive 2B, plays hard, runs well and hits a little bit. More walks and more extra-base hits would make him a more valuable player, of course. But it's hard to argue that DeWitt or Baker would be better than Barney at 2B.
What "high-priced lardasses" are you talking about? Clearly, Alfonso Soriano is high-priced but no one could mistake him for a lardass. He's not great for sure but he's out-OPSing Barney by .080 this season.
Aramis Ramirez is certainly well paid but he's the Cubs best hitter and I don't think anyone would complain about his offensive production.
Carlos Pena is making pretty big money but he's producing, too.
Is Barney and his wet noodle bat to be tolerated because he "plays hard, runs well" and is a cheap but home-grown player?
There's nothing wrong with a guy like Barney on the roster but only as a backup infielder who is the 24th or 25th man on the roster. I think that everyone gets that he's a gritty little player that usually has a dirty uniform at the end of the day but the guy isn't good enough to be a starter on a team that has such trouble scoring. He just has too little power and doesn't walk enough to justify his slightly above average glove.
People can make all the excuses they want to for him -- he's worn down because he's never played a season this long, he's lost 15 pounds, he's worried about his wife and newborn baby, he's got blisters on his fingers, he's sad because REM broke up, whatever.
The dude isn't good enough to go into 2012 as the starting second baseman.
The Cubs have some players in the system that Deeg mentioned that would probably be better with the bat. There are usually non-tendered free agents every winter that are available for nothing that would be better, too.
I think it would be a mistake for the Cubs to not look to upgrade second base.
No one is saying that Barney should be beaten about the head and shoulders or released. Some of us have merely questioned the wisdom of counting on him as the starting second baseman next year. Br even pointed out his Neifi-like numbers since May and some people still want him to play every day, even in the face of the Cubs offensive struggles.
I don't understand why anyone would want Barney as the starter next year, unless the Cubs could upgrade at least two other spots in the lineup.
-
If I were the new GM, I would market Barney as a SS in a package and see what kind of interest there may be around MLB.
Barney's value is as a SS. As a SS, I think he is a regular player in the majors for some organizations.
The median team OPS (not average) at SS in the NL this season is about .670. (2B is .695). Barney's OPS is .670.
SS defense is more important than 2B defense, of course, and Barney is a legit defensive SS. Also, 2B calls for a bit more extra base punch offensively, which Barney lacks.
And, Barney has a lot of "traditional" intangible good qualities that some GMs value more than some other GMs. And, he's non-arb and inexpensive. So, I would look to package him with some other talent and see what may be available out there to upgrade. Maybe even at 2B for a club looking for a SS. Package him with Wells or Coleman or Russell or Junior Lake or Flaherty or maybe somebody better and see what's out there.
Hendry would have been very unlikely to do that, but maybe the new GM might.
You hear lot of good things about Barney from some of the baseball media and I'll bet there are some GMs out there who really like him.
-
That may be true, reb, but I'm not sure a lot of GM's are real motivated to go after guys whose upside is to be average. Might be a team who has a real hole at SS and is looking for a #9 hitter to be anti-awful.
But usually if you're trading, you're looking for a guy who you think might be above-average. At least if you're going to give up anything meaningful.
-
I still think that a lot of the Cub stuff comes down to having a poor farm system. You don't win WS when you're big production for the past 8 years has been Randy Wells and Casey Coleman for starting pitching, and other than Castro the position studs have been Barney, Theriot, Colvin, and Soto.
You've got to produce some meaningful young talent if you want to trade for some meaningfully good non-old players. (Lee for Garza; Choi for Lee; Hanley Ramirez....) You'd like to develop some of your own WS-caliber stars. Hopefully Castro is going to turn into that. But I'm not sure that Flaherty or Jackson or Lemahieu or Vitters seem on that path. (Hope I'm undervaluing them.)
I'm not sure how Boston's been doing in that area lately, which might contribute to why they're struggling right now and have a bunch of overpayed stuff.
But one of the creative things they've done is to commit a bunch of money to international procurement and draft. So despite being at the back of the drafts this decade, they've been spending every year like the Cubs only started doing this year. Not sure if it's worked for them, but that's been something pretty intentional on Epstein's part.
-
Jes, since you question the contention that the Red Sox were "thinking differently" when they hired Epstein, I'll say "thanks for the fat one" and offer a couple items:
* Red Sox had been employing a rather average-profile GM before Epstein...a baseball "lifer" who had played some professional baseball and had a relatively "old-school" approach...the Red Sox replaced their GM with THE YOUNGEST GM in the HISTORY of MLB, Theo Epstein, who was a 28-year old Yale grad (and lawyer) who had NEVER played baseball!
* Epstein had a VERY different approach from his successor as he relied HEAVILY on sabermetric principles, which the Red Sox had not done in the past, in his activities leading up to the 2003 season and thereafter.
I'd say the above classifies as "thinking differently." I'd wonder if East, who follows the Red Sox far more closely than I, would agree?
-
They also had the cajones to fire their manager after a 90+ win season and a trip to the ALCS.
-
They also had the cajones to fire their manager after a 90+ win season and a trip to the ALCS.
Who later went on to win the World Series with the Phillies.
(unless I'm confusing Charlie Manuel with someone else)
-
Jes, since you question the contention that the Red Sox were "thinking differently" when they hired Epstein, I'll say "thanks for the fat one" and offer a couple items:
* Red Sox had been employing a rather average-profile GM before Epstein...a baseball "lifer" who had played some professional baseball and had a relatively "old-school" approach...the Red Sox replaced their GM with THE YOUNGEST GM in the HISTORY of MLB, Theo Epstein, who was a 28-year old Yale grad (and lawyer) who had NEVER played baseball!
* Epstein had a VERY different approach from his successor as he relied HEAVILY on sabermetric principles, which the Red Sox had not done in the past, in his activities leading up to the 2003 season and thereafter.
I'd say the above classifies as "thinking differently." I'd wonder if East, who follows the Red Sox far more closely than I, would agree?
I didn't suggest that they had not been "thinking differently."
I simply asked for examples, and your first attempt was, well, exceedingly lame.
And hiring Theo, regardless his age or lack of playing experience, is also not exactly "thinking differently." Bill Veeck never played. Brian Cashman never played beyond high school. John Holland, GM of the Cubs for 18 years never played.
That leaves relying "relied HEAVILY on sabermetric principles" as the required "'thinking differently' in order to get different results."
And I have to disagree. You can think the same and execute better and get very different results, or you can think differently (even if an a sabermetric mode) and get the same results.
I am NOT saying I want a GM how ignores sabermetric evaluations. And I am NOT saying I want a GM who thinks the same as Hendry, but simply executes better.
All I am saying is that the idea that you need someone who "thinks differently" in order to get different results makes little sense, and that increased reliance on sabermetric evaluation is no longer thinking particularly outside of the box.
-
Who later went on to win the World Series with the Phillies.
(unless I'm confusing Charlie Manuel with someone else)
Grady Little
-
Oh, right.
I knew it was a white headed old guy.
They all look alike to me.
-
Ok, Jes, you have your opinion and i'll continue with mine: Epstein represented a HUGE difference - and thought VERY differently - for the Red Sox in 2003...and that's a KEY reason the Red Sox got VERY different results than they had int he past.
While sabermetrics certainly isn't exactly ground-breaking today, I'll continue to hope our new baseball leadership uses sabermetrics far better than predecessors in the Cub front office and that our new leadership does otherwise think differently and better than in the past.
-
The median team OPS at SS in the NL this season is about .670. (2B is .695). Barney's OPS is .670.
It seems to me that Barney's defense, baseball IQ and baserunning are at least close to being worth .025 OPS points. Blaming the Cubs' inablility to score more runs because of Barney seems unfair, when Soto and Pena are struggling to hit their weight. Soriano is lighter, but his BA is in the same area. Pena walks a lot, but walks seldom drive in runs. Soriano=Pena=Kingman.
-
Darwin Barney has a higher OPS than Tony Campana, Koyie Hill, and Tyler Colvin. He'd be a good backup for SS and 2B in 2012.
-
I like Darwin Barney a lot. But I would have no problem with moving him to a backup role if there were someone who was a genuine all-around upgrade at 2B. I don't see Blake DeWitt as that, and I am somewhat doubtful about Jeff Baker. The primary reason is defense, which continues to get short-shrift here when it comes to evaluating individual players - even though just about everyone at one point or another complains about the Cubs' miserable defense. Baker looks better than he is because he plays primarily against LH pitching (there is a 220 point difference in his OPS between RH and LF). I'm skeptical about him as a full-time 2B.
I suspect that the only way the Cubs are likely to find a better 2B for next season is from outside, which would mean spending money on a free agent (are there any attractive ones?) or spending human capital in a trade. I don't see that as a priority, but if there is some special opportunity, great. Maybe LeMahieu or Flaherty would be legitimate options, but I don't see either displacing Barney at the beginning of the year - maybe later if one or both develop.
I agree that Barney doesn't deserve the grief he gets here. If there is someone genuinely better to replace him, fine. But in my book there is not anyone who clearly is at this time and there are other places the Cubs need to improve offensively AND defensively.
-
If I were the new GM, I would market Barney as a SS in a package and see what kind of interest there may be around MLB.
Barney's value is as a SS. As a SS, I think he is a regular player in the majors for some organizations.
The median team OPS (not average) at SS in the NL this season is about .670. (2B is .695). Barney's OPS is .670.
SS defense is more important than 2B defense, of course, and Barney is a legit defensive SS. Also, 2B calls for a bit more extra base punch offensively, which Barney lacks.
If I were the new GM, I would market Barney as a SS in a package and see what kind of interest there may be around MLB.
Barney's value is as a SS. As a SS, I think he is a regular player in the majors for some organizations.
The median team OPS (not average) at SS in the NL this season is about .670. (2B is .695). Barney's OPS is .670.
SS defense is more important than 2B defense, of course, and Barney is a legit defensive SS. Also, 2B calls for a bit more extra base punch offensively, which Barney lacks.
My question for Reb is, if it's fine having a Barney at SS if you have a good offensive 2B, why isn't it fine having Barney at 2B when you have someone with Castro's offense at SS?
-
Ok, Jes, you have your opinion and i'll continue with mine: Epstein represented a HUGE difference - and thought VERY differently - for the Red Sox in 2003...and that's a KEY reason the Red Sox got VERY different results than they had int he past.
While sabermetrics certainly isn't exactly ground-breaking today, I'll continue to hope our new baseball leadership uses sabermetrics far better than predecessors in the Cub front office and that our new leadership does otherwise think differently and better than in the past.
Ben, I also hope the new Cub GM appreciates and uses sabermetric approaches and analysis more than Hendry, but other than that, which is no longer very "different" thinking from the rest of baseball, I still don't know what "different thinking" you are talking about.... nor, does it appear, do you.
You also appear not to dispute my point that "different thinking" does not always produce different results, and that different results can in fact result from the very same thinking, just with better execution.
-
This board is in a bigger slump than the Cubs. Critical of Barney and not one mention of Byrd. Barney looks like Joe DiMaggio compared to Byrd.
-
My question for Reb is, if it's fine having a Barney at SS if you have a good offensive 2B, why isn't it fine having Barney at 2B when you have someone with Castro's offense at SS?
That would be fine. Just like, as you and many others have argued, having Barney remain as an average 2B who bats back-of-the-order is fine. And the point has also been made often that when you've got below-average players, worrying about upgrading on the average players seems somewhat mixed up.
You can win championships with fine, average players batting 8th and playing supporting roles.
I think a problem with the Cubs is simply that we have so many guys who can be average in a good year, but also have the chance to be significantly below-average in an off year or if impacted by slump or injury. Barney may be .670 this year. It's possible he'll get a little better in future; it's perhaps more likely that some slump or whatever might cause him to drop below that, as has been his case for the last five months.
And we don't have enough guys with a chance to be significantly above average. Aram, Castro, and Garza are the three guys who have the capacity to be significantly above average. You can win 75 games with a lot of average, fine, supporting-cast type players. But the really good teams have players who are enough superior to average that they help pull the whole team above the average.
I think we're short on team-lifting stars, and the ones who are lifting maybe aren't great enough to lift the overall team far enough. Castro is a lifter, and he's got a chance to become a really good lifter. But overall, he's not special enough yet. If our three lifters are Castro, Aram, and Garza, other teams have as many or more stars who are as good or better. We've got Castro and Aram, St. Louis has Pujols and Holliday and Berkman this year. We've got Castro and Aram, Milwaukee has Braun and Fielder. Our stars aren't great enough to pull us away. And neither are our fine Barneys advantageous enough to pull us away from the average/fine support players that Milwaukee, St. Louis, Cinci, Atlanta, San Fran, Arizona, and Philadelphia have.
It's not Barney's fault that he's not lifting us. But somehow we need to get more players that give us advantage.
And I'm with you, Ron, I don't see how or where we're going to get an advantage player that lifts us beyond what Barney can do.
-
Two points not yet mentioned. Looking at the long history of baseball, it occurs to me there's a chance that Barney might actually improve on his rookie year stats at some point in the future.
Secondly, I haven't bashed Byrd's performance this year because he was hit in the face with a pitched ball. I think he's doing his best to play through it, even though the results haven't been very good.
-
I think the problem is that everybody looks at Barney as Theriot lite. The difference is Theriot was a second baseman playing shortstop. Barney is a shortstop playing second base. Better speed, better range, more athleticism.
He needs to take more walks, but otherwise he's a contact hitter and hits well with men on base. Good qualities for a #2 hitter.
Barney is the least of the Cubs' problems going into 2012. Two or three starting pitchers, a first and third baseman, a closer, and a new outfield are far more pressing issues.
Oh yes, a manager and a coaching staff would help too.
-
Jes, better results can result from better execution of the approach (rather than thinking differently).
And better execution can result from thinking differently (and better) about the approach.
As for Barney, put me in the camp that thinks the kid should get bigger and stronger, and may further improve. To me, he's among the least of Cub concerns, particularly with the hiring of the next head of baseball operations imminent.
If we hire the right person, Barney will either improve quite a bit or be replaced...and that will be true for the vast majority of roster spots!
-
Barney is not really a problem--he's basically close to average at his position. Obviously, Cubs have more pressing needs right now than replacing close-to-average players who are not a drag on the payroll.
My thought on trading Barney is based on Cubs playing him out of position. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to play a player out of position, period, in terms of value, when his natural position is more of a prime position. Another club who needs him at the position where he has optimal value (SS) might offer a nice return, especially in a package.
This thought is also based on the notion that Barney is not a long-term solution at 2B. I want more offense out of that position in the long term. A .670 OPS guy is not my idea of a 2B for the next five years. One more season, fine, given the other needs to address but not long term.
So, here's a guy who's a legit SS with a lot of good intangibles and he should play SS--which he will never do as a Cub. So, I say look to trade him now, if possible, as his reputation around MLB is pretty good and some may project significant improvement for him ((which personally I think is unlikely). Of course, if you don't get a good offer--keep him. But, I suspect there may be a good offer out there for a creative new Cubs GM with a plan.
-
Makes sense, Reb...it sure will be interesting to see what moves get made in the shorter term and in the longer term!
-
Jes, better results can result from better execution of the approach (rather than thinking differently).
And better execution can result from thinking differently (and better) about the approach.
Yes, better thinking and execution (and luck) can, and often does, bring a better result.
Our real difference is that you have pointed to Boston as an example of the kind of "better thinking" needed. I have not really disagreed about that, because I have (and remain) sincerely interested in knowing what "better thinking" you believe Boston might illustrate. The only example you have given is sabermetrics, despite my repeated requests, and sabermetrics to me is no longer really different. Anyone Rickets will consider is going to embrace sabermetrics. I suspect that nearly all GM's in the near future around MLB will.
-
Two points not yet mentioned. Looking at the long history of baseball, it occurs to me there's a chance that Barney might actually improve on his rookie year stats at some point in the future.
That's a crazy idea....
A rookie might get better?
-
I think the problem is that everybody looks at Barney as Theriot lite. The difference is Theriot was a second baseman playing shortstop. Barney is a shortstop playing second base. Better speed, better range, more athleticism.
Darwin Barney is not faster than Ryan Theriot.
In 2007, Theriot had 28 steals in 32 attempts.
Barney's best stolen base total in the minors was 11.
Barney is certainly a better defender than Theriot and probably a better base runner (base stealing and base running are two different things) but he most definitely isn't faster.
-
I guess one place I differ with a lot of Barney supporters is that I don't think he's a high .600s OPS guy. I think his April was a complete and total fluke brought on by the fact that he was a fringe prospect who no one expected to have a significant role in the major leagues. No one had bothered scouting him much, so he was able to surprise pitchers for a while...he was the Cubs' version of Sam Fuld. Once the league got a real look at him, though, it took them no time to figure out how to dominate him.
In my mind, we can expect more of the Barney we saw after May 1 in the future. That's a low-.600s OPS guy who just doesn't provide enough to play regularly.
I guess it doesn't matter too much if the Cubs try to aggressively replace him this offseason...I suspect we'll see a Colvin-like collapse next April and he'll be out of the regular lineup by June 1 at the latest. It may even do LeMahieu or Flaherty good to spend a couple extra months in the minors/on the major league bench. But it would be nice if the Cubs could be proactive with him and see if there is any other team that buys Barney as an everyday player this offseason. Who knows, maybe he could be the second player in a deal for a mid-rotation starter or something.
-
While neither sabermetrics nor allowing young, Ivy-League guys to have significant input into front-office decisions may be news today, 9 years ago it took VERY different thinking for Red Sox to hire 28-year old Epstein to LEAD the decision making process based on sabermetric principles (particularly after a 90+ win season).
In scouting/traditional baseball circles, that move was heresy! One can imagine what Cub "leadership" was then saying behind closed doors about the Red Sox new direction.
Don't have time for research, but my recollection is that Epstein brought in some guys (including Big Popi) following sabermetric principles and his 28-year old instincts.
-
You guys who are saying "no internal upgrade" are that sure that Flaherty or LeMaheiu couldn't provide one? Wouldn't you like to at least find out?
-
Ron mentioned this about 2B and Barney---defense. This is a factor, especially when talking about LeMahieu and Flaherty in comparison.
Seems to me that 3B is LeMahieu's natural defensive position, not 2B. A tall guy who doesn't seem that quick or with great footwork for 2B. I would not be against giving him a shot at 2B but I'm skeptical.
I've never seen Flaherty at 2B but, as I've said before, hard for me to believe that a guy that big can play 2B regularly in the major leagues.
I don't see DeWitt as a 2B regular either. He is, at best, a passable defensive 2B and, incidentally, DeWitt has looked terrible at 3B in Aramis' absence last week. Quade has been replacing him defensively late innings with LeMahieu.
Not sure who would replace Barney. Also, Barney as the 2B regular means that Cubs don't have to carry a utility SS on the 25-man roster, which opens up a spot for somebody else. Still, I'd like to see what's out there via trade with Barney coming off a decent rookie season.
-
If we could trade Barney to a team that values him as a SS and get back a better prospect, I'd be fine with that. But then, as Reb pointed out, we'd need to find and carry a utility infielder who could play SS (and I don't mean Flaherty or LeMahieu).
The new GM is going to be very busy learning about his new organization and making important decisions about Soriano, Zambrano, ARam's option and the fate of Quade and his coaches. It may be a while before upgrading 2B moves to the top of his priority list.
-
Ron, some of this is groupthink, especially when you can come up with a blogger, "expert," or columnist who agrees. Several boards I've seen Barney dismissed as the least of the Cubs' problems and posters scoffed at who press it. Maybe it has to do with what the Cubs can control; Barney is an easy target over the real disasters dooming the Cubs to many more years of frustration.
-
Ron, some of this is groupthink, especially when you can come up with a blogger, "expert," or columnist who agrees. Several boards I've seen Barney dismissed as the least of the Cubs' problems and posters scoffed at who press it. Maybe it has to do with what the Cubs can control; Barney is an easy target over the real disasters dooming the Cubs to many more years of frustration.
And those would be Alfonso Soriano and who else, exactly?
Marlon Byrd, signed thru 2012. Ryan Dempster, signed thru 2012. Carlos Zambrano, signed thru 2012. Aramis Ramirez, signed thru 2011. Carlos Pena, signed thru 2011.
I don't see doom for many more years.
I know that the groupthink from the mainstream media is that the Cubs have a ton of long-term contracts that are handcuffing them for the better part of the next decade but that's simply not the case.
The truth is that most of the long-term contracts will be off the books at the end of 2012.
-
Darwin Barney is not faster than Ryan Theriot.
In 2007, Theriot had 28 steals in 32 attempts.
Barney's best stolen base total in the minors was 11.
Barney is certainly a better defender than Theriot and probably a better base runner (base stealing and base running are two different things) but he most definitely isn't faster.
I don't know which one is faster, but looking at SB totals does not determine speed.... and if it DID, Barney would get the edge, at least based on CURRENT speed. Barney is 9-2 in steals this year and Theriot is 4-5.
-
And those would be Alfonso Soriano and who else, exactly?
Marlon Byrd, signed thru 2012. Ryan Dempster, signed thru 2012. Carlos Zambrano, signed thru 2012. Aramis Ramirez, signed thru 2011. Carlos Pena, signed thru 2011.
I don't see doom for many more years.
I know that the groupthink from the mainstream media is that the Cubs have a ton of long-term contracts that are handcuffing them for the better part of the next decade but that's simply not the case.
The truth is that most of the long-term contracts will be off the books at the end of 2012.
We normally agree on a lot, SZ, but we've differed on this topic. Z remains an albatross even though he's not around.
Our minor leagues are not developing more impact players like Castro. For a system supposedly deep in pitching, there's not much. I see a turn=around, but soon ain't attached.
-
..Marlon Byrd, signed thru 2012. Ryan Dempster, signed thru 2012. Carlos Zambrano, signed thru 2012. Aramis Ramirez, signed thru 2011. Carlos Pena, signed thru 2011.
I don't see doom for many more years. I know that the groupthink from the mainstream media is that the Cubs have a ton of long-term contracts that are handcuffing them for the better part of the next decade but that's simply not the case. The truth is that most of the long-term contracts will be off the books at the end of 2012.
Absolutely. Contracts will be coming off at a very rapid pace and the next GM will have a very free budget with which to work. Alf is the only notable current contract that will be a liability beyond next year.
I think the "doom" view, though, is that there is little confidence that we have anything much coming up through the farm. In a sense we might be something of a big-market expansion team.
Need to create some assets. We can buy some players, but having a clean budget slate and spending it all on free agents isn't necessarily an easy or efficient road to success. If Castro, Soto, Cashner, Marshall, Samardz,Colvin, and Barney all blossomed into high-level players, some of them stars, that could be different. If Vitters and Jackson and McNutt and Lemahieu or Flaherty are poised to become cornerstone long-term asset regulars, that might help, too.
But I think the concern is that not too many of those guys will be really solid regulars, and we'll be waiting for a lot of guys who were signed this year as teenagers to develop before we get good.
-
just name barney as the new GM...problem solved
-
I think the "doom" view, though, is that there is little confidence that we have anything much coming up through the farm. In a sense we might be something of a big-market expansion team.
That's one of the reasons that aside from the very high ceiling, very young players (Castro and Cashner), I would look to move most those who were on the opening day roster for prospects.
-
If I were the new GM (and I'm sure most of you are glad I'm not), one of my priorities would be to identify and hire the best minor league coaches available, with particular emphasis on pitching coaches. I believe good instruction can not only get players to the big leagues sooner, it can make them better players when they get there.
-
One aspect of the Red Sox winning in 2004 that gets overlooked is the acquisition of a player no one else in America wanted -- Kevin Millar.
The Marlins had him traded to a club in Japan and when the Red Sox heard that, they stepped in, worked out a deal for him and next thing you know, "Cowboy Up" is on t-shirts and Millar is a folk hero.
Non-tendered free agents and guys like Millar of 2004, whose club no longer wanted him, could go a long way to correcting the problems of the Cubs for 2012.
Also, turning the Cubs around is a process that doesn't need to happen overnight but it doesn't necessarily need to take years and years, either.
When I hear/see/read about how the Cubs should pass on a big free agent like Albert Pujols or Prince Fielder because they're "more than one player away," it just annoys the hell out of me.
I'm pretty sure that those guys are looking for more than a one-year deal.
Finally, they're going to add another wild card team next year, according to reports, and that means that a team could potentially make the playoffs with the fifth-best record in the National League.
And that is certainly attainable in 2013 if not in 2012.
-
When I hear/see/read about how the Cubs should pass on a big free agent like Albert Pujols or Prince Fielder because they're "more than one player away," it just annoys the hell out of me.
See? I told you we agreed more than we disagreed.
-
What do you think about the Cubs taking a run at Ellsbury? He's been unreal this year.
-
What do you think about the Cubs taking a run at Ellsbury? He's been unreal this year.
Acquiring players immediately after career years, which is the case with Ellsbury, generally results in seriously overpaying for what you end up getting. The fact that Ellsbury is only now 28 certainly allows the possibility that he may actually still get better, or may sustain his current level for a while, but acquiring players who are at their peak generally only makes sense for teams which are also at their peak, or for which that player could be the key to getting the team there.
The Cubs simply are not that team. That means that if the Cubs seek Ellsbury, they would compete with other teams for whom Ellsbury would likely have greater value (such as a team which was at its peak, or who saw itself as being just a player of Ellsbury's caliber to put them over the top), and that would likely mean overpaying for the value Ellsbury would provide the Cubs.
One aspect of the Red Sox winning in 2004 that gets overlooked is the acquisition of a player no one else in America wanted -- Kevin Millar.
The Marlins had him traded to a club in Japan and when the Red Sox heard that, they stepped in, worked out a deal for him and next thing you know, "Cowboy Up" is on t-shirts and Millar is a folk hero.
Non-tendered free agents and guys like Millar of 2004, whose club no longer wanted him, could go a long way to correcting the problems of the Cubs for 2012.
And you would identify those magical Kevin Millar's..... how, exactly?
Also, turning the Cubs around is a process that doesn't need to happen overnight but it doesn't necessarily need to take years and years, either.
That is clearly true. Hendry turned the team around from terrible in 2006 to the playoffs in 2007 and the best team in the league in 2008.
I hear he might be available to take over as GM and try the same thing again now.
And he could probably have the same success if Ricket's family allowed him to go on a comparable spending spree, inflating the 20012 budget by as much (on a percentage basis) over the 2011 budget, and over the average budget in the division, as the Trib allowed in 2006-2007.... and if the Rickets and Cub fans were satisfied with the prospect of another out year aftermath of those contracts such as we have had from 2009 thru the present.
Quick fixes are like sugar highs. And the aftermath is also about the same as the crash after the sugar high has worn off.
This team needs to rebuild to allow sustained success.
When I hear/see/read about how the Cubs should pass on a big free agent like Albert Pujols or Prince Fielder because they're "more than one player away," it just annoys the hell out of me. I'm pretty sure that those guys are looking for more than a one-year deal.
Quite true. Just like Soriano did. And we have seen how well that contract worked out.
Almost any time a major star in his prime signs a FA contract, the team signing him to it comes to regret the deal after no more than 2 years, and it has been that way pretty much since the beginning of free agency. There is no reason to believe that it would be any different if the Cubs signed either Pujols or Fielder.
If, or when, the Cubs get in the position that such a signing would put them over the top, go for it. But that is not now. All that such a signing could do now is to make a terrible team into a team which could actually compete with a bit of luck, and each year after 2012 the contract would become an increasingly large drain to the organization.
That approach simply makes no sense.
-
Bleacher Nation's Billy Beane profile
http://www.bleachernation.com/2011/09/27/meet-the-gm-candidates-cheat-sheet-billy-beane/
-
Thanks for the GM articles, Cactus.
Any of Epstein, Beane, Friedman would be a HUGE improvment, in my opinion...tho' none may be willing to move.
Hahn sounds like another solid guy to me.
My hope is that Ricketts invests whatever money otherwise earmarked for FAs in the future and is willling to spend it to get the BEST POSSIBLE executive to lead the franchise! If we get someone great, that person will very likely be worth 5X (if not 10X) more than whoever will be the best FA next year and/or the year after!
-
ben, the problem is knowing whether someone is going to "be great."
Even after to get a GM, if you are trying to rebuild a franchise, which is what the Cubs need, you are not going to be able to tell jack about them for the first couple of years, at least not based on the W/L record.
-
I think the bloom is off the rose with Beane. He can't escape blame for Oakland's dismal record the last few years. He's a bright guy and we could do worse, but I'd much, much rather have Epstein, Friedman or even Cashman.
-
If you look at Beane's entry in wikipedia, you have to wonder if part of the reason the A's have not done too well of late is that he has lost focus and is not paying a great deal of attention to them any longer, regardless what his position might be.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Beane
On January 4, 2007, the software company NetSuite named Beane to its board of directors. NetSuite co-founder Evan Goldberg cited Beane's ability to combine facts with instinct as an important factor in the decision to involve him in the company.[7]
When the A's ownership group agreed to purchase the reincarnation of the San Jose Earthquakes of Major League Soccer, Beane, who is an avid supporter of Tottenham Hotspur of the English Premier League, began developing a system for objectively analyzing soccer players. He has agreed to help the Earthquakes front office develop a method for building a cost-effective team, as the salary cap in MLS is even more restrictive than the A's small-market status in Major League Baseball.[8]
Beane served as a consultant, and also appears in the video game MLB Front Office Manager.
He has been married twice; he has a daughter from his first marriage and twins from his current marriage.[5]
-
Ken Rosenthal - Theo Epstein to the Cubs now unlikely
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/theo-epstein-unlikely-to-leave-boston-red-sox-for-chicago-cubs-in-wake-of-collapse-092711 (http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/theo-epstein-unlikely-to-leave-boston-red-sox-for-chicago-cubs-in-wake-of-collapse-092711)
-
Sounds mostly like Rosenthal speculation. I did think this was interesting, though:
The Sox, though, would be far more likely to part with manager Terry Francona, either by declining his option for 2012 or, in an effort not to look too callous, by offering him a new deal, but one that he likely would refuse.
Francona wouldn't be the worst manager the Cubs could hire.
-
Sounds mostly like Rosenthal speculation.
Rosenthal does do a good job of being on both sides at the same time.
-
Another guy who could be interesting and would also represent a significant upgrade is Larry Beinfest...with Marlins down this year and potentially having to deal with Ozzie's nonsense in the future, he may be ready to move on.
-
I think the bloom is off the rose with Beane. He can't escape blame for Oakland's dismal record the last few years. He's a bright guy and we could do worse, but I'd much, much rather have Epstein, Friedman or even Cashman.
Based on what I've read, along with what I think is common sense, I'll be very surprised if any of those four become the Cubs' GM.
-
Rosenthal does do a good job of being on both sides at the same time.
A few examples....
1st: Well, we have our first casualty of the Red Sox’s collapse. Naturally, it’s the Cubs. If ever the Cubs had a chance to hire Theo Epstein as general manager, that chance probably is gone..... Then again, this could go the other way, too.
2nd: The Red Sox, if they miss the postseason for the second straight year, could make a series of impulsive moves.... Boston is an emotional market. Someone — maybe a few someones — would be held culpable if the Red Sox blow it. But the Sox under Epstein and owner John Henry have taken great pride in removing emotion from their decisions.
Reading his column is like watching a tennis match.
-
According to MLB sources, Andrew Friedman, the brilliant architect of the Rays' homegrown success, seems more in play in the Cubs' ongoing search for a general manager than he did a month ago. He and manager Joe Maddon feel like they're hitting their heads against a wall in trying to help owner Stuart Sternberg grow baseball interest in the football-crazed Tampa Bay area.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/columnists/ct-spt-0928-rogers-cubs-white-sox-chicago--20110928,0,4953916.column (http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/columnists/ct-spt-0928-rogers-cubs-white-sox-chicago--20110928,0,4953916.column)
-
Is that implying that Joe Maddon could be in play too? A Friedman and Maddon tandem would be about as good as it gets.
-
br and I agree on something!
-
From the bleachernation link on Billy Beane. http://www.bleachernation.com/2011/09/27/meet-the-gm-candidates-cheat-sheet-billy-beane/
Desirability: High. With Beane’s background and personality, it’s impossible to see him not being an upgrade in Chicago. While he’s running the show in a smaller market, he is always the subject of intense scrutiny, and has been since the 2003 publication of ‘Moneyball’ (the book). Rather than wilt under that pressure, he’s flourished.... The A’s have been terrible for a number of years, and, given Beane’s claim to fame, it’s hardly fair that he could use ownership’s refusal to spend big bucks as a shield. His team has not had a winning record in five years.
I don't know how good Beane is as a GM.... but I have a feeling that he could sell sh*t sandwiches for $20 per.... so long as he had sportswriters to sell to.
-
Well, Jes, according to Jim Bowden, MLB Radio, we're likely going to find out lots more about Beane in October.
Bowden believes Beane is the front runner for the open Cub leadership role.
One thing that Beane (and, perhaps, Cub fans) shouldn't feel great about following the movie, if he does become the new Cub leader: when Beane was doing deals in the movie, he was portrayed as very disengenuous, "playing" everyone who would be "played," certainly including other GMs (some of whom may not forget how those deal conversations were portrayed in the movie). I can't imagine the movie will make it easier for Billy Beane to do deals in the future.
-
right, im sure rival gm's will base their opinion of beane based on a movie, as opposed to their actual years of personal history with the guy...
-
Am I the only one who thinks the Beane mystique far, far outweighs the actual results?
Choosing Beane over Friedman - if both were theoretically options - would be a similar mistake to hiring Pinella when Girardi wanted the job.
-
No, I'm with you, Deeg.
-
I'm not really big on Beane either. He wouldn't be anywhere close to the worst choice...but Friedman, Epstein, and Cashman are all clearly better. And I think I'd rather take my chances with Cherington or Hahn and probably a couple other assistants/non-GMs.
Beane is kind of similar to Mark Shapiro in that I wouldn't really be upset if the Cubs hired him because I think he could adequately do the job. But I would be a little disappointed at the same time given the other GMs who could be available. But it wouldn't be anywhere close to the disgust I felt if they brought in someone like Coletti.
-
I just accidentally removed somebody's post...I apologize. Please re-post.
-
According to Jon Heyman of SI.com, the Cubs reached out to Rays executive vice president Andrew Friedman "at some point."
Cubs chairman Tom Ricketts is aiming high in his search for the team's next general manager, with prominent names like Friedman, Brian Cashman, Theo Epstein and Billy Beane reportedly at the top of his A-list. It's not clear when the Cubs put out feelers to Friedman, but it probably won't matter, as Heyman hears most believe he'll stay with the Rays.
I don't know why people think Friedman would be so likely to stay if the Cubs came calling. I mean it's Tampa. No budget. They play in a dumpy stadium. They have to compete against the Yankees and Red Sox.
Maybe Friedman would view the Rays job as being more secure. The expectations there aren't nearly as high as they would be for the Cubs, and he can probably count on being the Rays GM for as long as he wants.
But other than that, why would he want to stay there instead of go to a big market team with national exposure like the Cubs?
-
Am I the only one who thinks the Beane mystique far, far outweighs the actual results?
Choosing Beane over Friedman - if both were theoretically options - would be a similar mistake to hiring Pinella when Girardi wanted the job.
I know there was a great deal of speculation that Girardi might want to manage the Cubs, but I don't recall seeing any confirmation Girardi was actually interested.
As to Beane, based on very little real information I do agree that I'd prefer Friedman. But as I said earlier, I'd be very surprised if Friedman, Beane, Epstein or Cashman are real options. But what do I know?
-
Until Mike Quade took over this year, the Cubs had name managers like Don Baylor, Dusty Baker, and Lou Piniella. Part of their reasoning for taking the job had to be the tremendous acclaim they would achieve if the Cubs were to win a World Series. The same logic should apply to a potential new General Manager.
-
I don't know why people think Friedman would be so likely to stay if the Cubs came calling. I mean it's Tampa.
Actually, it's St. Pete.
I just accidentally removed somebody's post...I apologize. Please re-post.
That was mine, you jerk!
Now I don't remember what I posted.
Actually, it was...
Choosing Beane over Friedman - if both were theoretically options - would be a similar mistake to hiring Pinella when Girardi wanted the job.
I agree, if that is the choice but we may never know if that is the actual choice.
-
Sorry, SZ. I had knee replacement surgery and I am dopey on drugs. Occasionally I doze at the keyboard. When I awoke this time, my cursor was over "Remove post" and it wouldn't let me back out. Sorry.
-
Sorry, SZ. I had knee replacement surgery and I am dopey on drugs.
Finally an excuse.
-
Assuming we "hang on" and lose tonight (trailing 9-2 in the 9th...pretty safe bet), our new leadership will draft #6 since the Royals lost in Minny, 1-0. Should be a real good amateur at that slot...let's hope he becomes a very good MLB player over time!
-
Sorry, SZ. I had knee replacement surgery and I am dopey on drugs. Occasionally I doze at the keyboard. When I awoke this time, my cursor was over "Remove post" and it wouldn't let me back out. Sorry.
No worries, Curt. Hope your surgery and recovery goes well. My aunt had hers and was up and around in hardly any time at all.
-
This is day 8. Everything is fine except some calf swelling. I'm moving around a lot and taking enough warfarin to kill a dozen rats, but blood clots are always a fear.
-
I know there was a great deal of speculation that Girardi might want to manage the Cubs, but I don't recall seeing any confirmation Girardi was actually interested.
Why would he have interviewed for it if he wasn't interested?
-
Boston press are screaming for Theo and Tito to be fired. They should be fired. And Ricketts should have his G5 engines running on the tarmac at Boston's Logan airport!
-
Why would he have interviewed for it if he wasn't interested?
Wow. I had completely forgotten that Girardi actually interviewed. My mistake. I had the last hiring process in mind I guess. Brain fart.
-
While I suspect that Girardi would be interested, but is bright enough not to let that be known so long as he is in NY, I believe that at the time Girardi interviewed he was out of work.
-
according to Sullivan in the Trib "Ricketts believes a one-year turnaround is realistic,pointing to the remarkable successbof the Diamondbacks...Cubs baseball operations department will have around the same budget,though how much will go into the payroll remains to be seen...expect a modified youth movement,with kids such as Tony Campana and Brett Jackson getting a chance to become regulars...quoting Ricketts "One thing you've seen in baseball over the last few years is turnarounds can happen pretty quickly...So I don't thiink it's meaningful to describe a year as rebuilding or reloading or any of that...the fact is,if you get the right players on the team and they all stay healthy and they play hard, a team can go from 70 wins to 90 wins.It happens pretty frequently.Look at the Cubs a few years ago (in 2007)"... ???
-
Ricketts simply can not be stupid enough to believe the things he is saying.
-
according to Sullivan in the Trib "Ricketts believes a one-year turnaround is realistic"
I think Ricketts is probably right...not that I really expect a turnaround, but if they get a good GM and make a few smart moves, the NL Central is not that tough a division. Plus, I don't think they were quite as bad this year as their overall record shows, so there's not as far to go as it seems. They were essentially a .500 team in the second half.
They have a lot of money to spend. They will probably bring in enough depth next year so they don't basically forfeit 40% of their games like they did when Wells and Cashner were out, which will also save them from having a dead bullpen in most of their other games. They'll probably have a manager who is not in over his head. Just getting a new manager and anti-awful production from the back end of the rotation in the first half of the season will get them most of the way back to .500.
-
When it comes to MLB, one NEVER knows!
However, NL Central will likely be a VERY tough nut to crack next year with:
* Cards getting Wainright back
* Brewers being pretty solid, even if they lose Prince
* Cincy likely much better (assuming fewer injuries to starters)
My hope is that we don't mortgage ANYTHING to compete more effectively next year....just keep BUILDING!
We've waited this long...
-
That might suggest that Ricketts will favor a long-term big-dollar deal for Aram. If you're hoping to win 90 games next year and go worst to first, you're probably not likely to do that by letting your best hitter go, even if he might be horrific defensively by the last year of the extension. Going from Aram to Jeff Baker or DJ Lemahieu at 3B is not the kind of move you make if you're trying to win 90 in 2012.
-
I don't pretend to be as saavy as some here with regards to where changes are to be made with the on-the-field talent but I would hold out the hope that there is a player whose offensive/defensive are better than A-Ram and can be had w/o selling the farm in the bargain...just sayin'
-
I don't pretend to be as saavy as some here with regards to where changes are to be made with the on-the-field talent but I would hold out the hope that there is a player whose offensive/defensive are better than A-Ram and can be had w/o selling the farm in the bargain...just sayin'
There isn't anyone in the same ballpark as Aramis Ramirez offensively that is on the market to my knowledge.
He is far and away the best hitter at that position and the Cubs would need to upgrade probably three other positions in order to replace his production.
-
If Aram goes, it's guaranteed that Soriano stays. Probably Pena as well.
-
If Aram goes, it's guaranteed that Soriano stays. Probably Pena as well.
Which also guarantees another horrible finish next season.
Both of those guys will be older, their bat speed will continue to decline and in Soriano's case, his speed and defense will get even worse (if you can imagine that).
-
I think there is virtually no chance Soriano is back, and I don't think the Ramirez decision has any impact on Soriano.
-
Soriano has a bad rap. Sure, his wheels are gone and he's a lousy defender. But he had nearly 90 rbi's from the 6 hole. That's more than Pena had hitting cleanup. If Aram walks, where does the Cubs' power come from? And who will eat the $50 million or so left on Sori's contract?
Like it or not, he's back. Let's make the best of it.
-
All RBIs tell us is that Soriano had runners on in front of him. Next to pitcher W/L record, I don't know if there's a stat that tells us less about a player's ability.
Soriano finished with a .289 OBP. That is brutal. I know some people argued this his ability to slug offset that OBP earlier in the year...but that was when his SLG was in the mid-.500s. A SLG of .469 does not offset the OBP. Soriano is also a terrible defender and baserunner. He's going to continue to decline. The Cubs could go out on the free agent market and find half a dozen guys who sign for less than $2 million this offseason who would provide at least as much value as him.
Soriano should be gone, and he likely will be.
-
If we can get Theo and Francona tomorrow, do it. Strike while the Boston seat is hot. We may never get another chance like this one. However, I suspect Ricketts may favor other candidates because he plans to try and win on the cheap - something Beane and Friedman can make a case they've done before.
-
As I see it, between Zambrano and Soriano, we can afford to eat only one salary. Right now that appears to be Z, but if we can trade him to, say, Miami, that actually might allow us the necessary breathing room to eat Soriano's salary. We might be able to dump both without eating more than the equal to one of their salaries, but I just don't see us eating both and eating both salaries.
-
And if the Cubs do that, or make any efforts to seriously turn the team around in 2012, it will be sacrificing longterm for the sake of the short term.
But, what the heck, that approach worked so well going from 2006 to 2007, why not try it again?
This is why I have said the team needs to openly and publicly announce a rebuilding plan where the team will pay no attention at all to the W/L record for at least the first two years. It is routinely going to be tempting to any team with financial resources to dip into the FA market or to make trades of contracts instead of talent in order to make a quick improvement. But such improvements are virtually certain to be very short term, and to cause even greater problems in later years.... like we have been seeing for a while now.
Eliminate the temptation.
Write off 2012 and 2013. It should have been done before this season started. But it wasn't, meaning a serious rebuilding effort would still leave the team two years away from being at a point where it even might make any sense to start focusing on the team's record. If it had been done at the end of the 2006 season, the Cubs would be loaded with productive talent now, and have several promising years ahead of us.... instead of being where the team now is.
-
As I see it, between Zambrano and Soriano, we can afford to eat only one salary. Right now that appears to be Z, but if we can trade him to, say, Miami, that actually might allow us the necessary breathing room to eat Soriano's salary. We might be able to dump both without eating more than the equal to one of their salaries, but I just don't see us eating both and eating both salaries.
Although I suspect too much is being made of the Zambrano/Guillen connection, it would surely be a good thing if the Cubs could trade Zambrano without having to eat too much of his salary. It would also be nice to get something decent in return, but beggars can't be choosers. Although I've liked Soriano better than most here over the years, I agree that it would be best if the Cubs could find a way to trade him, even if it means eating the lion's share of the remaining commitment to him.
But if both Soriano and Ramirez are gone, the Cubs will have no serious HR threats at all, other than Pena, if he happens to return. Given that the Cubs also lack the ability to excel at small ball, this season's weak offense is likely to become significantly worse. So anyone wanting Soriano gone just needs to realize that on this team he's one of the most serious offensive threats left - even given his considerable limitations and declining skills. Unless the new GM pulls some rabbits out of his hat, discussion here may be focused on the 2013 draft position by sometime in May.
-
I don't really understand why they can't eat both salaries if the new GM decides it's the best move. They're pure sunk costs--they have no use to the Cubs anymore, and the Cubs gain nothing with them sticking around. Both will be eaten eventually...does anyone really see Zambrano here next year or Soriano here in 2014? There's about a 0.002% chance either will ever regain significant trade value (and about a 90% chance both will continue to decline), so it's not like keeping them around this year will allow them to get a better prospect later.
If the team is better next year with Soriano not on the team, bite the bullet now and move on.
-
I don't think that the Cubs would necessarily have to "eat" both the contracts of Carlos Zambrano and Alfonso Soriano if the new GM can find a willing trade partner with a contract (or contracts) that matches up well.
There's been talk here by someone (craig or Deeg maybe?) about Barry Zito. Chone Figgins is another bad contract that's been mentioned several times. There are other opportunities out there like Michael Young, perhaps.
It will be difficult to move both but not impossible.
It all depends on how much money Tom Ricketts is willing to eat and how soon. If they can trade for a contract that matches the total money but has it spread over a year or two more than Soriano, that is probably something they can do.
If it's a two-for-one situation like the Eric Karros and Mark Grudzielanek for Todd Hundley, they'll probably do that, too, and hope it works out with similar excellent results.
-
On the subject of the next manager, I hope the Red Sox fire Terry Francona and the Cubs hire him, just so we can see that clip of him, when he played for the Cubs, crawling towards the plate at the Astrodome.
That's one of the most hilarious baseball moments I've ever seen and it doesn't get played nearly enough.
Seriously, though, if Francona were hired, you would have to think that Ryne Sandberg would take the bench coach job (if offered) because Francona is a former teammate and he's won two World Series titles, as opposed to Mike Quade, who was just a guy that the players liked.
-
I don't really understand why they can't eat both salaries if the new GM decides it's the best move. They're pure sunk costs--they have no use to the Cubs anymore, and the Cubs gain nothing with them sticking around. Both will be eaten eventually...does anyone really see Zambrano here next year or Soriano here in 2014? There's about a 0.002% chance either will ever regain significant trade value (and about a 90% chance both will continue to decline), so it's not like keeping them around this year will allow them to get a better prospect later.
If the team is better next year with Soriano not on the team, bite the bullet now and move on.
I don't know, br, but it seems to me that the Ricketts family didn't get rich throwing money away. Most of the moves the past 15 months seem to indicate belt tightening: Pena's contract and late signing; failure to pursue any FA's of note; Q's hiring over a more name candidate; toleration of Z; stuff like that. The only exception is the spending on draft picks, where he said he was putting his money.
So, it's not MY money or YOUR money, but in a rebuilding process, I would think they would want to get SOMETHING for my money.
-
Of course, they would love to dump them both for guys like Zito, but I don't like the odds.
-
I don't know, br, but it seems to me that the Ricketts family didn't get rich throwing money away. Most of the moves the past 15 months seem to indicate belt tightening: Pena's contract and late signing; failure to pursue any FA's of note; Q's hiring over a more name candidate; toleration of Z; stuff like that. The only exception is the spending on draft picks, where he said he was putting his money.
So, it's not MY money or YOUR money, but in a rebuilding process, I would think they would want to get SOMETHING for my money.
Curt, you might wanna have your nurse check your pain meds.
Carlos Pena signed during the Winter Meetings in December 2010.
-
I need MORE! I had it my head that a lot of candidates were slip sliding away and Pena was one of the only ones left. But it's probably the meds. :)
-
Even with his makeup problems, Z is one of the Cubs five best starting pitchers. The Cubs are going to pay him a ton of money for 2012 whether he stays or not. So I'd be inclined to keep him and give him one last chance to redeem himself. That way, if he keeps it together for a whole season, the Cubs would be well-placed to re-sign him for 2013 (to a one-year deal for less money). If he implodes again, the damage to his current market value couldn't be much, unless Ozzie wants him reaaaalll bad.
-
You can always hope for an April no-no and **** somebody not real bright.
-
I've been one of the biggest (if not the biggest) Zambrano supporters around here for a long time...and I think the damage is too much this time. Everyone from the team who has commented has pretty much said that they don't know how he can come back. I don't think there's any kissing and making up this time.
And really, I don't see the point. It's not like he's going to be a long term solution this time, or build up any real trade value. He may be one of the Cubs' top 5 pitchers...but that was also true for Casey Coleman and Rodrigo Lopez the last month of the season. For the first time, Zambrano wasn't really a good (or even average) pitcher--he was a back end starter. His strikeout rate is lower than ever. His home run rate is higher than ever. His fastball velocity barely **** 90 mph this year (90.2 mph, lowest of his career). He's easily replaceable now...the can get the same from whoever turns out to be this year's Jon Garland or Aaron Harang, who is available for 1 year, $5 million late in the offseason.
I just don't think it's worth the effort this time.
-
Even with his makeup problems, Z is one of the Cubs five best starting pitchers. The Cubs are going to pay him a ton of money for 2012 whether he stays or not. So I'd be inclined to keep him and give him one last chance to redeem himself. That way, if he keeps it together for a whole season, the Cubs would be well-placed to re-sign him for 2013 (to a one-year deal for less money). If he implodes again, the damage to his current market value couldn't be much, unless Ozzie wants him reaaaalll bad.
I'm not sure how many last chances someone should get, but I also have never really grasped just what it was that he did which was so terrible this season.
After being ejected from a game in which he was stinking up the joint, and ordered by the umpire to leave not only the field, but also the dugout, he cleared out his locker, left the clubhouse and said (apparently to no one in particular and to NO one in Cub management and apparently not even within earshot of anyone other than couple of clubhouse attendants employed by the Braves) that he was quitting baseball.
Now what part of that really merits being removed from the team and put on the restricted list?
Once he is ejected, it would seem pretty routine to leave the clubhouse and the ballpark. If a player wants to clean out his locker at any time, he would seem free to do so. And what he says when he is essentially talking to himself when he is pissed of at his performance really has no significance on any level.
It would be easy to attribute the over-reaction by the Cubs as one last mistake by Hendry, but since it happened after Hendry had been told he was fired, but before the firing was announced, and since the decision to put Zambrano on the restricted list involved a multi-million dollar contract.... I have to believe that Ricketts was very directly involved in the decision.
And it was a foolish one on multiple levels.
-
Except it's pretty far from routine to leave the clubhouse, and especially the ballpark, under those circumstances...
-
It would be great to move Z in something more than just a pure salary dump, and I understand that he and Ozzie have a connection, but why would the Marlins be more apt to give us some kind of value in return for Z than another team? They have a VERY tight budget, and being friends with a manager doesn't magically increase payroll...
-
I would see it as they pick up half his salary and give us a prospect, even a weak one.
-
Yeah, I would assume any Zambrano trade to the Marlins (or any team) would involve the Cubs picking up the vast majority of his contract. They'd eat enough that his pay wouldn't be an issue for anyone.
Although, the Marlins payroll is going to increase (http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/09/28/2430157/payroll-will-rise-but-not-astronomically.html):
The Marlins are expected to spend anywhere from $70 million to $80 million, though that figure could go higher if owner Jeffrey Loria authorizes a greater infusion.
-
Except it's pretty far from routine to leave the clubhouse, and especially the ballpark, under those circumstances...
I don't know whether it is routine or far from routine, but unless the Cubs had an express policy against it, or an express policy requiring attendance at regular post-game meetings to review the performance of the game (something which would likely make sense, but which I don't believe any team does), then the fact that he left would seem to make no difference.
-
I'd be surprised if anybody was willing to pay Z more than $2 for the season. That might be iffy. To pay a fringe 5th/6th starter with control problems and fringy velocity that much is one thing, but when he's got personality problems besides, which lead to availability problems as well, that makes it less sensible to pay that much. If the seller is expecting to get a prospect besides, that makes it even less sensible.
-
I'd be surprised if anybody was willing to pay Z more than $2 for the season. That might be iffy. To pay a fringe 5th/6th starter with control problems and fringy velocity that much is one thing, but when he's got personality problems besides, which lead to availability problems as well, that makes it less sensible to pay that much. If the seller is expecting to get a prospect besides, that makes it even less sensible.
You appear to be someone who would surprise quite easily if in fact you would be surprised any team would be willing to pay Zambrano any more than $2M for 2013.
-
I'd be surprised if anybody was willing to pay Z more than $2 for the season. That might be iffy. To pay a fringe 5th/6th starter with control problems and fringy velocity that much is one thing, but when he's got personality problems besides, which lead to availability problems as well, that makes it less sensible to pay that much. If the seller is expecting to get a prospect besides, that makes it even less sensible.
Craig, most of baseball was shocked at Milton Bradley's Cub contract. All you need is one sucker, one egomaniac like Ozzie, convinced he can control the monster, and ... magic. I still doubt we can unload him.
-
Z is still a pretty good pitcher. But he isn't the kind of player you want around while you're trying to teach your youngsters how to be professional and stay cool in tough situations.
-
But ARam is. So is Soriano.
I'm not sure you really want players to "stay cool" all of the time.
Don't get me wrong. At this point Zambrano needs to go, but much of the reason for that is the absurd over-reaction by the Cubs in August. Fine his a** for his conduct on the field in the game, and certainly the Cubs needed to follow up on what his intent was after cleaning out his locker and saying something (apparently to himself, and certainly to no one in Cub management or to the media) that he was going to give up baseball, but putting him on the restricted list only made it more difficult to move him, and was entirely unwarranted.
-
One has to wonder if there were actions by Zambrano that us the fan never new about. Perhaps there was more to Zambranos patterns of behavior that we don't know about. As much as I was glad to see Hendry go , I will gve him the benefit of doubt on the Z matter.
-
Agree with the deeg in that Ricketts should be jumping all over Epstein and Francona right now.
-
Is it at all clear that Epstein and Francona would even want to be together at this point?
And it seems pretty likely that Francona may not even be available by the time a new GM is on board.
-
Gammons says that Epstein and Francona have not been on the same page.
-
I am shocked, but in last 36 hrs every exec talk to says believe
#Redsox (http://twitter.com/#%21/search?q=%23Redsox) will give permssion and Theo will go to #Cubs (http://twitter.com/#%21/search?q=%23Cubs) to be GM
http://twitter.com/#!/Joelsherman1/status/120209943642112000
-
umm, yes please!
-
Get it done Ricketts!
-
that said, theo will make his mistakes, too. see: crawford, carl.
-
I will believe it when it actually happens, and not until then. But count me as very happy if it's true.
-
Crawford is not the only one.
J.D. Drew had an OPS+ of 68 this year. That's Neifi territory. And the Red Sox are paying him $14M this year.
And Matsuzaka got paid $10M this year, and $8.3333M each of the last two years (another $10M is due in 2012), and this year he threw 37 innings with a 5.30 ERA, last year 153 innings with an ERA of 4.69 and in 2009 59 innings with and ERA of 5.76.... and that was on top of the $51M the Red Sox paid just for the right to negotiate with him. In five full seasons with the Red Sox, Matsuzaka has had only one truly good year, another pretty good, and three absolute clinkers.
After Wells and Cashner both went down, many here pointed to Hendry's signing of Lopez, Davis and Ortiz as an illustration of Hendry's failure, in that he had to turn to such pitchers because the farm did not have any arms ready for the majors. Theo had to trade for Erik Bedard in mid-season to shore up the rotation, and that was with only one injury to a starter, and he let the Red Sox limp all season long with John Lacky in the rotation, throwing 160 innings in 28 starts with an ERA of 6.41, and Tim Wakefield's 154 innings with an ERA of 5.12.
Folks here would have been, quite understandably, screaming for Theo's head.
Forgive me if I would not share the unrestrained excitement of many here if Ricketts hires him.
-
JD Drew, Carl Crawford, John Lackey, Matsuzaka. Would Theo actually be that good? Or Francona?
I don't really know. I understand their teams won a lot of games, and won two WS, which was a breakthrough for Boston. But IIRC, they both came on board with a whole lot of talent already in house. Manny Ramirez, Varitek. How much of the value did Epstein create, as opposed to inheriting? I'm not sure, I'm just asking. And how well have they done without the steroids rolling?
The farm system came up with some good players. Hansley, which turned into Beckett. Ellsbury. Lester. Youkilis and Pedroia. Buckholz, Papelbon.
Clearly they have had a more productive farm operation than has Hendry. And certainly Theo has been overseeing an org that spends a lot on procurement, so as a farm guy I think he's got the right recipe. So that would be good, if he continued that here.
I think he did make some very successful moves early. I'm guessing he'd just been hired when they signed Ortiz, probably the best GM move during their last decade. Bill Mueller, Bellhorn, he might have deserved credit for some of those successful pickups many years ago.
But lately, there is JD Drew, and Carl Crawford, and John Lackey, and Matsuzaka.
Seems like they've got the same type of massive overpays for guys that haven't worked out that well that Hendry assembled. And the reputation in Boston is that a lot of these guys are lazy and low effort, and that Francona didn't keep them in shape, didn't discipline, didn't motivate.
-
I think it is appropriate to point out the Crawford and other less than great acquisitions. And maybe that will be a problem, or maybe Epstein has learned something from those. No question he will make mistakes (he's human), and it's only a question of how long before disappoints and ****es off some fans. Heck, if he gets the job, Jeff will conclude he's an idiot based on that fact alone.
But Epstein sure seems to have a far, far more contemporary and complex approach to baseball than the Cubs have had. And I am not sure it's appropriate to blame him for the players not being in good condition or lazy this year. He is the one who raised such issues after the season, and while he accepted ultimate responsibility for that, I'm not sure that operationally it's his responsibility as much as the manager. In any event, he clearly prioritizes conditioning and fundamentals, I think in a way that hasn't necessarily been clear in the Cubs organization.
I don't know enough about the assistant GMs who have been the subject of speculation to have any solid opinion about any of them. And I don't know how any of us could. Of the GMs, at least other than Friedman, I think that Epstein would be my first choice. Based on everything I've read Friedman is deeply embedded in the Rays organization and I cannot imagine him leaving.
I sometimes poke fun at bensf for constantly harping on the importance of having "smart" leadership. But there is something to that, and I don't think anyone can doubt this quality in Epstein. He also has the experience of being a GM in an extremely intense fan environment as well.
In any event, I still doubt Epstein will leave the Red Sox this year.
-
Interesting piece on Epstein and the Cubs from Peter Abraham of the Boston Glove:
When it comes to the idea of Theo Epstein going to the Cubs, here is what we haven't heard from Epstein or his superiors:
No.
Larry Lucchino last night: "We're not prepared to answer that question here. This is a press conference about the contributions that Tito [Francona] has made to this franchise. Besides, Theo is under contract with us, so it is an issue that has not been addressed or discussed."
Tom Werner last night: "I think we feel collectively that he has been one of the best general managers in baseball and has been integral to the success of our club the last 10 years."
Epstein on Sept. 23 in New York: "I'm not here to talk about that."
Epstein on Aug. 31 in Boston: "I try to avoid commenting on things that are so speculative. I know there are a couple of articles which have appeared but I'm completely focused on the Red Sox of 2011 first and foremost and what potentially lies ahead for this club.
"We're trying to get to the postseason and win the World Series and I spend all my time working with my staff to make this the organization we want it to be for now and in the future. That's where my exclusive focus is.
Something like that I can't even contemplate it long enough to comment on it. I'm all Red Sox, all the time."
Nobody has said, "No, he's staying with the Red Sox." That Lucchino said the Red Sox were not prepared for that question seems unusual. They either want him to be the GM or they don't. That answer needs preparation?
Epstein wore a Red Sox team pullover and sat right between Lucchino and Werner last night to discuss the departure of Terry Francona. He also was at his most animated when talking about the search to replace Francona.
To me, those are not the actions of a man who would leave for another job shortly. But Epstein has walked before and he could do it again.
It also is interesting to note that assistant GM Ben Cherington was present at the meeting between Francona and the ownership. That certainly speaks to his status within the organization and perhaps that idea that ownership wants him up-to-speed and ready to take over if needed.
Just a few minutes ago, the well-connected Joel Sherman of the New York Post wrote on Twitter: "I am shocked, but in last 36 hrs every exec talk to says believe Red Sox will give permission and Theo will go to Cubs to be GM."
There's too much smoke here for there not be a fire.
Still, it seems hard to believe that Epstein, a Bostonian, would abandon the franchise at its hour of need or that John Henry and Co. would let that happen.
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/extras/extra_bases/2011/10/epstein_to_the.html (http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/extras/extra_bases/2011/10/epstein_to_the.html)
-
And I am not sure it's appropriate to blame him for the players not being in good condition or lazy this year. He is the one who raised such issues after the season, and while he accepted ultimate responsibility for that, I'm not sure that operationally it's his responsibility as much as the manager. In any event, he clearly prioritizes conditioning and fundamentals, I think in a way that hasn't necessarily been clear in the Cubs organization.
But without question the GM is responsible for who he acquires and brings into the clubhouse... and some of those, such as J.D. Drew, even before the Red Sox got them, had reputations which would make you wonder about their dedication to the game, their effort, whether they would be concerned about conditioning, etc. And laziness in general does not develop after coming to a new team in a player's mid to late 20's or in his 30's. Lazy players tend to be lazy players. And if the Red Sox had players this year who were lazy and unconcerned with their conditioning, then most likely those players also had such traits when Theo acquired them.
-
Theo will be remembered as the GM who finally managed to win a WS with the Red Sox. If he could repeat that with the Cubs, he'd become a baseball immortal without ever throwing a pitch or hitting a ball.
-
I know I started the current thread of conversation about Theo's short comings. Just wanted to point out he's human.
That said, he's choice 1A for me, just a hair behind Friedman. I've long considered both as pipe dreams.
-
I am shocked, but in last 36 hrs every exec talk to says believe #Redsox will give permssion and Theo will go to #Cubs to be GM
-
That is a prediction which involves three different parties.
Red Sox ownership has to give Theo the green light.
Theo has to be interested enough in the Cubs to leave Boston.
And Ricketts has to be so sold on Theo as to make an offer that satisfies Theo.
Certainly it could happen, but that is a lot which has to happen to be certain about the ultimate outcome.
-
Am I the only one who thinks the Beane mystique far, far outweighs the actual results?
Choosing Beane over Friedman - if both were theoretically options - would be a similar mistake to hiring Pinella when Girardi wanted the job.
I agree, Deeg. Seriously. What did the guy accomplish? Implementing somebody else's ideas and methodologies? BFD. And how many World Series titles have the A's had since?
-
I agree, Deeg. Seriously. What did the guy accomplish? Implementing somebody else's ideas and methodologies? BFD. And how many World Series titles have the A's had since?
While I may share questions about Beane's value, whether someone is working with the ideas or methodologies of another person does not minimize any of their accomplishments.
-
Either Friedman or Epstein, if available and interested, would be a MAJOR plus, one would assume.
What Friedman has accomplished with what he's had to work with is amazing!!!
Epstein should receive much of the credit for finally helping the Red Sox move past their arch-rivals and gain two WS titles!
If Ricketts is truly interested in either, that's great on many levels! I personally hope he sees the Red Sox (not the Rays) as the paradigm for the Cubs' future success as that would suggest he's going to continue spending at the level roughly equal to recent years. If so, that should substantially help the new leadership and our chances!
-
ben, it would be a lot easier to take you seriously if you would use fewer exclamation marks. And if when you did use them, they were at the end of sentences where they made sense.
-
All of these guys are real people with real strengths and probably some weaknesses. So who knows. It's not uncommon to go through the "debunk the big reputation" phase, "guy X is overrated". I think that may apply to Epstein, and I posted to that effect a couple days back. Beane might be in the same ballpark.
But I'm not sure that sometimes their is overreaction in that direction, and a guy who really is pretty capable, if imperfect, gets overly faulted just because he was at one time overly inflated.
I wonder if some of that might not apply with Beane. For a while he was built up beyond reason; now he's dismissed as if he's worthless. I wonder if, as with Epstein, the reality isn't somewhere in between. Less than superlatively perfect, but still smarter and better than average. I haven't seen the movie, but I saw a review which suggested a story-line in which Beane basically jumped on board with sabermetric underling(s). I suspect that may be highly simplistic, and undervalue his contributions and thinking. And it's certainly been the reality that he's had to work with tight budget throughout. That's why he had to continuously let top players go (Giambi, Hudson, Mulder, Tejada). And that was also part of the whole moneyball thing (can't afford good players, so which variably bad players are less bad for a low price?) And part of the whole college draft thing. (Can't afford to sign Dunston and Maples and Vogelbach types. Can't afford many scouts. With a small cheap scouting staff, why do a half-baked job job scouting everybody badly? Why not focus limited scouting staff so that at least we can do a decent job scouting college guys who will be signable?)
I think given the constraints on procurement and scouting, and given the inability to afford to retain good salaries players or to acquire good salaried players, I'm not sure the W-L records over the last six years necessarily reflects that unfavorably on Beane's capabilities. What he might be able to do with a well funded scouting staff and a well-funded procurement budget, followed by a strong big-league budget such that he could afford to keep good players if we ever signed and developed any such, is hard for me to evaluate based on the Oakland results.
In other words, I have no idea. He may be a lazy GM with bad people skills, a big ego, and a poor work ethic, who offers nothing that 30 other guys offer, and who offers a lot less in personality and work ethic and pure old-fashioned baseball scouting acumen. He just lucked into some good support staff years ago, and lucked into a couple of good players (Giambi, Tejada, Chavez, Hudson, Mulder, Zito) years ago, and even with them they couldn't win much in the playoffs. He may be a really smart and shrewd GM who is still as good or better than anybody out there, but given the monetary limits you can only do so much. Or anywhere in between. I have no idea. But I think there's at least a chance that he might actually still be a pretty good decision maker.
I'd imagine from his side, he might be highly motivated to want a change of scenery, to have a new start, and to prove himself. The Cubs might be an ideal opportunity. if he came to the Cubs, it's not like inheriting Coleman and Wells and Lopez is inheriting a great staff; of that Byrd, Soriano, Barney, Colvin, and Pena is walking into a keg of talent just ready to explode into greatness. If he ended up getting a good team, nobody would say he just inherited a great team, he'd be sure to get the credit for it. The same with a farm system in which McNutt, Beliveau, and Jokesch are in the discussion as top pitchers.
He's have a clean start with such a weak talent pool that if he succeeded with the Cubs, he'd get full credit for the success. And while he'd get resources to work with, it wouldn't be Yankees or Boston. So success wouldn't get dismissed as "just bought it".
No idea whether he'd be at all desirable or good for us, or whether Ricketts would be at all interested. But I'd certainly think the Cub job could be awfully appealing to him.
-
Must be a slow day in the dead horse beating arena, so we have to pick on somebody's grammar and punctuation.
-
Jes, the way I see it, we're all "friends" of a sort who share a lot - a great passion for a team that's had far more than its share of problems.
Certainly, I don't intend to aggravate you or my other friends on this board with my hastily-written, idiosyncratic posts. I'll try to remember to adapt in future posts.
That said, since none of us does this full-time and/or for a living, I'm not sure we should take any posts "seriously" other than relative to the respect we may wish to grant one another as "friends," given our shared interest in - and passion for - the Cubs.
-
Craig, I hope that "worthless" thing isn't pointed at me, because I never said (and don't think) Beane is worthless. Just way, way overhyped and nowhere near as attractive a candidate at Friedman or Epstein.
-
Craig, I hope that "worthless" thing isn't pointed at me, because I never said (and don't think) Beane is worthless. Just way, way overhyped and nowhere near as attractive a candidate at Friedman or Epstein.
Craig's just in one of his troublemaking moods. ;)
-
The possibility of Epstein leaving the Red Sox for the Cubs continues to be a hot topic among Boston pundits. There is a lot being made of the fact that neither the ownership nor Theo has dismissed the possibility of him leaving.
http://espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/story/_/id/7052661/theo-epstein-face-complicated-decision-boston-red-sox (http://espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/story/_/id/7052661/theo-epstein-face-complicated-decision-boston-red-sox)
http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/baseball (http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/baseball)
-
Thanks, deeg. "Worthless" was probably a poor choice of words and an exaggeration.
But FITS had a recent post suggesting that what has Beane accomplished? How many WS? Just implementing somebody else's ideas, why should he get credit? I didn't get the impression he thought Beane was a worthwhile candidate for the cubs. Tico wasn't interested. I'm not sure I recall anybody on the board actually mentioning Beane as a guy who'd be a guy they liked very much, although it's possible that he'd in 3rd-10th place on everybody's list, and would be viewed as anti-awful.
You had a couple "bloom is off the rose", "seriously overrated", posts. So I kind of took that to imply that he wasn't a desirable candidate that you liked or thought was good. I understand that being less than best isn't the same as being terrible, that it's all relative. Being worth way less than Friedman, Epstein, or Cashman is not the same as being worthless; worthless only by comparison to guys of premium (perceived) worth.
Assuming Friedman and Epstein are not really available, would you think Beane might be a contender in the next pool? Compared to Hahn/Cashman/Cleveland guy/Byrnes/Ng/Cherington/Hahn(?)....? Again, I have no idea. But if I was Ricketts, I wouldn't necessarily write Beane off the way I would Ned Colletti.
-
Pretty good article here regarding the possibility of Theo joining the Cubs:
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/what-is-theo-epstein-worth/
-
Scott Miller of CBS Sports adds a new name to the mix:
Red Sox Senior VP and asst GM Ben Cherington
-
Kim Ng, like Tom, Laura and Peter Ricketts, is a graduate of the University of Chicago. I'm thinking Kim's time on the campus had to coincide with that of at least one of the Ricketts (Todd attende U of C for a time too, I think).
Maybe the plan for the Ricketts to buy the Cubs and hand them over to Kim to run was hatched at that old Hyde Park tiki lounge back in the early 90s....
Seriously, after the guy from Tampa, she would be my next choice.
-
I'd be ok with Cherington. In fact, if the Cubs would have to give up a prospect or two to get Epstein away from the Red Sox, I might actually prefer Cherington to Theo. It sounds like the Red Sox are ready to just promote Cherington if Theo leaves, and he's been in that front office for a long time. He sounds like he could handle the job.
-
Craig, if Epstein and Friedman are out, I'd be OK with Beane as part of the next pool. I think Cherington would be my first choice of the "prospects".
I don't think Beane is leaving. He's not worthless, but I really do think it's fair to ask just WTF he's accomplished the last few years. In short, they're terrible - and his track record of hiring puppet field managers isn't looking too good. I think he gets credit for being a pioneer in using statistical analysis to his advantage. I think it's likely that the rest of the league caught up to him, and there's nothing else remarkable about his talent. But I'd also be curious to see what he could do with a top 10 payroll (not that I expect he'd get that with the Cubs).
-
Craig, I hope that "worthless" thing isn't pointed at me, because I never said (and don't think) Beane is worthless. Just way, way overhyped and nowhere near as attractive a candidate at Friedman or Epstein.
Nor did anyone else.
-
Scott Miller of CBS Sports adds a new name to the mix:
Red Sox Senior VP and asst GM Ben Cherington
Cherington's name has come up a few times.
Kim Ng.... after the guy from Tampa, she would be my next choice.
Curt, too. But I have to ask.... why?
What track record of demonstrated accomplishment does she have? She's gotten some nice window-dressing positions, allowing MLB to point to her and say baseball promotes women, and as an oriental woman she fill's two different boxes on Affirmative Action forms.... but what has she DONE? Or when has she ever given an interview which demonstrated any insight we would want in the Cubs' front office?
-
But I'd also be curious to see what he could do with a top 10 payroll (not that I expect he'd get that with the Cubs).
Deeg - I'm curious why you don't expect the Cubs to be in the top 10 in payroll? (Other than general pessimism about the Cubs doing much of anything right)
-
Craig is a troublemaker. He used to be a Jedi but he went to the dark side. Freezing cold will do that to you.
-
Jes, I know Kim Ng was Asst. GM in the Dodgers org for a number of years. Can't recall the articles, but I recall seeing her described as very smart and tough, and well received by other GMs and baseball people generally.
I wouldn't say that her position with MLB adds much to her resume as a potential GM candidate or that she would be anywhere close to Friedman, Epstein or others who've already performed the job successfully.
She does seem to be among the well-schooled (both academically and in the front office), relatively young, assistant GMs who could be worthy of some consideration by teams seeking new leadership.
-
And so the buzz continues ... Olney says Red Sox hierarchy have had discussions about what to do if Theo leaves.
http://twitter.com/#!/Buster_ESPN/status/120967776625111040 (http://twitter.com/#!/Buster_ESPN/status/120967776625111040)
-
Theo felt a bit forced by ownership to make some of the recent big money moves that have blown up in his face.
I’ve also been told there are some non-baseball issues in Boston that make Theo a little restless.
Crane Kenney could absolutely be moved aside, or down in the organization if that’s what it took to get Theo.
For now, it’s more of a possibility than anyone could have dreamed, and the best imaginable outcome.
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/10/03/spiegel-cubs-fans-theo-freakout-is-warranted/ (http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/10/03/spiegel-cubs-fans-theo-freakout-is-warranted/)
-
Deeg - I'm curious why you don't expect the Cubs to be in the top 10 in payroll? (Other than general pessimism about the Cubs doing much of anything right)
Ron, it's just my take on Ricketts - he's going to preach the "build from within" and it sounds great when you spend a few hundred large more on draft signings, but it won't sound so great when we're sitting out the FA market for the next several years and watching the payroll drop to the middle of the pack. As I've stated repeatedly, it's just my opinion and not based on hard fact.
I will say this - I went to Lake Forest HS with hundreds of Rickettses, and I know his type very well.
-
I'm not at all sure that Theo would be "the best imaginable outcome." He may cost the Cubs a prospect, he will certainly cost the Cubs a hefty salary and he will face the unrealistic expectations of many Cubs' fans. He may well be the best man (or woman) for the job, but those are three strikes against him that either don't apply or are less relevant to the other prospective candidates.
-
Most likely scenario:
Epstein leaves Red Sox for Cubs.
Cubs send Andrew Cashner to the Red Sox as compensation.
Red Sox hire Hendry as Epstein's replacement.
Cashner turns into Roy Halladay.
Under Hendry's brilliant leadership, Red Sox win two more World Series before 2020.
Over that same period, Cubs lose 90+ games six times.
-
Epstein has year left on his contract and the Red Sox are in the process of hiring a new manager,why would Epstein want to entertain a move to the Cubs? i would think that he'd want to have a hand in putting the team back on the top of the heap in AL East.
-
Jes, I know Kim Ng was Asst. GM in the Dodgers org for a number of years. Can't recall the articles, but I recall seeing her described as very smart and tough, and well received by other GMs and baseball people generally.
I wouldn't say that her position with MLB adds much to her resume as a potential GM candidate or that she would be anywhere close to Friedman, Epstein or others who've already performed the job successfully.
She does seem to be among the well-schooled (both academically and in the front office), relatively young, assistant GMs who could be worthy of some consideration by teams seeking new leadership.
In other words, you are aware of no track record of demonstrated accomplishment beyond serving as nice double-box window-dressing.
Neither was I, but was just wondering if someone else might have heard something meaningful.
Wanting to be the first team with a female GM is not enough to even put her on my list, let alone to the front of it.
-
Well, Jes, I'd say Ng's several years as Assistant GM of the Los Angeles Dodgers (if not her position as SVP Ops for MLB) would check the "track record of demonstrated accomplishment" box for most any employer and be at least roughly equal to that of any other capable Assistant GM.
My best guess is that there are at least a few Asst. GMs who would be outstanding GMs and have no greater "track record of demonstrated accomplishment" than Kim Ng. It's rather hard to show a track record of accomplishment in a job one has never held.
I'm not suggesting that she's the right person for the job, particularly with folks like Epstein and Friedman (who have been incredibly successful GMs) possibly available. However, i certainly disagree with your assessment of her track record...it's certainly possible that she's accomplished everything reasonably possible in the positions she's had (which are at significant levels) and now just needs an opportunity to show what she can do.
-
I'm not sure I am as sold on Theo as many around here, but if the Red Sox want compensation for him, and they would be willing to take Zambrano, I could be persuaded.
And realistically, considering what the Red Sox have paid and will be paying for other pitchers, Zambrano would actually probably end up being a pretty good deal for them.
-
Well, Jes, I'd say Ng's several years as Assistant GM of the Los Angeles Dodgers (if not her position as SVP Ops for MLB) would check the "track record of demonstrated accomplishment" box for most any employer and be at least roughly equal to that of any other capable Assistant GM.
Holding a position is not a "track record of demonstrated accomplishment."
Here, to illustrate the difference, you take two major league pitchers. One has 10 year in the majors, always on top teams.... but a W/L record no better than .500, never more than 5 decisions in a season, and never more than 35 innings. But he's been around.
Not quite a demonstrated tract record, but he's been around.
My best guess is that there are at least a few Asst. GMs who would be outstanding GMs and have no greater "track record of demonstrated accomplishment" than Kim Ng. It's rather hard to show a track record of accomplishment in a job one has never held.
And I agree with that. But in that case, what is the reason anyone here is sold on her.... OTHER than the fact that she is a woman and it would be nice to have the first female GM?
I am not saying she would be a poor GM.
I am saying that none of US appear to have any real reason to think she would be a good one. Now perhaps her people skills are impeccable, she is a great talent evaluator, is tough as nails in negotiating contracts and has done so in prior positions, has made very insightful suggestions to her superiors over the years, is Bill James "go to gal" to bounce sabermetric ideas off, has always flawlessly executed any task ever assigned to her, and always is the first one in the room to grasp an issue being presented and to reduce it to its essence and perfectly gauge how it effects her organization and how to turn it to her organization's advantage.
And perhaps everyone who has ever worked with her echos such praise.
But none of us appear to know that.
All that we know is that she is a woman, has held some impressive positions, apparently had a nice academic record, and that we have not heard anyone who dealt with her trash her too badly (PC mindsets can sometimes hide things.... think Major Nidal Malik Hasan for a second), but that is not the same as having a real reason to think she could do the job.
it's certainly possible that she's accomplished everything reasonably possible in the positions she's had (which are at significant levels) and now just needs an opportunity to show what she can do.
I have never said otherwise. I am merely pointing out that while it is POSSIBLE that she has done well, we don't know that she has. And I would rather Ricketts not use the Cubs for a social experiment.
-
Really, Jes Beard, you are using the possibility of Ng being hired by the Cubs to show off both your misogyny and racial bigotry? You actually believe a U of C alumna who joined the White Sox org out of college, and while very young achieved meaningful roles as assistant GM of the Yankees and Dodgers is a token? Tell me, what did Epstein or Friedman do to get their jobs while super young? What did Billy Beane do? Here is a clue -- and christ knows you need one: she did at least as much or more than Friedman and Epstein and Beane at comparable ages. Jes Beard is Rush Limbaugh. Awesome.
-
Tell me, what did Epstein or Friedman do to get their jobs while super young? What did Billy Beane do?
I was unaware I supported any of them for their current positions.
My racist misogyny must have interfered with my memory.
I am also unaware of opposing the idea that the Cubs hire her.
I have merely asked if anyone can point to any "track record of demonstrated accomplishment." Based on the fact that you do not, but merely accuse me of being sexist and racist because I ask what hers might be, I would assume that you also can not point to any such track record.
Now, shasson, racism and sexism are not wanting to hold everyone to the same standard, but they are about setting different standards for people based on their race or sex. Between you and me, only one of us is doing that. And it ain't me.
-
Ladies and gentlemen, may I introduce you to the ignore button?
-
bingo
-
While Tom Ricketts continues to concentrate his search for a general manager on Theo Epstein and others on his so-called A-list, he has filtered through dozens of potential candidates to finalize a short list of respected assistants he'll turn to if he cannot land a big name.
According to multiple sources, Ricketts has pared that list down to three names. As first reported by the Baltimore Sun, they are Red Sox assistant Ben Cherington, Braves director of pro scouting John Coppolella and White Sox assistant Rick Hahn.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/ct-spt-1004-cubs-gm--20111004,0,2294765.story (http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/ct-spt-1004-cubs-gm--20111004,0,2294765.story)
And at the end of the column
Ricketts is not expected to do final interviews with any of his top candidates for at least two more weeks, maybe longer.
-
I wonder why the delay? Theo's status with the Red Sox should be sorted out before then, the Rays are one loss from elimination, and Coletti, Byrnes, Cashman, Beane and most of the other current GM's should at least be available for an interview today. I suppose it's possible that it's traditional for GM's contracts to end after the World Series, or even the end of the calendar year.
-
In turning the Cubs around, if I had to chose between Friedman and Epstein, I'd chose Pujols.
-
Shasson: jesbeard isn't Rush Limbaugh. Jes is a lawyer that lost his license to practice law. Much worse than Rush!
-
What is the point in taunting him about that? He has never denied it. I have Jes on Ignore because he has a tendency to taunt and to continue arguments well past tedium. Doing that back to him resolves little and does not encourage civility. JMO
-
What is the point in taunting him about that? He has never denied it. I have Jes on Ignore because he has a tendency to taunt and to continue arguments well past tedium. Doing that back to him resolves little and does not encourage civility. JMO
Tendency? More like a proclivity.
If you said you dialed a phone number, Jes would take great delight in pointing out that phones no longer have dials. If you replied that you were only using a figure of speech, that would only open up his options.
-
Shasson: jesbeard isn't Rush Limbaugh. Jes is a lawyer that lost his license to practice law. Much worse than Rush!
Yes, I'm disbarred. And your point is.... what.... exactly?
That is relevant to what?
Your prior posting history would indicate it is nothing more than an effort at a personal insult.
You might as well call Danny Devito short. I suspect he has figured that out by now.
Tendency? More like a proclivity.
If you said you dialed a phone number, Jes would take great delight in pointing out that phones no longer have dials. If you replied that you were only using a figure of speech, that would only open up his options.
While I like the dialing a phone number line, any "tendency to taunt and to continue arguments well past tedium" is not at all involved here.
shasson called me a misogynist and racist, when my post had no indication of either, and shasson's post actually illustrated he is both. I posted once in response to that claim that I was misogynist and racist. Forgive me for thinking that some claims should not be allowed to stand unanswered.
-
Red Sox want to move on, so the Cubs should know one way or the other on Theo by this weekend:
http://www.bleachernation.com/2011/10/04/obsessive-cubs-gm-watch-tipster-says-well-probably-know-one-way-or-the-other-on-theo-epstein-this-week/
-
I'm surprised that no one here has noted that Sandberg is on Boston's managerial list. I have seen no report on how extensive a list it is, but if Epstein comes to the Cubs and Ryno is already in Theo's consciousness...
-
From the bleachernation link brjones posted, and addressing the issue of possible compensation for Theo:
Nick Cafardo of the Boston Globe says the Red Sox should ask for Starlin Castro and Matt Garza in exchange for Epstein.
Someone would really have to be high.
-
Nick needs to put down the pipe...
-
I'm surprised that no one here has noted that Sandberg is on Boston's managerial list. I have seen no report on how extensive a list it is, but if Epstein comes to the Cubs and Ryno is already in Theo's consciousness...
Curt - Where did you see that Sandberg is on the Red Sox list of potential managers? I hadn't seen/heard that before.
-
Bob Brenly on managing again (including the Cubs)
"Covering the playoffs here I'm around a lot of people from the national media who supposedly have their finger on the pulse of the game and they're all asking me what's going on in Chicago," Brenly said. "I don't think anybody at this point really has any inside information or who the front-line candidates or frontrunners might be. Anybody that's close to being named the GM or a possible replacement for Mike Quade should the Cubs go that direction. Everybody is just kind of flapping in the wind right now, including the Cubs organization."
-
what does danny divito have to do with anything on here? is he on the GM "short" list?
-
If the Red Sox want compensation for Theo Epstein beyond Alfonso Soriano, the Cubs should just hire Ben Cherrington, who should require no compensation.
There is no way that Boston is going to get anyone of any consequence from the Cubs.
They can have Darwin Barney if they want him, because we've all agreed by now that he's worse than the plague.
-
Epstein and Sandberg could be interesting.
-
Ron, trying to track it down for you...seems it was first in an ESPN Boston article on Epstein. Evidently, at that point, he was on a list to be interviewed. I saw it one other place with no attribution at all. It may not have any truth; it was a backhand comment by Gillick that Sandberg would be getting a lot of looks this winter, like from Boston. So maybe that's where somebody got it.
I don't know if Sandberg would be any good or not, but, frankly, if somebody else hired him, to me, that would be a kick in the gut, my final curse of Jimbo. Like Girardi, it seems everyone else sees value before the Cubs do.
-
Question: Which former Cubs GM does Ryno despise more, Larry Himes or Jim Hendry?
-
Like Girardi, it seems everyone else sees value before the Cubs do.
Just to play devil's advocate...the Cubs are more familiar with Sandberg's managing style than anyone. He has spent 80% of his minor league managerial career in their organization. Maybe in this case, the Cubs see lack of value before everyone else does.
-
br, did the Cubs give Ryno his awards?
You may be right...but the Cub track record ain't great if you want to bet it. :)
BTW: I think I have a pitcher I'd like to see the Cubs pursue instead of the guy from Texas: Buehrle. Yeah, he hates the Cubs and is a Cardinal fan. Big deal. Once he starts drawing a paycheck, his loyalties would change. Solid left handed innings eater that you keep away from the Cards. 3 year contract.
-
It seems like the reason that it's expected that the GM hiring process would be delayed until late October, or later, was because the teams of several top prospects (Epstein, Freidman and Cashman) were going to be in the playoffs. The Red Sox, obviously didn't make the playoffs. The Rays have now been eliminated. And after tonight, the Yankees may be too.
Perhaps that would speed up the process?
-
Time to interview Friedman.
-
Yeah, but what do managerial awards really mean? That he had some good players and didn't screw it up? The Manager of the Year award is pretty subjective at the major league level, and I have to think it's even more subjective in the minors when the focus is really development over wins and losses.
I'll always feel that if the Cubs hire Sandberg as manager, it's a hire that is based primarily on creating good PR for the Cubs. If he does get hired, maybe he'll be great and prove me wrong...but based on a lot of what we know about him, my feeling is that his philosophy would be too old school to fit with what someone like Epstein or Friedman would try to do.
Buehrle isn't bad, but he's more of a #2/#3 starter type. CJ Wilson is a legitimate ace, and he'll probably stay one for most of his contract. I think he's worth the extra money. I'd put a Wilson/Garza tandem up against anyone for the next 4 years and feel like the Cubs are at least competitive. And I'm not too worried about keeping any specific middle of the rotation starter away from the Cardinals because Duncan will pull a few of those out of thin air regardless.
-
I wouldn't count on LaRussa and Duncan to be around in SL much longer. A few weeks ago, public opinion was in a lynching mood.
I agree with you about Sandberg re: public relations move. Sitting in the stands earlier in September, listening to the long time fans around me, listening to the vendors, there is a lot of unhappiness with Quade and the current situation. So I'm thinking that maybe to keep the coffers full, a Ryno run at manager might be what's necessary, not for baseball, not for wins, but to keep the turnstiles turning. Money needs to keep coming in to fulfill the dreams. Actually only managers and home run hitters can bring in the money if the team is struggling with W's. That's where Ryno may have the greatest worth.
-
Well, I believe my opinion on when the Cubs could next compete is different from the general attitude of the board. I think with some smart moves and a a little luck, the Cubs could compete in the NL Central next year...and they should be in the division race in 2013 at the latest. So, I don't know that I'd agree that a PR move is necessary to keep the turnstiles turning for very long. I think wins can be the main draw again soon.
-
The Cub fans I'm hanging with and the anger I was hearing in the stadium leaves me more concerned than you, br.
-
Well, I believe my opinion on when the Cubs could next compete is different from the general attitude of the board. I think with some smart moves and a a little luck, the Cubs could compete in the NL Central next year...and they should be in the division race in 2013 at the latest. So, I don't know that I'd agree that a PR move is necessary to keep the turnstiles turning for very long. I think wins can be the main draw again soon.
You thought the same thing last year at this time.
Now, with perfect 20/20 hindsight, what could the Cubs realistically have done in the last off-season which would have had the Cubs now in the playoffs without bankrupting the Ricketts or digging an even deeper hole for the team in later years?
I won't even ask you to be the "smart guy" now to tell me what decisions should be made for the 2012 roster. That would not be fair. You want a "smart guy" and are not pretending to be one (and I do not mean that as an insult), but merely saying that there must be some really smart guy out there who could do it.
I am asking you to look back with complete hindsight and to offer up a reasonable scenario of moves which could have been made (realistic moves that some "really bright guy) might have made. Certainly that should not be too hard.
-
According to a report from the Boston Globe, the Cubs have asked the Red Sox for permission to speak with Theo Epstein "regarding a position in their organization."
Dan Shaughnessy learned from a team source that the Cubs have made contact with the Red Sox front office and "there were meetings at Fenway Park" on Tuesday afternoon regarding the team's response to the request.
According to the Boston Globe, "Because Epstein is under contract, the Red Sox would have the right to refuse such a request. They could grant it with the condition that some sort of compensation be made in exchange for hiring Epstein. Or Epstein could decline the interest."
Stay Tuned ...
-
Well, this is getting interesting.
-
From the ESPN article not only is Ryne on the Red Sox's list for managers, but so is Dave Martinez.
-
Think Dave could be Ryno's bench coach?
-
Few people know that Epstein is married to the former Cindy Sandberg.
-
Among those who don't know is Cindy.
-
Well, not THE Cindy Sandberg
-
Now that the Rays and Red Sox are out of the postseason, I'll hope things get VERY interesting!
-
Just get it over with already.
-
FWIW from Boston Globe:
y Nick Cafardo, Globe Staff
According to a team source, Theo Esptein, Larry Lucchino and Tom Werner were seen walking around the Fenway outfield yesterday afternoon involved in an "animated" discussion.
So it appears the topic of Epstein going to the Cubs was certainly brought up unless they were discussing the possibility of bringing in the right field fences as they had discussed last season.
The Cubs did fill out the proper forms with Major League Baseball to seek permission to speak to Theo Epstein, according to a Major League Baseball source.
Channel 5's Mike Lynch reported that the focus of the ownership group discussions yesterday centered around whether the Red Sox should ask the Cubs for compensation merely to ask permission to speak to Epstein, who is under contract until 2012.
According to our MLB source, there was nothing wrong with the Red Sox asking, but that to his knowledge this type of request had never been made.
Asking for permission to speak to a candidate is normally tied in with compensation the team granting the interview would receive if the party decided to sign on with the new team.
Major League Baseball has to approve all of it.
-
According to a team source, Theo Esptein, Larry Lucchino and Tom Werner were seen walking around the Fenway outfield yesterday afternoon involved in an "animated" discussion.
So it appears the topic of Epstein going to the Cubs was certainly brought up unless they were discussing the possibility of bringing in the right field fences as they had discussed last season.
Theo, Lucchino and Werner are involved in an "animated conversation," so that means they were "certainly" discussing Epstein going to the Cubs?
Sure. Makes sense to me.
-
Well, the Cubs ARE a cartoon.
-
Red Sox must address Epstein situation soon
By Dan Shaughnessy
Globe Columnist / October 5, 2011
E-mail|
Print|
Reprints|
Comments (126)
Text size – +
The silence from Yawkey Way has been louder than a Metallica concert. Other than a flurry of tweets from John Henry after this column was originally posted online last night, there has been nothing from Red Sox headquarters since that clunky Friday night press conference when Theo Epstein sat between Larry Lucchino and Tom Werner, looking like a 16-year-old kid waiting to take his driver’s license exam.
Tweet 5 people Tweeted this
ShareThis
Related
Red Sox must address
Epstein situation soon
Cubs are asking
to talk to Epstein
Video Globe 10.0: Is Theo the next to go?
Video Globe 10.0: Who should be the next manager?
Granderson grabs help
Yankees force fifth game
Beltre delivers
knockout blows
Hamels, Phillies push
Cardinals to the brink
Arizona remains alive
More Red Sox coverage
Red Sox timelines
Review coverage from games
We’d love a little more communication from the Boston brass; just a puff of smoke emerging from the Fenway roof or maybe an actual question-and-answer session with the owner, especially now that the Cubs have asked permission to talk with the Sox general manager.
Instead we get silence from the lambs.
Not good. Not good, at all.
Until the sudden Twitter deluge, the principal owner did not communicate after firing his manager of eight years and two championships. Henry had a legitimate excuse Friday night after his mishap on the yacht (though it was kind of a Jacko moment, what with the news choppers over the ambulance by the docks behind the Boston Harbor Hotel). Werner insisted that “John wanted to be here,’’’ but from Friday through the dinner hour yesterday, the only thing we got from Thurston Howell III was a tweet from Lovey explaining that John was home from the hospital in time to watch his beloved soccer team.
Speaking of soccer, you should know that the Red Sox’ epic collapse comes with a silver lining for Henry. Now he won’t have to choose between Game 6 of the ALCS and the Liverpool-Manchester United game Oct. 15.
It would have been nice to hear Henry explain why his former manager said ownership didn’t have his back, but that’s not the issue anymore.
At this hour, it’s all about Theo. If you are a Red Sox fan, this is what matters most.
Epstein is under contract for one more season, but according to a team source, the Cubs have asked the Red Sox for permission to speak with Epstein, and there were meetings regarding Boston’s response yesterday afternoon at the ballpark.
Chicago owner Tom Ricketts (a hardball neophyte) can’t speak publicly about another team’s GM, but when asked about Epstein by Fox Business Network, he said, “There’s a lot of good candidates. We’re going to talk to a handful of them and I’m sure we’ll come up with the right fit for the team. Ultimately it will be the decision of myself and my family.’’
The possibilities are endless. If the Red Sox grant permission, it would be for a short window, and they would try to pry some players or draft picks from the Cubs.
The Sox could also deny permission, but then they would have an unhappy GM on their hands if they didn’t let him explore a promotion.
Epstein also could tell his bosses he’s not interested in the Cubs.
It stands to reason that Epstein would be interested, because in Chicago he could have the powers of Lucchino and GM. He could make himself Hall of Fame-worthy by being the man who won in Boston after 86 years, then won at Wrigley after 104-plus years. He would be a baseball immortal.
Here’s another combustible alternative: Epstein could use interest from the Cubs to pry more years, money, and power from the Red Sox. Epstein quit in 2005 when he thought former mentor Lucchino was trying to harm him. Could he use this opportunity to get Henry to reduce Lucchino’s powers? Would Lucchino walk if he’s not backed by Henry?
It’s a whole bowl of uncertainty and unrest. And it matters greatly because there is no point to interviewing managerial candidates until the fate of the GM is settled. Same goes for attempts to unload the likes of John Lackey and/or Josh Beckett. Same goes for the decisions on contract offers regarding free agents David Ortiz and Jonathan Papelbon.
It’s no accident that assistant GM Ben Cherington was at the Francona-Epstein-ownership meeting Friday. The Sox need a ready successor if Epstein bolts for the Windy City.
I left messages with Epstein and Lucchino yesterday. No reply. I’ve left two messages with Henry. The owner tweeted last night, “Calls and maybe interviews next week.’’
It’s understandable that the Sox don’t want to comment on Epstein at this time, especially after the way things blew up in 2005 (Halloween is less than four weeks away). But they need to do something soon.
The Sox need to either announce they’ve extended Epstein or tell us that they’ve given their GM a short period to negotiate with the Cubs.
Epstein’s status needs to be clarified. Only then can the Red Sox go about the important business of rebuilding a ball club that went down in flames in such spectacular fashion in the final days of September.
Dan Shaughnessy is a Globe columnist. He can be reached at dshaughnessy@globe.com.
-
I don't know if this gives any insight on on Friedman's situation, but just FWIW...Rays' owner Stuart Sternberg has a pessimistic outlook about the fanbase in Tampa, and I think he's justified in expressing these feelings:
http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/10/05/rays-owner-stuart-sternberg-this-is-untenable-as-a-model-going-forward/
-
What Sternberg and the rest of baseball management don't come to grips with is that there's a recession going on.
They think of the fans as cows that will continue to be milked. Well, folks, the cows have gone dry.
-
For the record, I'm all for sending Boston a couple of draft picks for Epstein.
Shaughnessy should know better. Draft picks? Really?
-
FWIW from Boston Globe:
y Nick Cafardo, Globe Staff
According to a team source, Theo Esptein, Larry Lucchino and Tom Werner were seen walking around the Fenway outfield yesterday afternoon involved in an "animated" discussion.
So it appears the topic of Epstein going to the Cubs was certainly brought up unless they were discussing the possibility of bringing in the right field fences as they had discussed last season.
The Cubs did fill out the proper forms with Major League Baseball to seek permission to speak to Theo Epstein, according to a Major League Baseball source.
Channel 5's Mike Lynch reported that the focus of the ownership group discussions yesterday centered around whether the Red Sox should ask the Cubs for compensation merely to ask permission to speak to Epstein, who is under contract until 2012.
According to our MLB source, there was nothing wrong with the Red Sox asking, but that to his knowledge this type of request had never been made.
Asking for permission to speak to a candidate is normally tied in with compensation the team granting the interview would receive if the party decided to sign on with the new team.
Major League Baseball has to approve all of it.
Why would they discuss this in front of Epstein? I can see asking him if he wants to speak to the Cubs but after that, I would be shocked that an employer would allow an employee to sit in on conversations about the employee's future.
-
I don't know if Epstein would win a World Series, we thought similar of Dusty and Lou and we know how that worked out, but it does excite me to see Ricketts swinging for the fences instead of settling for mediocrity.
-
I thought the most interesting thing from that article was the Boston chutzpah. We're so almighty that you have to compensate us for even WANTING to speak to one of us. What a jarful of ****s.
-
I thought the most interesting thing from that article was the Boston chutzpah. We're so almighty that you have to compensate us for even WANTING to speak to one of us. What a jarful of ****s.
Give them Z and a side order of chutzpah and stick it up their green monster.
-
Reading some other boards, I'm amazed at how many people seem to think it's worth taking on Lackey to get Theo. Have they not watched how the Cubs' payroll situation has harmed them the last few years? Epstein would be no more effective than Hendry is he's handcuffed by bad contracts for the next three years.
The only way the Cubs should consider taking on Lackey is if the Red Sox will take Soriano.
-
I didn't see Lackey pitch once this season and I know there is no way he can perform up to his price tag but is there any way he could be a decent #4 or#5?
-
Possible?
Possible is not a high threshhold, but here is the trendline, starting with his career peak in 2007 at age 27.
2007 age 28, 224 innings, ERA+ 150, BB/9 2.1, K/9 7.2, K/W 3.44
2008 age 29, 163 innings, ERA+ 119, BB/9 2.2, K/9 7.2, K/W 3.25
2009, age 30, 176 innings, ERA+ 115, , BB/9 2.4, K/9 7.1, K/W 2.96
2010, age 31, 215 innings, ERA+ 99, BB/93, K/9 6.5, K/W 2.17
2011, age 32, 160 innings, ERA+ 66, BB/9 3.2, K/9 6.1, K/W 1.93
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/l/lackejo01.shtml
I would be happy to bet against Lacky being an acceptable #4 or #5 starter in 2012.
-
I didn't see Lackey pitch once this season and I know there is no way he can perform up to his price tag but is there any way he could be a decent #4 or#5?
Problem is, we have a half dozen #5's.
-
Yeah, I'm sure Lackey has a chance to be a decent innings eater in the back end of an NL Central rotation. But there's no GM worth taking on a possible #5 starter who is making $16 million when there are plenty of other good candidates out there.
Now if they want to take Soriano, that's a different story. I think a #5 starter provides more value to the Cubs than a low OBP, good power DH...so that makes it worthwhile. But to get Theo, it's not worth it.
-
The Rays owner is not happy but doesn't have anything to say about changes
http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/7061072/tampa-bay-rays-owner-says-current-business-model-untenable
-
Yeah, I'm sure Lackey has a chance to be a decent innings eater in the back end of an NL Central rotation. But there's no GM worth taking on a possible #5 starter who is making $16 million when there are plenty of other good candidates out there.
Now if they want to take Soriano, that's a different story. I think a #5 starter provides more value to the Cubs than a low OBP, good power DH...so that makes it worthwhile. But to get Theo, it's not worth it.
What about Soriano & Zambrano for Theo and Lackey?
(Just hypothetically, because I'm so pucking bored with all of this already)
Would it be worth it then?
-
Yeah, that would even be better than Soriano for Lackey straight up. But I have trouble imaging the Red Sox wanting to do any deal that makes them take on Soriano.
If the Cubs have to take on a significant additional salary like Lackey to get Theo, it's not worth it. If they have to give up a prospect with real value, it's probably not worth it. There are too many qualified GMs and assistants available without compensation to give up too much for Theo.
-
Yeah, that would even be better than Soriano for Lackey straight up. But I have trouble imaging the Red Sox wanting to do any deal that makes them take on Soriano.
If the Cubs have to take on a significant additional salary like Lackey to get Theo, it's not worth it. If they have to give up a prospect with real value, it's probably not worth it. There are too many qualified GMs and assistants available without compensation to give up too much for Theo.
But, I thought you and ben were the two who were most insistent that the most important thing for Ricketts to do is to find the best GM available, the smartest guy in the room, and to pay him whatever it takes.... and you would blanch at taking on Lackey as the compensation?
Imagine for a moment that you are Lackey.
You know that the guy thought by many to be the best GM in baseball is your GM and that the Cubs want him as their GM... and that your team's owners may demand quite a bit out of the Cubs to let the Cubs sign your team's GM away.... and they YOU end up being the compensation.
You are such an overpaid POS that the Red Sox demand that the Cubs take you to get you off Boston's hands as the price to hire Theo.
Man would that be a powerful message that you s*cked.
-
A number of posters have mentioned people like Lackey and Castro and who-knows-who as compensation for Theo. Over the years when non-players have required compensation it usually involves B prospects, not major leaguers.
-
The very best Cubs prospects are B prospects.
-
lol
-
If the Red Sox demand unreasonable and deal-breaking compensation from the Cubs, denying him the opportunity for baseball immortality, and then fail to increase his authority and extend his contract with Boston, he's going to be a very unhappy camper in the final year of his contract.
-
A number of posters have mentioned people like Lackey and Castro and who-knows-who as compensation for Theo. Over the years when non-players have required compensation it usually involves B prospects, not major leaguers.
Randy Winn was traded for Piniella after being an All-Star that season.
-
Good one...although he was kind of a default All Star wasn't he?
-
Friedman is a FA, so to speak, right? Just focus in on him and pitch the Chicago baseball fan vs the TB fan. There's no way that he, as a young and talented GM, wants to waste away in TB.
-
I think any team is always looking for an edge, so if they could get some value, I can see they might try. But common in pro sports is that if a guy is going for a lateral move he's blocked, but a promotion not. Just to get hired as GM, that would be lateral. But to get GM and the Crane Kenney position, or some version of it, would be a promotion.
It's possible Theo would like the promotion, and not have Luchesi or whomever over him. It's possible that Theo would like a promotion in the boston system, and is just being given an opportunity to leverage. And it's possible that Theo would like an extension, and again this provides some leverage.
It's possible that Boston is wondering if they really want him. Do they? Or is that partly in question? Perhaps after Lackey, Crawford, Matsusaka, and Drew, and the disaster this season, maybe some of the Boston people would love to see him go. Or are not at all wanting to get leveraged into extending him or expanding his powers when they aren't sure he's worth keeping, and they want him on 1-year but are reluctant to extend? Or perhaps some of them are waffling, Theo with extended years, bigger pay, and expanded powers, or Cherington? Maybe a number of them think they'd rather have Cherington?
-
I know I'm a minority on here, but I agree with tico. I think what Friedmann has accomplished in Tampa is far superior to Theo in Boston, even if there are a couple of WS rings in Boston.
-
Actually, I doubt that's a minority opinion here. I would be surprised if Friedman wasn't the top choice on this board.
-
Impossible. I'm never in the majority.
-
Peter Gammons chimes in on Epstein's status while discussing Billy Beane's decision not to take the Red Sox job. Included is this bit:
Of course, taking over the Cubs, having to build on the roster, having to put together an organizational structure and deal with the savior status is not going to allow him any more family breathing room. As Henry, Tom Werner and Larry Lucchino try to figure out what Theo wants and if there is a way he can stay as Ben Cherington -- arguably the best-prepared general manager in waiting in the industry -- assumes the grinding role is something they are trying to decide.
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20111005&content_id=25508780&vkey=news_mlb&c_id=mlb&partnerId=rss_mlb (http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20111005&content_id=25508780&vkey=news_mlb&c_id=mlb&partnerId=rss_mlb)
He also discusses the subject of compensation, mentioning unmentionable names: Brett Jackson, Matt Garza and Andrew Cashman. I think maybe people in Boston are sampling a bit too much Samuel Adams. As much as I would love to have Beane as GM, I think it would be crazy to give up any of those guys to get him, with such other apparently quality GM candidates around.
-
If Epstein is interested in the Cubs job (which is already less than a perfect situation because both the farm and scouting director have been hired), the cost will be something he’ll have a stake in should it come to making a decision.
http://news.bostonherald.com/sports/baseball/red_sox/view/2011_1006forecaststill_cloudy_no_clues_on_epsteins_future/srvc=home&position=also
-
Friedman would be my 1st choice based on what he's achieved (with what little he's had to work with), no comp required to his current club (presumably) and what one would assume would be his continued emphasis on building from the ground up. Who knows if he's really interested?
Theo would be 2nd...tho' he's made some significant FA mistakes (as those who play that game in a big way typically do) and would likely require at least fairly significant comp, his hiring probably would suggest the payroll will remain high (or I'd assume he wouldn't come)...and high payroll is a HUGE competitive advantage! Since it's not my money, i'll fervently hope Ricketts is willing to continue to spend VERY heavily in years to come!
Of the big-name guys, Billy Beane would certainly follow the above two re my preference...one has to wonder whether Billy Beane would fully engage...he seems to have other very strong interests (particularly including young family in California) and turning the Cubs around will require 110% mind share and energy, one would assume. Also, Billy seems quite mercurial and never invested at all in particular players...i doubt trading Starlin Castro would go down well in Cub nation, but one could imagine Billy Beane making just that kind of unconventional move!
While I believe Friedman or Epstein would represent a HUGE upgrade, there's little doubt in my mind that there are some truly OUTSTANDING GMs in waiting...maybe Cherington, maybe Hahn, maybe some others. There are young assistant-GM types whose knowledge base is cutting-edge and who have VERY fresh ideas, very little baggage, and a ton of energy and saavy.
Hiring the absolute best person for the job is always tricky and we won't know whether that's happened until some years have passed. However, i think Ricketts has it right that this is a HUGE decision that will impact the franchise for a very long time!
IF we are fortunate to hire the right person (and assuming Ricketts will continue to spend at least upper 40%), there's little question but that the Cubs next 15 years will be one helluva lot more fun than the last 15 (or the 50 before that). Baseball leadership is that important! ...emphasis added for you, Jes :)
-
I think there would beg less talk of Beane as a canidate if it wasn't for the hype of the Moneyball movie bringing his name to the forefront right now. Rickets would be hiring the real Billy Beane and not Brad Pitt portraying Beane.
-
Nick Cafardo of the Boston Globe on the Cubs & Epstein. Also some interesting stuff on Sandberg, including that he turned down a job with the Red Sox in their minors before accepting one from with the Phillies.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2011/10/06/cubs-should-embrace-epstein-chase-give-him-bear-hug/GsoqvbZ81SsPb2qiIailYO/story.xml (http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2011/10/06/cubs-should-embrace-epstein-chase-give-him-bear-hug/GsoqvbZ81SsPb2qiIailYO/story.xml)
-
Assuming he's not nudged out the door, my gut tells me that Theo Epstein is not leaving the Red Sox.
I hope Ricketts is talking with other candidates as he awaits a decision from the Red Sox (and Theo) on an interview. I don't have enough direct knowledge about any of these guys to know for sure who I favor. But based on what I've read, Friedman and Epstein are probably my top choices, and after than maybe Cherington and Hahn. Hahn intrigues me because he's been a lifelong Cubs fan. I don't discount something like that - Epstein had been a lifelong Red Sox fan, one of the reasons I think it will be hard for him to leave for another team.
But the bottom line is that I just want someone who really does have the qualities Ricketts says he's looking for. I agree with Ben that if the right choice is made the coming years could be very interesting and enjoyable to all of us (except for a few **** holdouts such as Jeff and JBN).
-
For what it's worth, Bruce Levine is convinced that Andrew Friedman is not coming to the Cubs (from today's chat):
Friedman has ownership in the Rays. I'm told that the only job he would leave for is the Houston job. Why Houston? He's from there and his father is trying to put a group together to purchase the team. Otherwise the consensus is that Friedman is staying in Tampa.
-
Steve Rosenbloom provides another reason why he should find a different line of work in a column titled "If it's Starlin for Theo, who really makes that call?"
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/rosenblog/chi-sizing-up-a-castroeptein-trade-20111006,0,1537224.column
-
As bad as that is, it's Rosenbloom's best column in a while. No references to "Fanboy" owner or "Clown" Kenney...reads less like a Beerfan post than usual.
-
As bad as that is, it's Rosenbloom's best column in a while. No references to "Fanboy" owner or "Clown" Kenney...reads less like a Beerfan post than usual.
Talk about a low bar.
-
I cannot fathom even discussing trading a talent like Castro for any GM. That could finally be my tipping point.
-
Re: Levine's comment on Friedman, I posted a while back that a decently knowledgable Stros source told me that if Friedman goes anywhere, it's likely Houston.
In terms of being tied to TB, I disagree that his ownership stake holds him there. Just the other day the majority owner was talking about the current model in TB as being unsustainable. Why would Friedman want to tie himself to an organization that can only support a $40 mil payroll and can't draw fans to the ballpark to save their lives? Why would he want to own a part of that?
Personally, if I were Ricketts, I'd be happy to extend a minority share to the new GM if he's the right guy for the job. Why not create long_ term buy in with the guy helming your team if he's truly exceptional, like Friedman?
My guess is that if Friedman stays with the Rays, it's because he's holding out for something in Houston. The tricky thing is that the buyout efforts there are not going smoothly, from what I understand. All the more reason to pursue Friedman hard right now, while things are up in the air in Houston.
-
Baseball leadership is that important! ...emphasis added for you, Jes :)
Ben, I actually agree with most of your points and concerns on this.... except for the exclamation points and caps...
Nick Cafardo of the Boston Globe on the Cubs & Epstein. Also some interesting stuff on Sandberg, including that he turned down a job with the Red Sox in their minors before accepting one from with the Phillies.
Might have been a result of looking at each team's major league field manager and betting that the Phils would have an opening before the Red Sox.
-
I'm still at a loss as to why any journalist would think that a good baseball person would agree to go to a new team, already a horrendous challenge, and start with both feet in the grave because you had to give up you best talent to take the job. Just flabberghasting.
-
Now that the Yankees are eliminated, soon the usual suspects will start to talk about the Cashman/Girardi to the Cubs will start to roll.
-
Screw Brian Cashman.
Just shoot for the moon and get Theo Epstein and Joe Girardi.
Those guys broke the unbreakable curses for their respective franchises -- Epstein for the Red Sox and the Curse of the Bambino and Girardi broke the bonds of darkness that the Yankees suffered from 2000 all the way thru 2009.
Honestly, I don't know how Yankees fans lived thru that. It had to be torture for them.
-
fwiw
http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/baseball/red_sox/view.bg?&articleid=1371616&format=&page=1&listingType=sox#articleFull
-
Listening to the (horrible) radio show now.
About 20 minutes until John Henry and company are due to join them.
You ever notice how much you want to type "Jim Hendry" when you go to type John Henry? I'm constantly reading it as "Jim Hendry" in articles about the Cubs and Theo Epstein.
-
*chuckle*
One of the radio hosts said that one reason the Cubs want Theo is because their last GM "was a boob."
-
Irate caller: Can you imagine a GM having a worse year than Theo?
Me: Um, yeah, how 'bout Jim Hendry?
-
I guess I should ask if everyone is listening or if they would like someone (me or another poster whose hands work faster or just work in general) to hit the high notes?
-
Red Sox owner John Henry and club president Larry Lucchino in studio with the two Boston radio hosts.
-
Oh, great, they're going to review the collapse starting on September 3rd.
-
keep going, SZ
-
They're just talking about Terry Francona so far. Why did he call a meeting after a blowout win? When did you learn about players drinking in the clubhouse during games? When did you become concerned about a collapse?
C'mon, guys, Cubs fans all over the worldwide net-web want to know about Theo.
We don't care about your club!
-
What's your position on fat pitchers?
This is hard-hitting stuff... unlike the Red Sox in September.
/rimshot
-
Henry talking about how he usually only likes to interact with the manager in person after wins because he doesn't like to seem like he's putting pressure on him.
Hosts questioning Francona's lineups and asks if Henry or Lucchino ever do the same. Answer: That's Theo's job. I (Henry) will say to Theo, "Why are we doing this?"
-
Host: Do you consider yourself a meddler?
Larry Lucchino: Absolutely not. We don't question the manager or general manager. We let at least a day or two pass before we discuss concerns we have with lineups or whatever...
I'm paraphrasing here. How do court reporters do this all day?
-
Twenty minutes in and still no Theo questions!
Get to it already!
More Francona discussions. Blaming Francona for the parting of the ways without actually blaming him. Saying that he didn't show interest in returning for next season without both option years being picked up.
-
Theo questions supposedly coming up after these commercial messages.
Moore GMC has been around for over 40 years. This orthopedic practice sees patients on time and treats people like people. Progressive insurance Flo snapshot. OK, I'm not spelling out that lawn care equipment company -- you know the one. Watertown Ford has Three Amigos that want to earn your business. Lowe's has light bulbs.
-
And we're back!
-
Q: The Cubs have asked for permission to talk to Theo Epstein. Will you grant permission?
A: How do you know that? We don't discuss requests publicly. *tap dance* *slide step* *double talk*
-
This has happened before and it never went public. Blah, blah, blah.
Q: If a hypothetical team asked permission to talk to Theo, would you grant that permission?
A: Usually, if a job that's not lateral, teams grant permission.
Q: Does that mean that teams can play with titles and get around that?
A: I'm sure that's gone on in the past.
-
Henry: When we talk about a manager, GM issues, when we talk about decisions that need to be made here, we make those decisions collectively, so, it's not just Theo involved here. We build consensuses.
LL: Collaboration, input, Tom Werner, debate, question each other, etc.
Henry: Cherington is involved in the process in interviewing managers, along with Theo.
-
Boston signings that didn't work out are now being questioned.
Host: He's spending your money, not always wisely, how do you feel about that?
Henry: Every year, including this year, we felt we were headed to the World Series. We expected to be playing in October. You can criticize the things that he's done but I don't know (LL interrupts)
LL: We feel that now, believe me, it hurts not to be playing. We want that every year. We've had a good run at it.
Host: Theo your man?
JH: He is but everybody has to understand there's a certain shelf life for these things. It's a long season and the pressure here is 365 days. So, Theo is not going to be the GM forever. We're upset about it now. No fan could be more upset than I am.
Host: Is it possible to hire a manager until you are sure that you have a GM in place 100%?
LL: I think you need to know who that person's immediate boss is but I've seen it done the other way, too.
-
Host: Why Francona over Joe Maddon?
LL: Theo should be here for this.
Host: I thought Curt Schilling hired him.
LL: Schilling certainly was part of the process.
JH: We like players managers, here.
-
Can John Lackey come back in this environment?
LL: Absolutely. I'm not predicting when he will or if he will. It depends on what your level of expectation is.
-
Nothing more about Theo's job, other than just signing of free agents after a certain age, as determined by their computer program, Carmine.
-
Complaining about Carl Crawford.
-
So, this was a wasted exercise but read into this as much as you want.
Personally, it sounds like they were leaving the door open for Theo and the Cubs to come to them with the right title and the right compensation.
-
Host: Theo your man?
JH: He is but everybody has to understand there's a certain shelf life for these things. It's a long season and the pressure here is 365 days. So, Theo is not going to be the GM forever. We're upset about it now. No fan could be more upset than I am.
I have to admit, I found that answer pretty interesting. That sounds like someone who's saying don't be surprised if Theo does leave.
-
The way they're talking about Theo, maybe we ought to think twice a little bit about what we'd be getting?
In a lot of ways, that radio guy made Theo sound a lot like Jim Hendry. Carl Crawford, John Lackey, having the worst offseason for a GM this past year, etc.
-
The way they're talking about Theo, maybe we ought to think twice a little bit about what we'd be getting?
In a lot of ways, that radio guy made Theo sound a lot like Jim Hendry. Carl Crawford, John Lackey, having the worst offseason for a GM this past year, etc.
Well, they (Henry and Lucchino) talked like all of those decisions were agreed on by the "brain trust" and not just the GM. They really hammered that home, even with the bad signing/trades. The hosts brought up guys like Mike Cameron and they still stuck to it.
-
SZ, thanks for the pbp
-
Happy to do it, I just wish they had said something instead of dancing around.
-
My thanks also. The Boston Herald ran a live blog of the interview, and here's one section that addresses the joint decision making process to which Strikezone alluded.
[/size]“I don’t think people understand the governance of the Red Sox. When we talk about important decisions, this isn’t John or Larry. Over the last 10 years, we’ve done things collectively. This is a collective process. We’re intimately involved in the manager’s search. It isn’t just Theo involved. We build consensus. When we sign Adrian Gonzalez, that’s not a one-person decision. Maybe sometimes we’re too chain of command. Larry and I do not make baseball decisions.”
-
The way they're talking about Theo, maybe we ought to think twice a little bit about what we'd be getting?
In a lot of ways, that radio guy made Theo sound a lot like Jim Hendry. Carl Crawford, John Lackey, having the worst offseason for a GM this past year, etc.
Does this qualify JR for being able to say "I told you so" if Epstein comes to the Cubs, then disappoints people in one way or another? ;)
-
governance of the Red Sox.
Oh, that's what he said there. I couldn't, for the life of me, figure out what the hell he was saying. I was saying, "The Covenants of the Red Sox?"
I thought they really take this baseball thing seriously.
-
SZ, thanks
-
This collective decision making process, as described in the interview, seems like it has the potential for being pretty frustrating for a GM. Especially if there is not a good relationship with one of the other decision makers (which is reportedly the case as far as Epstein and Lucchino are concerned). Are Henry, Lucchino, Epstein, and perhaps Tom Werner and maybe even Ben Cherington all involved? Lucchino mentioned, without prompting, that Cherington is involved in the manager selection process (though he didn't say in what way - perhaps input only?). At least with the Cubs there is one person that the new GM will need to consult with on important decisions, Ricketts.
-
Thanks for the recap, guys...very interesting..."...there's a certain shelf life..."...sure sounds like he's available for the right price.
-
While bringing Theo on board would seem to be a huge plus, I do wonder about the toll this kind of process (and recent years) may have taken on him. I'm not going to be discouraged if we don't end up with him.
There are other GREAT candidates out there, some of whom have never had a title as high as GM before.
-
They're just talking about Terry Francona so far. Why did he call a meeting after a blowout win? When did you learn about players drinking in the clubhouse during games?.... C'mon, guys, Cubs fans all over the worldwide net-web want to know about Theo. We don't care about your club!
I would hope that some of those who have been interested in the Cubs hiring Francona to manage the Cubs next year might be interested in that. If the Red Sox were boozing it up in the clubhouse during games, and no sanctions were imposed on the players involved, I would hope no one would want Francona.... and if Francona left the booze out for players during the games, I would hope no one would want Francona.
-
Jon Heyman with his usual brand of insider "information" in this tweet:
People around the game getting idea that, unless something changes, theo will stay with #redsox
So, things stay the same unless something changes.
I think Heyman forgot to credit @SirIsaacNewton on that tweet.
-
I am not impatient for the Cubs to name a GM. It bothers me that Quade is still employed.
-
Heyman continues to defend his information-thin tweet but here's an example of how plugged in he is when it comes to his "inside baseball" sources:
The next big questions involving the beloved North Side team will involve the fates of longtime general manager Jim Hendry and relatively new manager Mike Quade. And there might be a surprise result there, as well.
With the Cubs struggling again, Hendry is seen throughout the game as embattled at the moment. But two factors lead one person who has dealings with Cubs owner Tom Ricketts to believe that Hendry will be retained: 1) Ricketts is anything but an impetuous fellow, and 2) he likes Hendry. Others connected to the Cubs agree that the rapport is strong between the owner and GM, whose tenure has been marked by some high highs -- like the first back-to-back postseason appearances in Cubs history in 100 years -- and lately, low lows, which is actually much better than most of his predecessors in the history of the star-crossed organization.
Boy, that guy is really an insider in the baseball world!
I can't believe people are running with that tweet as if it's an actual fact-based report.
Even if Theo does end up staying, the tweet was nothing but a pure guess cached with "unless something changes" to cover Heyman's own @$$.
-
No one outside the decision-makers themselves knows what the Red Sox are going to do about Theo (or what Theo wants).
I think strong cases can be made for either (1) the reason for the silence is that Theo and his bosses are in discussions about an extension and they don't want anything said until it certain and finalized, (2) the bosses are having trouble reaching a consensus about Theo, (3) they've given (are will give) permission but want to keep things quiet until something is certain on that front, or (4) something else.
I'm guessing it's the first scenario, or something like it, and that Epstein will stay put.
-
http://espn.go.com/boston/mlb/story/_/id/7070549/theo-epstein-not-going-gm-forever
Check the video of Marc Silverman at the top of the link.... and look at Silverman's eyes.
The guy looks seriously deranged.
-
Screw Theo and compensating the 'Sawx' for his services.
The Ricketts kids were waiting for THIS two-time World Series winning GM to become available for hire.
Now he is available to take over the Cubs! </purple>
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/bs-sp-orioles-1008-20111007,0,229856.story (http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/bs-sp-orioles-1008-20111007,0,229856.story)
-
Reading other boards, I'm getting a little concerned about Theo. Knowledgeable fans are pointing out that many decisions in Boston are made after considerable input from their little group-think leadership group. When you look at decisions wholly the responsibility of Theo, he and Hendry are about even in success. Two big differences: whereas the Cubs have folded in playoff opportunities, the Sox actually came back from the brink to win their first and then tacked on another. Two: Theo buried a number of bad decisions by spending even more money and by finding people to take his Manny's off his hands. Less luck and less money and Theo is a shell of a Hendry is the consensus.
Friedman looks better and better, IMO.
-
Hahn still my choice...
-
You're too late, Curt, JR has already established himself as the first to end the Theo Epstein honeymoon.
I must admit, I actually thought the honeymoon would not end unless and until he actually became GM and then made at least one decision. I guess I just don't have enough faith in the pessimism of my friends here.
;D
-
Frankly, you guys are crazy. Look at what Boston has accomplished both internally and through free agency, and you're b itching about Epstein already? Anti-Semite bastards... Epstein has made mistakes, as all GMs do. His good decisions have far outweighed them.
The nervous nellies might get what they want anyway, though, as there's buzz the Cubs will offer Epstein the President's role and bring in one of the "B" list guys (or Ng) as GM. That would let you pansies have your ladyfingers and eat them too.
-
LMAO Preferring FRIEDMAN to EPSTEIN makes me an anti-Semite? Or was that supposed to be in purple?
-
So, everything is done by committee in Boston, except the bad decisions, which are all Theo's fault?
But then he trades Manny, and he gets ripped for that how, exactly? And does that go down as a good transaction for the group think or a bad transaction in Theo's lap (BTW, Theo didn't sign Manny in the first place)?
Where does Theo equal Hendry, Curt? Is it the shredding of Mark Prior's and Dice-K's arms?
What decisions were Theo's calls and what ones were the committee's?
I'm not questioning you, specifically, Curt, I'm questioning this (these) "other Cubs board(s)" you mention from time to time, because that's some weak sauce right there.
-
I didn't mean to be pessimistic about Theo. I'd really like to get him, and I hope it works out. Mostly I was just trying to gin up some conversation about some blind spots we might be missing with him.
-
SZ, it was rather weak. I think as I was reading their comments that they were doing a lot of cherry-picking. I made my comments on the fact that, IF TRUE, I wasn't as enthusiastic about Theo as I was before. I still would prefer Friedman. But that's because I'm an Aunty Simyte.
-
Well, we can scratch Al Davis off the list. RIP
-
Frankly, you guys are crazy. Look at what Boston has accomplished both internally and through free agency, and you're b itching about Epstein already? Anti-Semite bastards... Epstein has made mistakes, as all GMs do. His good decisions have far outweighed them.
The nervous nellies might get what they want anyway, though, as there's buzz the Cubs will offer Epstein the President's role and bring in one of the "B" list guys (or Ng) as GM. That would let you pansies have your ladyfingers and eat them too.
Ain't Friedman jewish too?
-
After reading about the interview that John Henry gave yesterday, I would be shocked if Epstein returned to Boston. Maybe I am reading too much into it but that interview seemed the equivelant of having Theo walk the plank...
-
No one is a perfect candidate. Everyone is going to have pros and cons coming in to the job.
An experienced GM will have bad trades or signings. A new GM will have inexperience going against them.
I will be happy with any of the top three (Theo, Friedman, Beane) and mildly disappointed with the second tier (Hahn, Ng) and hugely disappointed with anyone else.
-
Theo Epstein Locked in Boston for Now
As of 1pm today (Saturday 10-8-11) the Red Sox have not granted the Cubs permission to interview Theo Epstein; this according to a MLB source who confirmed the Cubs did ask for permission.
While the Red Sox owners are considering whether or not to let the Cubs speak with their General Manager, Epstein himself isn't sure what he wants to do. According to the same MLB source, Epstein is torn between taking over another storied and championship starved franchise in the Cubs and remaining loyal to the Red Sox and his extended family here in the Boston area.
Epstein's uncertain future in Boston is also holding up the Red Sox search for a new manager. As this point, the owners and front office are doing backround checks on possible cadidates but not ready to interview. If you're trying to figure out who's on the Red Sox short list, think "Terry Francona in November of 2003" and not any of the "Anti-Tito" guys who've been rumored as candidates.
-
Ain't Friedman jewish too?
uh, yes, Pistol, that's what I found humorous. Perhaps one of them is Orthodox. I'm an unorthodox aunty simyte.
-
There won't be any news this weekend, either way, I don't think.
I am guessing that Theo will take the Yom Kippur weekend and discuss the situation with his family and then talk to the Boston ownership about what he wants from them, extension-wise or Cubs-wise.
If it's the Cubs, permission will be given and that will happen pretty quickly. If not, Ben Cherington will probably get an interview, if he hasn't already.
-
I'm hesitant to hope for any particular hiring because I know that will lead to disaster.
However, I think I like the model of hiring one of the youngish "boy genius" GMs to be "President" and bring in one of the up-and-coming assistants to be the GM. Maybe the two guys could come from different organizations, as long as the so-called "organizational philosophies" weren't in direct conflict with one another.
It seems like Ricketts isn't too keen on that two-tiered organizational structure, though.
-
Well, he's never going to get permission to interview Theo unless he offers him a job that's something higher than GM, according to the radio interview tomorrow.
Dave Dombrowski does both jobs (President/GM) with the Tigers, so if Ricketts is dead set against firing Crane Kenney, he can simply assign him a new title (Special/General Counsel maybe).
I am just so freaking tired of all this that I want it to be over already.
-
Well, he's never going to get permission to interview Theo unless he offers him a job that's something higher than GM, according to the radio interview tomorrow.
Dave Dombrowski does both jobs (President/GM) with the Tigers, so if Ricketts is dead set against firing Crane Kenney, he can simply assign him a new title (Special/General Counsel maybe).
I am just so freaking tired of all this that I want it to be over already.
Make Theo, President of Baseball Operations and Kenney, President of Business Operations.
-
Unless the Red Sox tear up Epstein's contract and extend him and pay him more (maybe with a new title) they can't refuse the Cubs permission to interview him. If they do, they've got a disgruntled, unhappy employee on their hands for the next year.
Epstein is in a win-win situation. I just hope he isn't just using the Cubs to pressure the Red Sox into giving him what he wants there.
-
LMAO Preferring FRIEDMAN to EPSTEIN makes me an anti-Semite? Or was that supposed to be in purple?
I never figured out that whole purple thing. I meant to say anti-dentite anyway.
-
Deeg is Robert Wagner?
-
Its amazing how much crap Theo gets for the job he's done, especially in Boston. Most of us would kill for that type of success. I see many complaining about his free agent busts but most were guys we also coveted at the time. I imagine Friedman would have the same free agent skeletons in his closet if he wasn't on such a tight leash with the budget.
-
I find it particularly ironic when Epstein is criticized for the J.D. Drew contract, when there have been so many complaints in the past about Hendry not signing Drew.
I certainly agree that some of the free agent signings were bad mistakes, and many here thought the Crawford deal was a huge mistake at the time. If Epstein ends up with the Cubs (which I don't believe he will), hopefully he's learned from some of these deals. Even though I was one of Hendry's long-time defenders, I do believe he was very set in his fairly old-school ways but I somehow suspect that Epstein is more adaptable.
-
fwiw, "But if Epstein is going, why is it taking so long? The longer the Cubs wait, the longer their reconstruction takes. Meanwhile, the Red Sox are apparently in the awkward situation of having the man in charge with his body at Fenway Park and his heart at Wrigley Field."from the Boston Globe:
-
I will be happy with any of the top three (Theo, Friedman, Beane) and mildly disappointed with the second tier (Hahn, Ng) and hugely disappointed with anyone else.
I would be surprised if our "top three" and "second tier" matched Ricketts'.
-
I find it particularly ironic when Epstein is criticized for the J.D. Drew contract, when there have been so many complaints in the past about Hendry not signing Drew.
There also would have been complaints at the time if the Cubs HAD signed Drew. I have never thought it was a good signing.
-
Boston Herald Sports Page:
(http://multimedia.heraldinteractive.com/images/20111008/1388ec_theo2.jpg)
-
fwiw, "But if Epstein is going, why is it taking so long? The longer the Cubs wait, the longer their reconstruction takes. Meanwhile, the Red Sox are apparently in the awkward situation of having the man in charge with his body at Fenway Park and his heart at Wrigley Field."from the Boston Globe:
The amount of published speculation on this whole thing is pretty remarkable. It would make sense if Epstein is having some difficulty sorting out his own thoughts on this - given his deep roots in Boston and probable reluctance to leave with the Red Sox at a bit of a low spot vs. the pull of the new challenge the Cubs would represent, along with greater independence.
-
Here is the first report of an Epstein "sighting" in Chicago. I doubt it will be the last (real or not).
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/ct-spt-1009-gm-cubs-chicago--20111009,0,1309358.story (http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/ct-spt-1009-gm-cubs-chicago--20111009,0,1309358.story)
-
"It would make sense if Epstein is having trouble sorting out his own thoughts on this..." I think you're spot on, Ron.
Epstein has been in the eye of the hurricane for a long time...even more of late. He's likely been working 100+ hour weeks for months, almost certainly in recent weeks.
He grew up in the Boston area (as a Red Sox fan) and has lived there most all of his life. His family is there. He achieved tremendous success and fame there...it would be expected that he would not want to leave on a downer.
While the Cubs represent tremendous upside (and a Hall of Fame slot, if he would, somehow, lead the franchise to a WS win), there's downside risk.
I'd imagine it would take some time (and a vacation) for Epstein to sort one's thoughts out (if he has any true intention of leaving).
One the other hand, if he senses that the Red Sox are pushing him out the door (which they might be), one could imagine a higher executive-level role (with more comp) could make lots of sense.
-
Count me in as one who hopes we get Theo Epstein.
-
Here is the first report of an Epstein "sighting" in Chicago. I doubt it will be the last (real or not).
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/ct-spt-1009-gm-cubs-chicago--20111009,0,1309358.story (http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/ct-spt-1009-gm-cubs-chicago--20111009,0,1309358.story)
Dude couldn't bust out the iphone and take a picture?
-
I was just looking at Theo's Wikipedia page. There is a comment about him going up on stage ands playing with Pearl Jam. Maybe Eddie can make a calll and help seal the deal.
-
I was just looking at Theo's Wikipedia page. There is a comment about him going up on stage ands playing with Pearl Jam. Maybe Eddie can make a calll and help seal the deal.
Yeah, get with it, hippy!
-
Someone photoshopped this in response to Paul Sullivan's Tribune article about Theo's alleged Starbucks visit yesterday.
I thought it was funny.
Maybe I'm just drunk from the ridiculous waiting.
(http://i.imgur.com/8hiLs.jpg)
-
Sources say the Red Sox have granted permission for the Cubs to speak to Epstein about their vacant general manager's job, though the Sox have refused to confirm that publicly.
It's buried at the bottom of an article that talks about the dude that claims he saw Theo in Chicago yesterday but it's there.
http://tinyurl.com/6hkecsm
-
Maybe I'm just drunk from the ridiculous waiting.
I would much rather Ricketts make a careful, reflective decision, fully evaluating the options (which means interviews, both of the target figure and of people who have worked with him), instead of making a decision quickly to satisfy some in the media and some fans.
-
I would much rather Ricketts make a careful, reflective decision, fully evaluating the options (which means interviews, both of the target figure and of people who have worked with him), instead of making a decision quickly to satisfy some in the media and some fans.
If Ricketts doesn't have his homework done by now we are in trouble.
-
One key area in which the new leadership will almost certainly be substantially better than what we've had in the past will be having a defined organizational philosophy that employees (including manager/players) will be accountable for to at least some extent.
With Epstein, as example, one could imagine greater emphasis on greater instructional focus on teaching young players how to grind out at bats, if they want to continue climbing through the system at a solid pace.
When asked what is the key quality managerial candidates must have, Red Sox' Henry said, "...fit into the organizational philosophy."
In this day and age, virtually every successful business has a strategic vision and philosophy that helps guide decisions - and behavior -throughout the organization.
It's a significant issue and I'm confident our new leadership will be far more strategic, planful and proactive than Cub leaders have been in the past. My sense is that it will help a lot.
-
having a defined organizational philosophy that employees (including manager/players) will be accountable for to at least some extent.
Seriously now, exactly what does that claptrap mean?
Your infallible, sainted Theo, signed Carl Crawford last year, and Crawford's 23 walks in 538 plate appearances, and Crawford never in his career has had more than 51 walks a season, but in 2011 he walked less often that any season since 2005.
So, what, exactly was the Red Sox "organizational philosophy," and did Theo forget to tell Crawford about it at the time of the signing?
And what has the Red Sox "organizational philosophy" been regarding pitchers? Overpay for underperformers? Not a good "organizational philosophy."
-
Jes, organizational philosophy is no silver bullet. There is NO silver bullet.
Smart businesses do what they can to tilt the odds even a bit in their favor...driving a sound org. philosophy is one way of doing so by improving organizational focus and clarity, and decision making.
A business can have a very sound org. philosophy and still make significant mistakes. Mistakes happen with any business. Period. Steve Jobs made plenty of mistakes running Apple.
However, over time, the results are very good for the best-run businesses...in this day and age, in which metrics and statistical analysis are readily available, most outstanding businesses have a sound org. philosophy and generally drive it...not that deviations and exceptions aren't made...they are. Sometimes, the exceptions work out well, sometimes not.
The Red Sox org. philosophy may well include off-field principles as "collaborative decision making" as well as on-field items as "control the strike zone." No doubt, they internally share quite a bit of definition regarding those principles, but will deviate under certain circumstances.
When their owner says "fit" with org. philosophy is the "key" item in the managerial decision making, i believe him. There is little question but that their org. philosophy is a major reason - certainly not the sole reason - the Red Sox results have been so much better than ours in recent years.
-
MLB Radio reports that Epstein contacted Jim Hendry a week ago about what it's like to work for Ricketts and the organization in general. Hendry reportedly had great things to say.
http://tinyurl.com/3h3apys (http://tinyurl.com/3h3apys)
Of course Hendry loved working for Ricketts. He let him stay two years longer than he should have.
What's not to love?
-
Really, how would something like that get out? Would Hendry spill? He doesn't seem like the type. Sounds like a fantasy to me.
-
You have to ask? Hendry's neighbor's daughter was borrowing some milk to make a birthday cake for her boyfriend while Jimbo was on the phone with Theo. Her boyfriend is the guy who saw Theo that weekend at Starbucks. What are the odds, huh? Nice to have sources like that.
-
Jes, organizational philosophy is no silver bullet. There is NO silver bullet.
Smart businesses do what they can to tilt the odds even a bit in their favor...driving a sound org. philosophy is one way of doing so by improving organizational focus and clarity, and decision making.
A business can have a very sound org. philosophy and still make significant mistakes. Mistakes happen with any business. Period. Steve Jobs made plenty of mistakes running Apple.
However, over time, the results are very good for the best-run businesses...in this day and age, in which metrics and statistical analysis are readily available, most outstanding businesses have a sound org. philosophy and generally drive it...not that deviations and exceptions aren't made...they are. Sometimes, the exceptions work out well, sometimes not.
The Red Sox org. philosophy may well include off-field principles as "collaborative decision making" as well as on-field items as "control the strike zone." No doubt, they internally share quite a bit of definition regarding those principles, but will deviate under certain circumstances.
When their owner says "fit" with org. philosophy is the "key" item in the managerial decision making, i believe him. There is little question but that their org. philosophy is a major reason - certainly not the sole reason - the Red Sox results have been so much better than ours in recent years.
ben, your response is even MORE claptrap.
I did not ask why organizational philosophy was important. I asked what a specific passage you wrote meant, particularly in the context of your repeated praise of Theo, and the example I gave you of signing Crawford and the Red Sox pitching mess. Implicit in that question was asking just what Theo's "defined organizational philosophy" was and just how he had been assuring that all players and managers were accountable for it when he signed Crawford... who simply does not seem to fit what on other occasions you have indicated you considered Theo's "organizational philosophy" to be.
But folks who use claptrap seldom actually explain what it is supposed to mean.... and you didn't let me down.
-
oh brother...
-
oh brother...
Yea.... that's about my reaction when I see reference to the importance of "organizational philosophy."
-
oh brother...
TGIF - Thank goodness it's Friday
TGFI - Thank goodness for ignore
-
I am just so freaking tired of all this that I want it to be over already.
Just curious here, and I do not pretend to know the answer, but does MLB discourage major signing announcements, whether of GM, managers or players during post-season play?
-
MLB has a moratorium on anouncements during playoff series. I think there is a window for anouncements between series. This would apply to GM's and managers as players are still under contract are not free agents till after the world series.
-
MLB has a moratorium on anouncements during playoff series. I think there is a window for anouncements between series. This would apply to GM's and managers as players are still under contract are not free agents till after the world series.
Wouldn't it also apply, however, to announcing a new contract agreement for a player?
Say the Cards had not made the playoffs, but negotiated a new contract with during the playoffs. Wouldn't the ban also apply to that?
-
The Sox announced their new manager last week during the wildcard series. A wretched decision as national television news reports were too busy talking to Joltin' Joe Girardi to do a comprehensive profile of the new skipper, such as a fantastic highlight video.
-
Are you refering to the A-Rod resigning that was "accidentally leaked" during the world series?
-
Bug Selig would prefer that teams hold off on announcing signings or firings during playoff series but there is no official law preventing such an action to the best of my knowledge.
-
Rival executive on Theo Epstein: "If he met with the Cubs, what it means is that if he gets the offer he wants, he's gone [to Chicago]."
-
The only thing we really know for sure right now is until he actually makes up his mind, we're going to hear a lot of crazy **** about what Theo's supposedly going to do.
-
Bug Selig would prefer that teams hold off on announcing signings or firings during playoff series but there is no official law preventing such an action to the best of my knowledge.
It goes back to prior to Bud Selig. And I don't know if it has ever been "unofficially" extended beyond the World Series.
-
The only thing we really know for sure right now is until he actually makes up his mind, we're going to hear a lot of crazy **** about what Theo's supposedly going to do.
Theo makes up his mind?
We have no idea whether Theo is even in consideration by Ricketts, or, if he is, how high he might be on the list.
We GUESS that Ricketts is considering Theo, and for some of us because it is what we would like Ricketts to do, we assume Rickett's is leaning that way.
We don't know much at all on it.
Good points about ARod's contract and about the Sox manager. Obviously any pressure to delay announcements is not too strong.
-
The only thing we really know for sure right now is until he actually makes up his mind, we're going to hear a lot of crazy **** about what Theo's supposedly going to do.
Well put, JR.
-
The Boston Herald has two new articles on the Theo watch today. Both authors seem to believe that the his bosses are not inclined to make it difficult for him to leave, and that it's likely that he'll make the move to the Cubs.
http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/baseball/red_sox/view/2011_1011next_step_logical_writing_on_wall_for_red_sox_to_sack_chicago-bound_epstein/ (http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/baseball/red_sox/view/2011_1011next_step_logical_writing_on_wall_for_red_sox_to_sack_chicago-bound_epstein/)
http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/baseball/red_sox/view.bg?articleid=1372438 (http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/baseball/red_sox/view.bg?articleid=1372438)
Who knows? I don't know the personalities involved, but I will say that the more I think about it, the "shelf life" comment by Henry does not seem consistent with the expectation or intention that Theo will be GM for another 3-5 years. And isn't that the real question, not whether he'll stay for one more year to finish his contract?
It's hard to imagine the ultimate outcome will be Epstein simply staying in Boston to finish his contract, without an extension. The conventional wisdom is that he'll either get an extension (and some suggest expanded authority, which is hard to imagine given the last couple of years) or that he'll leave - presumably for the Cubs.
For him to get an extension, Henry et al (including Lucchino, who is apparently not Epstein's biggest fan) would need to believe that he is not near the end of his "shelf life," something that certainly wasn't obvious from the radio interview.
The difficult relationship between Epstein and his immediate boss, Lucchino, is something that keeps getting mentioned by Boston writers. Not only is that relevant to the question of whether the bosses would agree to an extension, but also to whether Theo would want one. By all accounts having Lucchino supervising him is not something Epstein likes, and he would have nothing like that if he goes to the Cubs. If not for the disappointments of the last couple of years, he might have had the leverage to make a play for more authority in discussions about an extension, but that would seem out of the question right now.
The Cubs job won't be there a year from now, and how many other jobs are there in MLB that would be all that attractive to someone like Epstein? While my gut had been telling me that the Cubs won't end up with Theo, I'm beginning to think they might after all.
This all assumes that he really is Ricketts' top choice and that Epstein is really interested in the Cubs (both of which seem likely, based on a lot of different reports).
-
Given some of the decisions that need to be made soon and planning strategies throughout the winter is important, I hope they get off the dime soon. If Theo says no, more time is slipping away.
In any case, fire Quade.
-
Ron, thanks for the links and your excellent analysis.
Who knows (as so much depends on information that hasn't leaked out), but I'd guess you have it about right based on what has leaked out.
-
Given some of the decisions that need to be made soon and planning strategies throughout the winter is important, I hope they get off the dime soon. If Theo says no, more time is slipping away.
In any case, fire Quade.
To some extent the Red Sox are in the same boat. There are a number of decisions they need to make (including hiring a manager) that are apparently on hold until a decision on/by Theo is made.
-
true dat
-
Red Sox will not interview managerial candidates until Theo situation is resolved.
http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/red-sox/post/_/id/14861/report-manager-search-on-hold-for-theo
-
Ron, I also want to say thanks for your links, and synopsis of their contents. And for you analysis of the situation. I think everything you wrote makes good sense.
I agree that this isn't about running out his 1-year extension. He certainly doesn't want to do that, have another lousy no-pitching season with a lot of overpaid guys, and then get released then.
He either wants to leverage his current situation into an extension, ideally with more powers and independence. Or else get the equivalent elsewhere while he's in the position to do so.
It is kind of interesting to me to just get a hint of the complex and seemingly convoluted structure in Boston's administration. Is this the brilliant business model that we want to emulate? There's Theo, there's Luchino, there's Cherington, there's Henry. Is that really the sum of the big heads? Or are there some other guys in that blender too?
Or is Henry-Luchino-Epstein-Cherington really no different than Ricketts-Kenney-Hendry-Randy Bush? The owners (Henry/Ricketts) and presidents or whomever (Luchino/Crane Kenney) are somewhat involved in telling the GM what his budget ceiling is, and they all care about the results. But basically the GM is given autonomy to do all the baseball decisions and allocate the available budget as they see fit?
Again, I have no idea what has really happened. Did "committee involvement" force Theo into the failures? Or did the "committee involvement" protect him from more? The "closers are overrated, really anybody can do that and we can do it by committee" disaster pre-Papelbon, that was all Theo? Or that was Luchino and Bill James and Theo got committeed into it? The massive money spent on Matsusaka, which at the time seemed surprisingly aggressive, was that Theo's idea? Or did Luchino's scouts in Asia have him all buzzed up as really great? Bringing in guys with some known stereoid rumors, and keeping out of the clubhouse and enabling whatever steroid assistance to continue, was that Theo's policy? Or Luchino told him that's how it ought to be done?
Who knows. All of which is why I have no confidence, really, that I know at all whether Theo is a great GM who just happened to have some bad contracts, it happens to everybody that's the nature of the business. Or if he's really a pretty mediocre GM who just happened to get hired into a situation where they already had some great building blocks; he made a couple of successful moves (Ortiz, Mueller, bellhorn) that worked, but it happens to everybody to sometimes have guys work out, that's the nature of the business; and he used his massive budget to buy some sustained competitiveness.
If the Cubs do end up getting him, he might be really good. He might be pretty bad. I have no idea. Really all I know is that he'll give a somewhat more articulate and intelligent press conference, and he'll understand sabermetrics better than Hendry.
-
Would Theo = Tito? I've seen speculation both ways.
-
"Or is Henry-Lucchino-Epstein-Cherington really no different than Ricketts-Kenney-Hendry-Randy Bush..."
You're kidding...right?
I don't see much comparison between their record of the last several years and ours, particularly since Red Sox have won 2 World Championships, a bunch of other playoff games and 95+ wins in the toughest division in baseball a number of times. Further, the state of their franchise is WAY better than the current state of ours.
It sure seems to me that Ricketts is correct in benchmarking that organization and hiring away their point guy, if he can. Sure seems there are lots of things we can learn from what they've been doing over the last several years, whether Theo gets 70% of the credit or 50% or 30% or whatever, whether he's great or just mediocre.
Fortunately, Theo isn't the only guy out there who can bring a FAR greater level of sophistication to the baseball leadership role than the Cubs have had in the past. If he comes to Cubs, great. I think he would improve things. If he doesn't come to the Cubs, there are other candidates out there who would also bring significant organizational improvement.
-
I agree that this isn't about running out his 1-year extension. He certainly doesn't want to do that, have another lousy no-pitching season with a lot of overpaid guys, and then get released then.
He either wants to leverage his current situation into an extension, ideally with more powers and independence. Or else get the equivalent elsewhere while he's in the position to do so.
For Theo, this could be the time to sell high.
If the Red Sox do poorly next year, the bloom could start to leave the rose.
I have no confidence, really, that I know at all whether Theo is a great GM who just happened to have some bad contracts, it happens to everybody that's the nature of the business. Or if he's really a pretty mediocre GM who just happened to get hired into a situation where they already had some great building blocks; he made a couple of successful moves (Ortiz, Mueller, bellhorn) that worked, but it happens to everybody to sometimes have guys work out, that's the nature of the business; and he used his massive budget to buy some sustained competitiveness.
For exactly the reasons you address, none of us know. Some of us are merely more confident about things about which we should be uncertain.
-
It's also important to consider that the Red Sox were winning 90+ games all those years in the AL East while Jim Hendry's Cubs were losing 90+ games all those years in the NL Central.
-
I've been seeing/reading a lot of speculation of national media about how Theo, if he takes the Cubs GM job, will get a honeymoon period in Chicago, because Cubs fans don't expect to win.
Is there another Chicago Cubs fan base somewhere? The Cubs fans I've seen are booing Cubs off the field in April when they strike out with a runner on third and no one out in the first inning.
It really is amazing how out of touch the media is with the actual atmosphere in Wrigley these days.
It's infuriating.
It ranks right up there with the perception of the Cubs having "bloated long-term contracts" that will handcuff the new GM for years to come.
-
Strike, I'm probably pretty far to the edge of the massive rebuilding side of the Bell Curve (and maybe not at all representative of the average Cub fan), but I've virtually written off next season and don't care how many games we win, provided we're building something.
My sense is that fans will still come, provided it's clear the building has begun in earnest and kids play their butts off on the field.
If new leadership determines that we must chase FAs in order to draw 3 million, so be it... But I'd much rather see the new leadership plow as much as possible into amateur signings/development/farm system vs any available FAs.
We've waited this long and we aren't going to leapfrog the Cards or Brewers or Reds next season...let's build proactively, rather than reactively chasing after FAs to plug the massive gaps.
-
It's also important to consider that the Red Sox were winning 90+ games all those years in the AL East while Jim Hendry's Cubs were losing 90+ games all those years in the NL Central.
"All those years.... Jim Hendry's Cubs were losing 90+ games...."
Hendry became GM after the 2002 season. He was removed in the middle of the 2011 season. This leaves him fully accountable for the seasons from 2003 to 2010, inclusive.
During that time the Cubs had one, one, season when they lost more than 90 games.
It ranks right up there with the perception of the Cubs having.... Nah, never-mind.
-
Strike, I'm probably pretty far to the edge of the massive rebuilding side of the Bell Curve (and maybe not at all representative of the average Cub fan), but I've virtually written off next season and don't care how many games we win, provided we're building something.
My sense is that fans will still come, provided it's clear the building has begun in earnest and kids play their butts off on the field.
If new leadership determines that we must chase FAs in order to draw 3 million, so be it... But I'd much rather see the new leadership plow as much as possible into amateur signings/development/farm system vs any available FAs.
We've waited this long and we aren't going to leapfrog the Cards or Brewers or Reds next season...let's build proactively, rather than reactively chasing after FAs to plug the massive gaps.
You realize that the Cardinals and Brewers both have first basemen that are free agents, right?
Prince Fielder will be playing somewhere else next season. Albert Pujols may be playing somewhere else in 2012, also. They're both in danger of coming back to the pack.
The Cincinnati Reds are managed by a buffoon. They also have suspect pitching, no closer, no third baseman and not much money to do a whole lot about any of that. 2009 was a fluke. The Reds are a mirage and they're not a concern at all long-term.
The National League Central is very mediocre.
I'm not suggesting that the Cubs are going to win the Central next year. I'm not even saying that the Cubs are going to contend next season.
I am, however, saying that I expect them to get better. They had damn well better do their best to improve the Major League team or they will find their ballpark empty in May. Cubs fans are no longer happy just to show up and party in the bleachers. They expect to see a good product on the field and when they don't, they don't buy tickets to the games, the Cubs Convention or merchandise.
There is a ton of money coming off the books the next two to three years and there is no excuse for the Cubs to just sit back and put that money back into their pockets or funnel a portion of that money into the draft when there are quality players available at positions of need for the Major League team.
Building for the future is great if you're a fan of the Royals or Pirates but we're talking about the Chicago Cubs -- a major market ballclub that has zero reason to tear down the Major League product in order to pad their wallets for a few years.
Theo Epstein isn't going to take a job where he's going to just be a guy that has to sit back and wait to win for six years before he sees any real progress.
If Theo takes the Cubs job, he will want to know that he can actually do his job, which is to improve the team and win games.
-
Building for the future is great if you're a fan of the Royals or Pirates but we're talking about the Chicago Cubs -- a major market ballclub that has zero reason to tear down the Major League product in order to pad their wallets for a few years.
WHAT "Major League product"?
Will attendance fall if the Cubs rebuild? Most likely. And Ricketts has to be bright enough to know that. He will not be padding his wallet by reducing budget if the attendance also declines, but if he seriously rebuilds he may well be giving us what Cub fans have been wanting for decades.
-
Strike, I'm probably pretty far to the edge of the massive rebuilding side of the Bell Curve (and maybe not at all representative of the average Cub fan), but I've virtually written off next season and don't care how many games we win, provided we're building something.
I don't know why so many people still treat this as a decision to completely tear down and rebuild, or to continue doing what the Cubs have done the last decade...it's not an either/or thing. Rich teams rebuild AND try to compete at the same time. Only so much money is going to go into the draft and amateur signings anyway...it's not like the Cubs are going to suddenly spend $80 million in amateur players if they cut to a $50 million payroll. Keep the payroll at $130 million, and assemble the best team you can without making long term commitments to or trading away prospects for non-star players.
I'm still waiting for the first complete tear down and rebuild from a big spending team. The Yankees, Red Sox, and Phillies certainly never stopped trying to win when they were rebuilding at various times over the past 2 decades.
-
I like your intensity, Strike!
I'd love to think the Cards aren't gonna be good next season, but they get Wainright back and i don't see Albert leaving. Brewers should be rather loaded, even without Prince. I disagree re Reds and think they'll be at least .500 (if starters are healthy next season), whereas i don't see us getting there.
It would be really cool if we went Buildican, put a youthful team on the field AND competed pretty well. However, since I don't think we have much of any chance to win the Central (or WC), I'll hope buiding is the focus for 2012.
However, I respect and appreciate your opinion and certainly hope our new leadership can put the Cubs in a position to win while building 1st.
-
"Or is Henry-Lucchino-Epstein-Cherington really no different than Ricketts-Kenney-Hendry-Randy Bush..."
You're kidding...right?
I don't see much comparison between their record of the last several years and ours, particularly since Red Sox have won 2 World Championships, a bunch of other playoff games and 95+ wins in the toughest division in baseball a number of times. Further, the state of their franchise is WAY better than the current state of ours.
....
Fortunately, Theo isn't the only guy out there who can bring a FAR greater level of sophistication to the baseball leadership role than the Cubs have had in the past. If he comes to Cubs, great. I think he would improve things. If he doesn't come to the Cubs, there are other candidates out there who would also bring significant organizational improvement.
I wasn't kidding at all. But I was talking about bureaucratic structure, not individual competence or results.
The Cubs have had domain delegation. Hendry was on top of the baseball decision-making domain, and was delegated full freedom to execute. Ricketts, Zell, and tribune delegated a budget to Hendry to spend, and delegated responsibility to spend it effectively. In some sense, John McDonough and Crane Kenney were also "over his head", but again they were delegated to handle a different domain, the domain of Beany Babies. Neither Ricketts, Zell, McDonough, or Kenney have been having committee meetings with Hendry to discuss whether Fukudome would still hit HR's in America; or whether Hendry should offer arbitration or resign Todd Walker; or whether money would be better spend on Bradley or by keeping Wood and DeRosa. My understanding is that Hendry has been given budget and after that, it's up to him, with whatever input he wants from whatever advisors he chooses to consult.
I'm not clear on how equivalent that's been for Theo. Is Henry the same, he entrusts a budget to Theo and entrusts him to do as he deems best? Or does Henry have all kinds of voices in his ear, and if enough of them said that John Lackey would be perfect, the owner is telling Theo to go sign John Lackey? Is Luchino like Kenney, hands off, giving Theo the freedom to do what he wants? Or is Luchino in the mix, saying that he's seen Matsusaka and was impressed, and that some of Luchino's most trustworthy scouts say the same; so that it's Luchino driving the Matsusaka signing? Is Cherington chosen by Theo and answerable to Theo, like Randy Bush to Hendry? Or did Cherington get hired by Luchino, and is actually feeding his analysis to Luchino and Henry? Are they all kind of in the mix, and Theo can't make a move without getting consensus support from Henry, Luchino, and Cherington? Or is it really no different from Hendry, Luchino and Henry give him the money and let him use it, and if he wants to hire Cherington and get input from him, that's his choice?
If Theo hasn't had the same freedom that Hendry had, being given that autonomy might be very appealing. And likewise if he hasn't had the same independence, it's harder to evaluate. How many of the decisions, both good and bad, were really his responsibility as opposed to Luchino or Henry butting in (for bad) or helping out (for good)?
-
I don't know why so many people still treat this as a decision to completely tear down and rebuild, or to continue doing what the Cubs have done the last decade...it's not an either/or thing. Rich teams rebuild AND try to compete at the same time. Only so much money is going to go into the draft and amateur signings anyway...it's not like the Cubs are going to suddenly spend $80 million in amateur players if they cut to a $50 million payroll. Keep the payroll at $130 million, and assemble the best team you can without making long term commitments to or trading away prospects for non-star players.
I'm still waiting for the first complete tear down and rebuild from a big spending team. The Yankees, Red Sox, and Phillies certainly never stopped trying to win when they were rebuilding at various times over the past 2 decades.
+1
I like your intensity, Strike!
I'd love to think the Cards aren't gonna be good next season, but they get Wainright back and i don't see Albert leaving. Brewers should be rather loaded, even without Prince. I disagree re Reds and think they'll be at least .500 (if starters are healthy next season), whereas i don't see us getting there.
It would be really cool if we went Buildican, put a youthful team on the field AND competed pretty well. However, since I don't think we have much of any chance to win the Central (or WC), I'll hope buiding is the focus for 2012.
However, I respect and appreciate your opinion and certainly hope our new leadership can put the Cubs in a position to win while building 1st.
I'm not saying the Cardinals or Brewers are going to lose 100 games without their first basemen, but you can't just go out and replace a guy that's posting a .900+ OPS that easily, especially considering their payroll limitations.
Also, there will be another wild card team added to each league starting next season, possibly as many as two. That opens the door to the postseason even further.
-
Craig, I suspect when Red Sox say they make major decisions via consensus they aren't kidding. There's little question but that Theo was the KEY guy making things happen and making the major recommendations to the leadership group, but Red Sox front office seems to be a generally collaborative environment with some true baseball heavyweights weighing in.
NO question, but that Theo had tremendous supporting personnel...Larry Lucchino is one smart, accomplished dude (e.g. Yale Law, President of at least two MLB franchises), Bill James is, well, Bill James. Cherington seems to be a stud. VERY nice resources to bounce ideas off of indeed and there were, no doubt, others. Epstein may well have chafed at not having more autonomy (as Ron suggested), which may make Cubs more attractive as it would, presumably, be up to him to select those who he would surround himself with.
On the other hand, Hendry had guys like Andy MacPhail (for awhile) and Gary Hughes and Randy Bush to bounce ideas off of....no doubt, there were other guys available to Hendry, too, including a guy hired to provide saber analytics, who never got much press. Thus, I don't believe the "group think" was providing Hendry the same quality of ideas available to Theo, although it's always up to the ultimate leader to bring on the best possible personnel to surround him (or her) self with.
I think Hendry tried to hire what he thought to be top baseball minds when he brought in Lou and Dusty, but they were field guys who really didn't turn out to be at the forefront of modern baseball wisdom. Seems to me that Theo's paradigm is different - he likely won't be looking for the manager to build the strategy, he'll be looking for the manager to execute the strategy (which will originate from a higher level than the manager).
Of course, there are always a great many ways to skin the cat! Cards have done pretty well with Tony LaRussa calling LOTS of shots over there! However, I personally don't think the super-strong manager paradigm is as safe a bet as the super-strong front office model.
Epstein is used to being surrounded by a bunch of really smart, capable front-office executives and analysts, who likely provide a broad range of input and ideas, so one would think he would want to be surrounded in the front office by some really strong, smart folks, if he moves on from Boston. I don't really care what the new leadership's orientation is, as long as it works. It just seems to me that benchmarking (and at least in some ways trying to replicate) an organization like Boston's is a logical way to go and I'm pleased Ricketts is trying to do just that.
-
ESPN just crawled "Cubs close to hiring Red Sox GM Epstein, Boston Herald Reports"...
-
Heard the same on SportsCenter a little while ago...
-
"You will have more time to go fishing Mike Quade"
-
I think it's Murray Epstein - he's been working concessions. Cubs wanting to emulate the Sox and go with the home-grown talent.
-
Two baseball sources have confirmed that Theo Epstein is on the cusp of leaving his job as general manager of the Red Sox [team stats] to accept a position with the Chicago Cubs that is believed to include powers greater than he has in Boston, with an announcement expected to be made “within the next 24 to 48 hours.”
The hangup in the negotiations has been twofold. One of them is that Red Sox ownership was still hoping to have Epstein remain with the team. The other is compensation: If Epstein is to leave Boston, said one source with knowledge of the negotiations, the Red Sox are going to want “something real.”
Whether that involves a player, money or a combination of the two remains unclear.
“But this is going to be resolved very soon,” said a second baseball source.
-
Epstein 'On Cusp' Of Deal With Cubs
By Ben Nicholson-Smith [October 11, 2011 at 5:44pm CST]
Boston GM Theo Epstein is "on the cusp" of leaving the Red Sox for a job with the Cubs, according to Steve Buckley of the Boston Herald. Red Sox ownership still hopes to retain Epstein and if he is to leave, Boston will demand "something real" as compensation.
Epstein's proposed deal with the Cubs would include more power than he has in Boston, according to Buckley. The teams could make an announcement within a day or two and the situation will be "resolved very soon."
When Cubs chairman Tom Ricketts outlined his ideal GM candidate after firing Jim Hendry, he said he wanted someone with a commitment to player development and a strong analytical background who came from a background of success. Epstein, who became Boston's GM in 2002, certainly qualifies.
The Red Sox won two World Series titles under Epstein (2004, 2007) and have made six playoff appearances since 2003. They missed the postseason for the second consecutive year in 2011 after a September slide that cost manager Terry Francona his job. Our Transaction Tracker has every one of Epstein's moves as GM. Check out Tim Dierkes' look ahead to the Cubs' offseason for a preview of Epstein's first winter in the Windy City.
-
Source: Epstein would be restricted, through agreement of parties, from taking employees to CHC with him, except in cases BOS green lights.
That's interesting. I wonder who he would want to take along.
-
If this were Facebook, I'd definitely click on "Like."
Getting very hopeful. Epstein is no savior, but he should be a very good GM and should give (most) Cub fans better hope for the future than we've had for a while.
-
Compensation would not be a player from the Major League roster.
-
Bruce Levine has a more detailed report, with input from Gordon Edes.
http://espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/story/_/id/7089985/theo-epstein-cusp-taking-job-chicago-cubs-report-says (http://espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/story/_/id/7089985/theo-epstein-cusp-taking-job-chicago-cubs-report-says)
-
The fact that the Cubs already have a scouting director (Tim Wilken) and a farm director (Oneri Fleita) in place as holdovers from Hendry's regime was never an issue for Epstein, one source said.
"Wilken's highly respected in the industry and Fleita can always be moved to another position," said the source.
It's expected that Epstein's final deal - in which the Cubs will name him President of Baseball Operations with current team president, Crane Kenney, having his title changed to President of Business Operations - will make him among the highest paid GMs in baseball if not the highest paid.
http://www.nydailynews.com/spo...oston_red_.html
-
Also on that page:
Jim Bowden thinks the Cubs GM job is not all that
Up yours, you little prick. You don't like the job because no one offered it to you and no one offered it to you because you are a horrible GM.
-
If Epstein agrees to join the Cubs, it will be incontrovertible evidence that he's a dope and is no one that we'd want in charge of the Cubs' baseball operations.
Such is the Catch-22 Ricketts is faced with.
-
It's all still highly speculative. I'll believe it when they hold the press conference.
Bowden is a prick, but he's not incorrect that the Cubs job is not analogous to the Boston job 9 years ago. The biggest problem Epstein would face is trying to build a revenue engine similar to what he has in Boston without building a new ballpark. There are significant challenges that will prevent him from turning Wrigley into the ATM that Fenway currently is, but he has no choice but to do what he can to modernize the facility and maximize the amount of income it generates.
Epstein is also never going to have the kind of payroll relative to the league in Chicago that he had in Boston. That said, the most encouraging thing for me about an Epstein hire is that it would be the first concrete indication that Ricketts doesn't intend to try and win as a low-budget team like Oakland was doing 10 years ago.
-
If Epstein is hired, the most likely outcome is that he retires from baseball within five years with his reputation in tatters.
-
THEO! GIT R DONE JIM BOB, er TOM RICKY!
-
I'm getting gunshy reporting stuff from other boards on here but ESPN has apparently said that if Theo takes the GM role, Sandberg is the favorite to be manager. No idea when or where it was said, if said. No idea how anyone would have the foggiest...
-
Oh...hold on. That was on ESPN Boston, not the main ESPN
-
I saw that, too, Curt, from a couple of places, posted on NSBB and on the Twitter.
Apparently, Theo wanted Ryne Sandberg to manage the Sox AAA team but Sandberg went to the Phillies instead.
-
I saw that, too, Curt, from a couple of places, posted on NSBB and on the Twitter.
Apparently, Theo wanted Ryne Sandberg to manage the Sox AAA team but Sandberg went to the Phillies instead.
It was reported recently that Sandberg turned down the opportunity to manage the Red Sox AAA team in favor of the Phillies opportunity. I guess that makes speculation that Epstein might bring in Sandberg not totally crazy.
-
But, Deeg, Theo will have a payroll relative to the Division that, in theory, provides a competative advantage every single year. Beats trying to win with Pittsburgh's payroll. And beats being BoSox trying to compete with Yankee payroll advantage. Sure, it will take a few years to build the roster. But, what's a few more years?
-
I hear that one sticking point in the negotiations is how to prevent Jeff Horn from posting anything critical for at least 3 hours. Not sure I got it all...something about First Amendment, death squads, and broken fingers...
-
..The biggest problem Epstein would face is trying to build a revenue engine similar to what he has in Boston without building a new ballpark. ....
Epstein is also never going to have the kind of payroll relative to the league in Chicago that he had in Boston. ....
Another difference is that the team he inherited was coming off a 92 win season and had Manny Ramirez, Jason Varitek, Nomar Garciaparra, Johnny Damon, Pedro Martinez, and Derek Lowe all 30 or younger (using Baseball reference roundoffs). With a farm system with talent. (Hansley Ramirez, enough talent to acquire Curt Schilling ....)
Manny still had 3 more 1.000+ OPS seasons left for Theo, and a .988. That's a pretty good start toward a productive lineup.
That's why I'm still kind of waffling on how much Theo did to create their championships, or whether he walked into a 92-win team with a bundle of stars. I know the reality that they won while he was GM. But how much cause he contributed to the historic effect, I'm not sure.
Hopefully much, and he'll be able to carry success to the Cubs.
I guess we've had these "hire the winners" before. And it didn't seem to turn out that Don Baylor had actually created Larry Walker or Vinny Castillo's hitting. Dusty Baker had been a winner, but in retrospect he hadn't really caused Barry Bonds and Jeff Kent to be two premium consistent producers. And Lou Piniella wasn't bringing out success at the end. So I'm a little cautious that like Baylor and Baker, Theo may have been more corollary than cause?
-
Jon Heyman of SI tweeted that the compensation for Theo would be cash only.
A favorite here, Keith Olberman tweeted that something happened in Boston's front office in September that was worse than the on the field collapse. So Theo may want out.
-
Theo is a smart guy. He made some mistakes in Boston along with the good decisions. Smart guys learn from their mistakes. I think Jim Hendry learned from some of his, but not all. Hope he's coming.
-
There's a wide gap between thinking of Theo Epstein as a savior who can turn a fairly mediocre team into a winner overnight and someone who is comparable to Don Baylor or Dusty Baker. We've already lost Jeff to an unremittingly cynical outlook, Craig, don't you go there too.
The Cubs are obviously not in the same place the Red Sox were when Epstein took them over. I don't see that as a significant issue in whether or not Epstein is a good choice. We won't know whether he'd be successful until he is or isn't. But he certainly seems to bring a fundamentally different approach than the one that has been here.
Ben and I don't always agree, but I do think he's right that there has been an absence of an organizational philosophy that is consistent throughout the Cubs organization, and there has clearly been an old fashioned approach that minimized the usefulness of modern analysis. I'll be very, very happy to take my chances with Theo Epstein going forward, without any notion of him being a savior.
-
By the way, Phil Rogers has a silly piece on the Epstein situation in which he worries over the Red Sox insisting on Starlin Castro or Andrew Cashner, among other things. I guess since he missed out on being in on this story early, he's got to take a contrarian approach to get some attention.
-
Two more things before bed. Curt Schilling gushes about Theo (and says that some of the free agent signings were not "entirely his decisions, no matter what you've been told"). He calls Theo a brilliant baseball guy who understands intangibles and communicates well with players. http://espn.go.com/blog/chicago/cubs (http://espn.go.com/blog/chicago/cubs).
And Buster Olney has an updated article that mentions the following:
Neither the Cubs nor Red Sox have formally acknowledged that the Red Sox granted permission to the Cubs to interview Epstein, but an industry source said Tuesday that Cubs owner Tom Ricketts spoke with Epstein last week and that Epstein met with Cubs president Crane Kenney in Chicago last weekend.
http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/mlb/story/_/id/7089985/theo-epstein-verge-taking-job-chicago-cubs-sources-say (http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/mlb/story/_/id/7089985/theo-epstein-verge-taking-job-chicago-cubs-sources-say)
Maybe that was Theo in the Starbucks on Saturday after all?
-
I'm still waiting for the first complete tear down and rebuild from a big spending team. The Yankees, Red Sox, and Phillies certainly never stopped trying to win when they were rebuilding at various times over the past 2 decades.
My first reaction was to say that none of those teams at any point in the past two decades were as bad as the 2011 Cubs.... but that is not true. The Phils were not only worse, losing 95, 94, 87, 85, 97, from 1996-2000, they were worse than any team should be with a serious rebuild. They also were fielding really weal teams.... almost as if, I don't know, perhaps they were rebuilding.
Even the Yankees from 1989 to 1992 lost 87, 95, 91 and 86 games.... again, looking a lot like a rebuild to me.
But you are right that there have been a number of "big spending teams" which have never really torn down and rebuilt.... and which, like the Mets, generally s*ck year in and year out despite their big spending.
-
The Cubs have had domain delegation. Hendry was on top of the baseball decision-making domain, and was delegated full freedom to execute. Ricketts, Zell, and tribune delegated a budget to Hendry to spend, and delegated responsibility to spend it effectively.
We really do not know how much autonomy there was. We never heard Hendry say he had to get approval, but we also never heard he had been fired until about 30 days after the fact.
Hendry is simply not someone who is going to excuse any of his bad decisions by trying to palm off blame on anyone else.
-
http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/baseball/red_sox/view/2011_1011headlinegoes/
Theo Epstein on brink of joining Cubs
By Steve Buckley
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 - Updated 5 hours ago
Two baseball sources have confirmed that Theo Epstein is on the cusp of leaving his job as general manager of the Red Sox [team stats] to accept a position with the Chicago Cubs that is believed to include powers greater than he has in Boston, with an announcement expected to be made “within the next 24 to 48 hours.”
The hangup in the negotiations has been twofold. One of them is that Red Sox ownership was still hoping to have Epstein remain with the team. The other is compensation: If Epstein is to leave Boston, said one source with knowledge of the negotiations, the Red Sox are going to want “something real.”
Whether that involves a player, money or a combination of the two remains unclear.
“But this is going to be resolved very soon,” said a second baseball source.
-
http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/baseball/red_sox/view/20111011source_epstein_to_cubs_likely_within_48_hours/
Source: Epstein to Cubs likely within 48 hours
By Associated Press
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 - Added 3 hours ago
A person familiar with the situation tells The Associated Press that Boston Red Sox [team stats] general manager Theo Epstein is likely to join the Chicago Cubs within the next 48 hours.
The person spoke on condition of anonymity Tuesday night because no announcement had been made.
The Cubs fired general manager Jim Hendry on Aug. 19. They have been pursuing Epstein, who just finished his ninth season with Boston. The Red Sox missed the playoffs following a record collapse, going 7-20 in September.
The Boston Herald first reported that Epstein "is on the cusp" of leaving the Red Sox for a position with the Cubs and that an announcement was expected within 24 to 48 hours.
-
I don't know if this will come through, but it's an ugly story:
http://mobile.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2011/10/12/red_sox_unity_dedication_dissolved_during_epic_late_season_collapse/?page=1
-
WEEI this morning, on the Dennis & Callahan Morning Show, is reporting that the Theo Epstein deal is done and that the only details left to be worked out are the compensation and terms of Theo's contract (years and money).
They also said the people they've talked to told them that the Red Sox aren't interested in talking Theo out of going to Chicago.
Finally, they said that Theo is bargaining with Sox ownership on how many of his people he can take with him and who he absolutely cannot take with him.
More on Theo after the break...
-
Oops, my bad. The terms ARE set but no one wants to leak those but some unnamed sources speculated that it's a five-year deal worth "north of $15 million."
-
Incidently, those of you that have the DirecTV sports pack, you can watch these two idiots on Channel 628.
I wasn't aware that they were televised when I was paraphrasing the Red Sox ownership interview last week. I had to listen to them via the worldwide net-web.
-
Sure hope it gets done! If Ricketts can finalize the deal that sounds quite close, Epstein will bring a system that's worked well and he will put a solid plan together...both of which will represent a MAJOR upgrade.
Of course, as always, it will still require execution by many people, but Theo will put a solid foundation in place.
For the high-spending teams in MLB, lightining-in-a-bottle is always a possibility. I'd say it's far more likely that we will be below .500 in 2012. However, if the groundwork is being laid for the future, I'll be extremly pleased.
Count me among those very pleased with Tom Ricketts . I'd say he's doing an excellent job of getting the franchise at least pointed in the right direction...finally!
-
The Cubs have agreed with Red Sox general manager Theo Epstein on a five-year deal worth more than $15 million, according to a report from WEEI’s John Dennis. The deal is reportedly expected to be finalized this week.
Epstein served as general manager in Boston for nine years and the team won two World Series during his tenure.
-
News flashing on ESPN Epstein agreed to a deal with the Cubs,$15 million over 5 yrs...compensation,etc. still in works...
-
Rumor out of Boston is treat Epstein tried to hire Sandberg last year as manager of Pawtucket.
-
Sandberg coming back to Cubs as manager thanks to Epstein...?
-
Having read that article Curt One linked from boston about the RedSox collapse and the clubhouse disarray and Tito's losing the team, I think that an old-school hard-nosed guy like Sandberg might be a good idea for this Cubs' team. But only if he is forced to take an intensive week-long seminar in how to properly use the sacrifice bunt (hint: almost never). Seems like the old school guys love them some sacrifice bunting.
Like Ben, I am very encouraged by Ricketts. He's no dummy. He's filthy rich. and at heart he is a Cubs' fan. Not a bad combo for an owner.
-
A key for the Cubs to land Epstein is a title that represents a higher rank, presumably of comparable standing to ‘‘president,’’ in part to assure he’s not making a lateral move, as baseball protocol dictates.
In practice, sources said, it’s to assure that Epstein would have the authority to keep meddlesome Cubs president Crane Kenney out of baseball business.
Multiple high-level executives from other organizations said they viewed Kenney as an interfering, credit-seeking suit with little baseball acumen and an impediment to landing a top general manager.
http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/cubs/8165042-573/now-its-in-theo-epsteins-hands-to-decide-if-hell-be-next-cubs-gm.html (http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/cubs/8165042-573/now-its-in-theo-epsteins-hands-to-decide-if-hell-be-next-cubs-gm.html)
-
Will Theo bring Terry Francona with him? During Monday night's telecast Francona named three AL teams that run a lot and said how that affected his decision making. Joe Buck added something like "NL managers have to do that every day".
That difference and the lack of a DH in the NL will not be a significant factor in the manager selection.
-
Some of the word out of Boston is that Tito needs a break. Hopefully the Boston collapse will actually be a plus in terms of a teaching/learning moment for Theo.
Perhaps Cub fortunes are changing. Without the Sox collapse, there may have been little chance that Theo would be available.
-
Rumor out of Boston is treat Epstein tried to hire Sandberg last year as manager of Pawtucket.
That came from Gordon Edes, who I would expect to know.
-
Theo is a smart man. In Ryno, he hits a home run with the fans right out of the box. He'll have to make a lot of unpopular decisions as time goes on, why not make some that are popular when he can?
I don't see him bringing anyone from the Boston collapse with him, just because.
-
A year ago I had serious doubts about the idea of hiring Sandberg to manage the Cubs. I was a bit put off by the storm of support based on little more than what he’d meant to the team as a player, and I didn’t have enough specific information (other than his good record and some generally positive reviews) to have confidence he’d be right for the job. I was inclined to rely on the judgment within the Cubs’ organization about his readiness. Besides, it seemed a risky situation in which to begin his career as a major league manager, even if he was ready. I was afraid he’d have no chance with the hand he was dealt and would be blamed whether he deserved it or not.
Things have changed.
Pat Gillick has publicly proclaimed Sandberg ready to manage in the big leagues, and he’s got one more highly successful year in the minors under his belt. And things have changed in Chicago. After the last two years, expectations for the immediate future are probably the lowest they’ve been in a long time. And with fresh and inspiring leadership at the top, I think there will be more of a willingness to give the new leadership (including the new manager) a chance to produce.
I’ve always been a huge Ryne Sandberg fan. He’s probably my favorite all-time player and I loved his Hall of Fame speech. I suspect in some respects he’s a bit too old school for many here (including me), and would **** us off with some of his approaches (such as use of the sacrifice bunt). But other aspects of his approach, in particular his insistence that players prepare well, work hard and play good fundamental baseball would be a large plus. And I suspect that would be more effective coming from a HOF player than from a Mike Quade.
I don’t expect Epstein to replace Quade with Sandberg, but I think it would please me (and not just for sentimental reasons) if he did.
-
Buster Olney is on it now.
Theo Epstein and the Chicago Cubs have agreed to a five-year, nearly $20 million deal for him to join the team, sources told ESPN The Magazine's Buster Olney Wednesday.
http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/7091803/sources-theo-epstein-agrees-five-year-deal-chicago-cubs-leave-boston-red-sox (http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/7091803/sources-theo-epstein-agrees-five-year-deal-chicago-cubs-leave-boston-red-sox)
-
After reading the story out of Boston this morning, I think Tito definitely needs a break. Maybe a change of scenery would help but I think a year of announcing and recharging the batteries would be most beneficial for him.
-
From Olney and Edes,
Theo Epstein and the Chicago Cubs have agreed to a five-year, nearly $20 million deal for him to join the team, sources told ESPN The Magazine's Buster Olney Wednesday. The $20 million includes the Cubs picking up the conclusion bonus in Epstein's Red Sox deal, sources said.
-
Having Ryno as manager if/when Cubs accomplished something special would be a dream come true for me, too.
He's a class act and I suspect would teach guys lots about preparation and how to play the game.
If he had strong supporting coaches, I'd assume he'd be at least ok.
He seems like a reasonably smart, loyal guy who would dutifully follow the strategy set out by the front office.
It would be a real bummer to see him go up in flames as Cub manager, so I have mixed feelings about him getting the job. My sense is that it's going to take a while for Cubs to compete really well, but I sure hope that's wrong.
-
Wow, all pretty exciting. Pretty fun. As I've noted, I have no idea whether Theo was actually a significant contributor or cause for any of the good things that happened in Boston, and I have no idea whether he'll be effective for the Cubs. But there is no certainty in this kind of game. So the fact that there are all kinds of uncertainties whether he'll actually be effective is not unique, that would apply to anybody Ricketts hired.
I'm fine to trust the wisdom of others on the board and of Ricketts in evaluating Theo as a good risk and a favorable asset who will help lead the Cubs well. Hope it works out that way.
Hope we don't lose any meaningful prospects in the compensation package.
I also think it's great that this is shaking out so quickly. I had no idea how long it might all take. With planning required, sooner is much better than later.
GM's like players never bat 1.000 or 0.000. So the fact that Theo has had some good moves and some bad moves in the past doesn't prove whether he'll be an above average or below average GM into the future.
I liked some of the enthusiastic comments somebody posted from Schilling.
-
In addition to the 5/$15M, the Cubs assume a $3.5 million conclusion bonus
-
If anyone is interested, here is a link (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ajfbx29vjFfQdDEzMVVET29UMDRGZTVGc2Vvbjk0Y0E&hl=en_US#gid=0) to all of Epstein's transactions with the Red Sox, which I found here (http://stealofhome.wordpress.com/2011/10/11/theo-epsteins-transaction-history-with-the-boston-red-sox/). There are different tabs for trades, FA signings, draft picks, and "GM profile" which has payroll, record, manager, etc.
-
Very excited to see Epstein come to Chicago. Mazel Tov, Boychick! It's morning in America again.
Not discussed often enough is how many of his key people Theo is allowed to bring. Critical factor there. As for field manager, I'm still against Sandberg. I think he's temperamentally unsuited to be a big-league manager, especially in Chicago. Even with the collapse, I would take Tito in a minute.
-
Long piece from Dave Kaplan, including the following peek into Rickett's plans for the organization:
Sources tell us that Ricketts laid out his plan to Epstein and offered him near total authority on baseball decisions with no one to answer to other than the Ricketts family themselves. Epstein has no interest in running the business side of the organization and Ricketts organizational structure is set up to separate both the baseball and the business sides leaving Epstein to concentrate on fixing an organization that needs a new philosophy and must change the culture in the major league clubhouse.
Ricketts outlined his plan to build through the farm system while also spending wisely on the acquisition of veteran stars who can make an immediate impact on the Cubs. In fact, sources tell us that Ricketts is not opposed to spending big money on a star player, but for him to sign a mega contract the player must fit long-term with the organization. The acquisition of Adrian Gonzalez by the Red Sox is the type of player and commitment that Ricketts is willing to take on with the Cubs. He looks at Gonzalez as a star player, in the prime of his career and a player who is solid both offensively and defensively in addition to being a person of impeccable character. When opportunities like that come along he wants his Cubs to be in a position to make a move for a superstar. It was that willingness to spend when it makes sense in addition to the increased power and salary that will come with his contract that sold Epstein on Ricketts vision for the organization.
In addition, Tom Ricketts stressed to Epstein that the family was committed to the Cubs long term and that it wanted to build the franchise the right way. Not trying to quick-fix the major league roster to improve the record. Instead, he showed Epstein his plans for a new spring training complex, a new state of the art academy in the talent rich Dominican Republic, a long term plan for renovating Wrigley Field and thus increasing revenue streams that will impact the major league payroll. Additionally, Ricketts told Epstein of his family's willingness to spend heavily in the draft and on international signings which should translate to a rapidly improving farm system.
http://www.csnchicago.com/baseball-chicago-cubs/news/Kaplan-Epstein-blown-away-by-Ricketts-co?blockID=576086&feedID=661 (http://www.csnchicago.com/baseball-chicago-cubs/news/Kaplan-Epstein-blown-away-by-Ricketts-co?blockID=576086&feedID=661)
-
Rosenbloom is a tad less enthusiastic about Theo: http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/rosenblog/chi-theo-epstein-is-right-for-wrong-reasons-20111012,0,7931901.column
-
Kaplan says major changes in the major league roster right away are likely, and also reports speculation on the new manager.
Theo Epstein appears to have agreed to a five-year deal with the Cubs, showing his willingness to take on the the challenge of rebuilding the North Siders. Expect aggressive moves from the get-go and a willingness to retool the entire major league roster as he looks to build a winning combination for the Cubs for the first time in 103 years. As for who he might choose to manage the Cubs, speculation points to former Red Sox manager Terry Francona -- but major league sources told me Tuesday that they believe Epstein will look in another direction, perhaps at Cubs legend and current Phillies minor league manager Ryne Sandberg or Red Sox bench coach DeMarlo Hale, who is a Chicago native and considered a rising star in the game.
-
Epstein to concentrate on fixing an organization that needs a new philosophy and must change the culture in the major league clubhouse.
Translation: Cubs are getting a PS3 and a Popeyes!
-
I love how ESPN is spinning this mostly about "what does this mean for the Red Sox?"
-
I don't think that the Cubs will give up anything in significance for compensation for getting Theo. Ricketts has been window shopping other organizations for quite sometime. He has been "scouting" other orginizations for their structure and management personel. Soon after the announcing of Hendrys firing,if not before, Boston knew that Ricketts would most likely be coming after Theo. If Boston really wanted to keep Theo, they would have extended his contract or at least never given Ricketts to talk to Theo.
-
Now when discussing compensation for Theo, Ricketts has Boston by the short hairs. If Boston asks for too much and hold fast, what are they going to do? Ricketts knows that they don't want to really keep Theo. If Ricketts would call their bluff and walk away and pursue other possibilities, Boston would be stuck with a unhappy Theo that they wanted to get rid of in the first place.
-
Eastcoastfan, I would appreciate hearing your thoughts on Theo/Cubs.
-
If those articles out of Boston are even half true, I can't see Theo wanting Tito as his manager. Friends? Perhaps, but I doubt he wants to go through that again.
-
A year ago I had serious doubts about the idea of hiring Sandberg to manage the Cubs. I was a bit put off by the storm of support based on little more than what he’d meant to the team as a player, and I didn’t have enough specific information (other than his good record and some generally positive reviews) to have confidence he’d be right for the job. I was inclined to rely on the judgment within the Cubs’ organization about his readiness. Besides, it seemed a risky situation in which to begin his career as a major league manager, even if he was ready. I was afraid he’d have no chance with the hand he was dealt and would be blamed whether he deserved it or not.
Things have changed.
Pat Gillick has publicly proclaimed Sandberg ready to manage in the big leagues, and he’s got one more highly successful year in the minors under his belt. And things have changed in Chicago. After the last two years, expectations for the immediate future are probably the lowest they’ve been in a long time. And with fresh and inspiring leadership at the top, I think there will be more of a willingness to give the new leadership (including the new manager) a chance to produce.
I’ve always been a huge Ryne Sandberg fan. He’s probably my favorite all-time player and I loved his Hall of Fame speech. I suspect in some respects he’s a bit too old school for many here (including me), and would **** us off with some of his approaches (such as use of the sacrifice bunt). But other aspects of his approach, in particular his insistence that players prepare well, work hard and play good fundamental baseball would be a large plus. And I suspect that would be more effective coming from a HOF player than from a Mike Quade.
I don’t expect Epstein to replace Quade with Sandberg, but I think it would please me (and not just for sentimental reasons) if he did.
What Ron said.
-
I know Im pretty quiet these days but I dont love my Cubs any less and dont follow them any less.
It's just kinda hard to take the time to say anything when so many things are wrong.
As far as today goes Im very excited and I feel like we added one of the premier young GMs in the game.
I like what I hear in regards to Ricketts and Theo's plan for the future and it just seems like today has brought a much needed boost for morale to not only this board but for Cub fans nationwide.
I must admit that I dont feel like it's the right thing to do to fire Mike Quade at this point but if we're gonna commit to Theo and put the organization in his hands then he deserves to have his own manager so I cant really **** if he does let him go.
As far as Ryno goes I like him and think he's a class act and he's definitely all Cub so Im all for it.
-
Rosenbloom is a tad less enthusiastic about Theo
Yeah, he's definitely all Jeffed up about the announcement. Killjoy.
-
Epstein will bring a system that's worked well and he will put a solid plan together...both of which will represent a MAJOR upgrade.
Developing a successful approach for a baseball team is not quite the same as buying a frozen dinner, with everything pre-made and you just get the right one to put in the microwave.
Everything depends on the situation. And while Epstein appears bright enough to adapt his ideas to the conditions, if in fact he does "bring a system that's worked well" and simply tries to overlay that "system" on the Cubs, we are likely to be quite disappointed.
-
Theo is a smart man. In Ryno, he hits a home run with the fans right out of the box. He'll have to make a lot of unpopular decisions as time goes on, why not make some that are popular when he can?
How about because he would in all likelihood need to fire Sandburg within three years if Theo does hire him for the 2012 season?
-
Even with the collapse, I would take Tito in a minute.
For some reason I would have a certain reluctance to hire a manager who not only tolerated drinking in the clubhouse, or drinking in the clubhouse during games, but drinking in the clubhouse during games in the middle of a pennant race when the team is in the process of an historic choke.
That might just cause me to pause....
-
Will Epstein bring Terry Francona with him to manage? That’s a possibility, although it was Epstein’s staffers who made Francona crazy with frequent lineup/player suggestions during a 2011 season when Francona was already dealing with a troubled marriage and the stress of having both his son and a son-in-law in the military in Afghanistan.
Francona, according to many reports, didn’t do his best work this season, with a lack of player discipline contributing to the 7-20 September collapse. But he’s a good man and a good manager, which readers of the Boston Globe might question after reading a story on the Red Sox’s collapse in Wednesday’s Boston Globe. He details Francona battling a possible addiction to pain pills and the equivalent of a mid-life crisis after he and his wife separated. Make of it what you will. But it seems like he is being made a scapegoat for a second straight season that ended with the Red Sox on the outside looking in at the playoffs -- an unacceptable development in Red Sox Nation.
Epstein has an interesting call to make on the manager’s job. He and Francona have had their differences, but what Cubs fan wouldn’t want to see Francona in a Cubs’ uniform on Opening Day, 2012? The Quades of Mt. Prospect, sure, but beyond them, who?
Another name to be considered for a job: Doug Glanville. A backup outfielder on the 2003 Cubs, the guy is as smart as they come in baseball. Some team is going to be smart enough to get him out of the TV studio and in their front office before too long. It might as well be the Cubs.
-
If Francona wants to be away from the spotlight that was on him in Boston, Chicago would definitely not be the right place even if his personal problems are all in the past.
-
Reading that stuff about the Boston clubhouse kind of stunned me. I find it hard to believe that major league players would defy their manager and that a major league manager would behave in such a manner as to show absolutely no cajones... You have players screwing around in the locker room instead of being on the bench, supporting their teammates and you can't do anything about it? Give me a break. Tito sounded like he had no authority, no power, to change anything around. What?
-
Curt, maybe this will help.
Think of Francona like a schoolteacher.
Pretty much the same situation.
-
Some of it is probably exaggerated by the Boston media doing what the Boston media does best. Has any big name left the Red Sox in the last 20 years without getting ripped on the way out?
-
Not in my classroom, Jeff. Sorry.
-
Curt, in Jeff's defense, IIRC you worked at a church-sponsored private school. Public schools are an entirely different environment.
-
KeithOlbermann Keith Olbermann
by BruceMiles2112
Multiple sources confirming Globe's Fenwayapocalypse article was upper #RedSox management smear of Francona, Epstein on way out #Dicks
A little more information would be nice.
-
I'll say it again - Francona is a good man and a good manager. I'd take him over Sandberg or any of the publicly discussed candidates in a second.
It has been speculated at ESPN that Francona may be Epstein's pick, but might want to take a year off - so Theo might leave Quade in place for a season since he's paying him anyway. Don't shoot the messenger.
-
Does that mean Beckett, Lackey and Lester (and Bucholz) are on their way out too? Because it was as much a smear against them as anyone.
Lester - Get it done Theo!!!!
-
Lester - Get it done Theo!!!!
Yeah sounds to me Lester for Zambrano would be a fair swap. That way both teams get rid of their big troublemaker pitchers.
-
Exactly, Cubsin. Didn't mean to imply otherwise.
-
Here are excerpts from a 2009 article in which Theo Epstein discusses his thoughts about how to optimize your team's chances to win the World Series.
In baseball, the consistent winner is better than the powerhouse. That’s how Epstein operates, anyway. The most dominant team in a generation, the 116-win 2001 Seattle Mariners, did not even reach the World Series. Reaching the playoffs once, no matter how your team is, is buying a lottery ticket. Reaching the playoffs often – like six times in seven years – is like being the house in blackjack. Eventually, over time, the odds dictate you’ll win.
“That’s why we have clearly defined objectives,” Epstein said. “In our mission statement, part of it is we want to operate with a long-term view to put ourselves in a position to win 95 games and get in the playoffs as often as we possibly. Now we’ve done it six out of seven years. Part of the thinking is that if you make the postseason multiple times, you improve your chances of making the World Series. Theoretically, if you’re in eight times, you’ll win one World Series. Well, we’ve been in five times. This is our sixth time in. The first five times in, we won two World Series. I’m not going to [complain] about that.
“I don’t believe in building a team with the season goal of winning the World Series, and the next year you look up, you’re old all of a sudden, you don’t have any options. ‘Now we’re a 75-win team. Hey, we won the World Series two years ago.’ It doesn’t work that way. We want to try to always operate with the broadest possible lens, so we have a solid foundation so that every year, or just about every year, we’ll be in a position to win 95 games and get in, and then trust our players, trust our manager, trust our coaching staff, trust our advanced scouting, trust our ability to perform under pressure to go win a World Series.”
The most famous/infamous take on the postseason came from Billy Beane, the famous/infamous general manager of the Oakland Athletics. In Moneyball, he said, “My job is to get us to the playoffs. What happens after that is [expletive] luck.”
Look at this decade: The 2007 Red Sox are the only team with the best record to win the World Series. The Yankees in 2000 and Cardinals in 2006 won the title despite entering with the worst record in the field.
It’s a dice roll. But it’s also not.
The team that plays the best wins. Was it random that that team happened to be the best of eight teams and win 11 games first? Yes, probably. Does that mean the players on the field didn’t earn it? No, absolutely not.
“I think there’s a lot of truth to it,” Epstein said. “I know Billy took a lot of [grief] for that comment. But the reality is, the smaller the sample, the more randomness there is. That said, it’s not a complete crapshoot. There are certain types of teams that tend to do a little bit better. There are certain elements of the game that are emphasized. It’s not determined by luck. It’s determined by how you play. So we try to do everything we can to put ourselves in a position to play well. You try to get every edge you can, including advanced scouting, which I feel for the postseason we’ve done as well or better than anyone else in the game – that’s something that we really emphasize and take pride in. Our players, time after time, have come up big in the postseason. They deserve a lot of credit for it. I feel like if you call it all luck, you take away from how hard it is for them to perform under those circumstances. I’m not saying Billy is wrong, because he’s not. But there is a performance element, too.”
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/extras/extra_bases/2009/10/watching_the_fa.html (http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/extras/extra_bases/2009/10/watching_the_fa.html)
-
ESPN is announcing that in light of recent changes in MBL, they are moving 50% of their baseball coverage operations to River Forest, Illinois.
-
I was very happy to see Epstein's emphasis on advance scouting. I was often of the opinion that the Cubs' advance scouts were more focused on drinking beer and sampling the food at the various ballparks than analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of opposing players.
-
I was very happy to see Epstein's emphasis on advance scouting. I was often of the opinion that the Cubs' advance scouts were more focused on drinking beer and sampling the food at the various ballparks than analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of opposing players.
;) :D :) ;D
I could not agree more and have said something similar several times.
-
NSBB says Randy Bush is negotiating compensation with Cherington, which is interesting given that Bush is almost certain to be fired once Epstein comes into power. Possibly with Josh Byrnes coming in to assist Epstein.
-
Theo Epstein has no idea what he's getting himself into. Poor, poor bastard.
By the end of his contract, he will be begging to be released so he can do something more fulfilling, like running an independent league team.
That's assuming he hasn't eaten a bullet by then.
-
NSBB says Randy Bush is negotiating compensation with Cherington, which is interesting given that Bush is almost certain to be fired once Epstein comes into power. Possibly with Josh Byrnes coming in to assist Epstein.
Why is the Cubs' interim GM negotiating his compensation with the Red Sox' assistant GM?
-
Why is the Cubs' interim GM negotiating his compensation with the Red Sox' assistant GM?
Here's the tweet that is undoubtedly the source of what was said at NSBB
RT @thekapman Cubs Randy Bush and Red Sox AGM Ben Cherington negotiating compensation. Both ownerships overseeing process. MLB must approve
The compensation the Cubs must pay the Red Sox for Theo?
-
I love the fact that the Red Sox would rather have cash than prospects. They know that there's nothing worthwhile in the Cubs system. Future 25th men and bad middle relievers.
-
Maybe, if everything goes perfectly, Epstein can improve the system to where we might someday get a league average regular position player or a number 3 starter out of it.
Let's dream high!
-
Regardless of how all this eventually comes out, today was a fun day to be a Cub fan. Too damn few of those lately.
-
Instead of working hard to identify our own Theo Epstein, we paid $3+ million a year for a GM.
Typical Cub dopiness.
-
Regardless of how all this eventually comes out, today was a fun day to be a Cub fan. Too damn few of those lately.
Amen.
-
Instead of working hard to identify our own Theo Epstein, we paid $3+ million a year for a GM. Typical Cub dopiness.
The Cubs once before worked hard to identify the brightest young mid-level executive to hire as GM... and we got Ed Lynch.
I am not ready to join those dancing in joy over Epstein, but it makes much more sense to hire him than try to save a few bucks (even a few MILLION bucks a year) by going with an unproven who is more likely to end up resembling Ed Lynch than Theo Epstein. (My own preference was Friedman, but it isn't my money, and I didn't interview anyone about either of them. As much as I love the Cubs, I will accept that Ricketts has more riding on this than anyone, is closer to the information needed to make a sound decision, and has a stronger motivation than anyone to get it right... let's hope he has.)
-
"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
If Jeff makes a post and nobody reads it, does it make an impact?
-
ESPN is announcing that in light of recent changes in MBL, they are moving 50% of their baseball coverage operations to River Forest, Illinois.
They can buy Z's house.
-
I don't know how anyone can't be happy with today's happening. Theo at least has a proven track record. I'm really buying into what Ricketts is trying to do from scouting to player development. It is going to get fun again real soon I think.
-
NSBB says Randy Bush is negotiating compensation with Cherington, which is interesting given that Bush is almost certain to be fired once Epstein comes into power. Possibly with Josh Byrnes coming in to assist Epstein.
I don't think its a given that Bush will leave the organization especially with the limited staffing that Theo will be allowed to bring over.
-
If Jeff makes a post and nobody reads it, does it make an impact?
You mean there are some posts here which do "make an impact"?
-
I don't know how anyone can't be happy with today's happening. Theo at least has a proven track record. I'm really buying into what Ricketts is trying to do from scouting to player development. It is going to get fun again real soon I think.
Again?
-
Q. Why are you banging your head against the wall?
A. Because it feels so good when I stop.
Sorta like putting Jeff on ignore and not having to read his pollution.
-
Q. Why are you banging your head against the wall?
A. Because it feels so good when I stop.
Sorta like putting Jeff on ignore and not having to read his pollution.
I used to hope, if not expect, that if Jim Hendry ever did actually get fired and ended up being replaced by someone like Epstein, Jeff would return to the thoughtful posting he used to do several years ago. I've had him on Ignore for some time, but have checked some of his comments in the last 24 hours to see if he would change his tune with Epstein being successfully recruited. I suppose I should have known better, but at least I do now.
I don't know if he thinks he's being witty or what, but it has become nothing but boring. I think I'm more likely to take Jesbeard off Ignore (which isn't happening) before I do Jeff at this point
-
I'm still a fan.
People didn't like the "Experiment" back in 2008, but no one acknowledges that he was absolutely right about what was going on with the franchise back then. All the Hendry-bashers from the last year or two were behind the curve.
Keep doin' what you do, JH!
-
For what it's worth, shortly after the Birds won another one-run playoff game, ESPN's Baseball Tonight team (Carl Ravitch, Aaron Boone and Curt Schilling) absolutely lavished praise on the Cubs/Ricketts for signing Theo Epstein.
Boone described the signing as a "major coupe" for the Cubs, while Schilling described Theo as a guy with an incredibly sharp baseball mind who deals very directly and well with players, and will build the foundation (and its piece parts) the right way.
Boone and Schilling agreed it will take Epstein time given the current state of the team, but Boone suggested the Cubs will be in the hunt within a couple years and stay there...clearly, Shilling agreed.
Guys, this isn't another signing. It's a BIG deal! Our franchise almost certainly got one helluva better today!!!
-
I don't know how much a player's opinion is worth on these things, but Orlando Hudson earlier said that as a result of getting Epstein he expects the Cubs to possibly make the playoffs in 2012, but even if they don't to go deep into the playoffs the following year.
It will be interesting to see how things play out in the coming months (hiring a manager, player moves, etc) and beyond.
I guess the first decision, other than a manager, that Theo will have is what to do about Ramirez. If it matters, I imagine Theo's signing would make Ramirez more likely to want to return to the Cubs. But the question is whether Theo will want to commit to a deal that is more than a couple of years with Ramirez.
-
ARam and other FA and arb eligible players has to be job 1. Z and manager situations can be dealt with in a timely manner, although if Quade is not to be retained, don't let him dangle.
-
I don't know how much a player's opinion is worth on these things, but ....
Might be a lot easier to sign a FA to a fair price if he believes the GM is going to build the team up fairly soon, rather than feeling that the team is bad now, and is and will continue to be badly run so that it's unlikely to get better soon.
-
Waaayyyy cool video of Theo on player evaluation. It also provides a glimpse into his personality. Hard not to feel good about this guy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4JZFH4_xXY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4JZFH4_xXY)
-
This is a quote someone on another board provided. I have no idea where the quote came from, unfortunately.
"Back in 2002, as Lewis and Beane were collaborating, Epstein worked with Cherington, Craig Shipley, now the senior vice president of player personnel and international scouting, and their fellow whiz kids in the basement of Fenway on a project of their own. There was no established Red Sox Way, so they set out to define it: They began writing a player-development manual. "Everything from bunt plays to how we want our hitters to be selectively aggressive at the plate," Epstein says, "to what requirements we have to be a starting pitcher to how you throw your bullpens—every fundamental and every philosophical idea." They also wrote a companion manual, on scouting, because "what the scouts look for has to match up with your development philosophy."
-
Here's another video of Theo, this time discussing his favorite player. It also shows that his player evaluation approach isn't just about the numbers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CXtKEec8Ts&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PL77B46BC849F16FCC (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CXtKEec8Ts&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PL77B46BC849F16FCC)
-
This is a quote someone on another board provided. I have no idea where the quote came from, unfortunately.
"Back in 2002, as Lewis and Beane were collaborating, Epstein worked with Cherington, Craig Shipley, now the senior vice president of player personnel and international scouting, and their fellow whiz kids in the basement of Fenway on a project of their own. There was no established Red Sox Way, so they set out to define it: They began writing a player-development manual. "Everything from bunt plays to how we want our hitters to be selectively aggressive at the plate," Epstein says, "to what requirements we have to be a starting pitcher to how you throw your bullpens—every fundamental and every philosophical idea." They also wrote a companion manual, on scouting, because "what the scouts look for has to match up with your development philosophy."
I saw that on another board, too, Ron, with the added tag line: That manual will be available in a blue cover very soon.
-
Another video (actually audio from a radio interview), Theo discussing J.D. Drew, but more. Again, this provides a view into his personality and the way he thinks about the game and about players. The more I see and hear, the more impressed I am with Theo. I think Jim Hendry may have been the best GM the Cubs have had since I've been a fan (Dallas Green being the only competitor). But my goodness, what a great leap forward Theo is going to be.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2aN4S2fGoA&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2aN4S2fGoA&feature=related)
-
I saw that on another board, too, Ron, with the added tag line: That manual will be available in a blue cover very soon.
I found the article from which that quote was drawn. It's recommended reading on Theo and his approach.
http://cnnsi.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?&urlID=460782872&action=cpt&partnerID=289881
-
Ron, while I absolutely believe Epstein's approach will improve the franchise is MANY areas over time, I'd say it's VERY hard to project that his efforts will manifest at the MLB level in year one. Could happen, but lots of things would have to go right.
However, if he makes improvements in many areas, as I believe he will, the odds will go up significantly down the road a bit.
Who knows, but if Quade remains manager this season, I'd wonder whether that would signal that Epstein doesn't think the club has playoff potential this year and that he would like to bring in Francona for 2013.
-
The question I have is whether Theo is going to have to start from scratch in building a software system like Carmine (which includes a proprietary measurement system) for the Cubs, and how long that's likely to take.
It's clearly going to take a while to obtain system-wide integration with the evaluation and development approach he is going to put in place.
-
Ron, thanks much for the wonderful links...just great, great stuff for true Cub fans! MUCH appreciated.
-
No doubt, it will take time for Theo to put his system in place as he (and his supporting staff, whoever they turn out to be) will first need to take some time to evaluate/analyze what is already in place.
It will be VERY interesting to attend the Cub convention this year...best guess is that Epstein will provide some significant comments about the state of the Cubs by then (tho' it's also my guess is that it will take him about 6 months to get his arms around what assets the organization has and exactly what he wants to get done in all phases).
-
I find it hard to believe there's any chance Epstein retains Quade as manager after having read all that. Thanks, Ron, for the great info.
-
Did Epstein really call Manny Ramirez a future hall-of-famer? Steroid use is really meaningless isn't it.
-
"Ignore RBIs, other than as percentage of opportunities."
Fans/media have "a tendency to label players based on personality types..." but "...it doesn't matter one iota to the execution of our business plan." (the key goals - 95 wins per season, in the playoffs)
Re J.D. Drew taking himself out of the lineup (and Baldelli behind him in RF), "With our business model, we have the utmost need for players to be honest with us when they're hurting, so they don't aggravate an injury."
Folks, there's a new sheriff in town!
Ron, thanks again for the links you provided...outstanding stuff for Cub fans!
-
Ben Cherington expected to become Theo's replacement today plus some comments on compensation and when Theo will actually become official.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/chi-cherington-could-be-named-new-red-sox-gm-today-20111013,0,5477769.story (http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/chi-cherington-could-be-named-new-red-sox-gm-today-20111013,0,5477769.story)
-
I don't know how much a player's opinion is worth on these things, but Orlando Hudson earlier said that as a result of getting Epstein he expects the Cubs to possibly make the playoffs in 2012, but even if they don't to go deep into the playoffs the following year.
One of the worst things to happen to Hendry was his initial success in 2003.
It left the organization, and the fans, and likely Hendry, thinking that with just another move or two, a tinker here (getting a top flight setup man for the bullpen.... like LaTroy Hawkins), or a tinker there (adding a LH bat for the middle of the lineup.... like Milton Bradley), would be enough to put the Cubs over the top.
It is the mindset still seen here from many who insist that there is no real need for the Cubs to commit to rebuilding because it is so easy for a big market team with a large budget to be a true pennant contender year in and year out (ignoring the fact that LA and the Mets both are big market, big budget teams, and have not been regular contenders for a couple of decades, and that the Phils wrote off about 4-5 years at the end of the 90's to rebuild, and that the Yankees did for about 4 years even under Steinbrenner.... but reality never interferes with a strong conviction).
And that belief during Hendry's tenure, beginning with 2003, which was the result of some decent scouting and insight by the Cubs/Hendry, and also some tremendous luck, is what has kept the Cubs from anything remotely resembling a serious rebuilding effort.
Hopefully the first thing Theo will do is dispel the belief that he will work a miracle and have the Cubs in the WS each year for ten straight years, beginning in 2012.
If it matters, I imagine Theo's signing would make Ramirez more likely to want to return to the Cubs. But the question is whether Theo will want to commit to a deal that is more than a couple of years with Ramirez.
What Theo does with ARam may be quite telling. If he makes a serious effort to keep ARam it would seem to be a strong indication that he is far more committed to trying to win quickly than he is to any of the following:
1) Pitches per plate appearance (which supposedly was one of his interests in Boston).
2) Commitment to player conditioning.
3) Having players work the opposition for walks.
4) A clubhouse culture fostering maximum effort.
5) Or maximum effort from his players.
6) Fielding.
7) Seriously rebuilding for the long term.
8) Flexibility for future moves.
-
Jes, my best guess is that the move Epstein makes re ARAM will ONLY tell us that - based on ALL information available to him - Theo determined that re-signing ARAM was a better move than any of the other options.
And, in my opinion, that's the critical difference between Epstein and Hendry (or ANY others who've EVER had Cub leadership positions). Epstein will make sure we obtain, analyze, digest and include in Cub decision making FAR, FAR more information than Hendry (or the others) ever did or could have with what they had available and their own intellectual capacities and/or those around them.
As Jed Hoyer said about Epstein in the fabulous article Ron posted, "What Theo does better than anyone is constantly push you to think in different directions. He wants as much background stuff and makeup information as anyone. Always asking for more is probably his best quality."
Of course, more information won't guarantee success...nothing will.
However, when utilized by a very smart guy like Epstein, the information will enable him (and his team) to ever so slightly improve the odds, mitigate risk, and create another competitive advantage of sorts...in addition to the tremendous competitive advantage we already have as a big-market, big-spend team.
-
I have to confess that after reading and listening to the items I posted I'm downright giddy. I've never wanted to attend a Cubs convention as much as I would love to this year. I hope Jimmer will be there and take good notes.
I also have to confess that I owe Ben an apology, in that I do believe that I underestimated just how large a difference there was between the way Jim Hendry (and others within the Cubs organization) approached the business and the way that Epstein (and presumably others) approach it.
I do not assume that the Cubs will have an immediate transformation by any means. But I do expect that as Epstein puts his people and systems in place, decisions will be better thought out and that there will be a sound and highly strategic organizational philosophy established that is implemented throughout the organization. I can't imagine that won't make a large difference over time. It may or may not lead to a World Series within the next 5 years or so, given the nature of the playoffs, but it should make for a lot of fun in watching very good teams.
So I do apologize to Ben (though I still think Sandy Alderson may not be quite as brilliant as Ben does).
-
Jes, my best guess is that the move Epstein makes re ARAM will ONLY tell us that - based on ALL information available to him - Theo determined that re-signing ARAM was a better move than any of the other options.
So much for your belief that Epstein would bring an organizational philosophy in which all decisions are driven by that philosophy....
However, when utilized by a very smart guy like Epstein.....
Ed Lynch was also "a very smart guy."
LOTS of "very smart guys," make very foolish mistakes on a routine basis. Being the "smartest guy in the room" will often lead to some of the worst decisions. Good decision making is far less about being a "very smart guy" than it is in getting the input from informed people (whether they are smart or not), and getting good input often involves not only soliciting it but encouraging it and not doing anything to discourage it, properly weighing that information and opinion, and understanding the limits of decision making. Good decision making is very different from being "very smart."
"Very smart guys" are often inclined to believe that their "smarts" means they can, and will with any effort, make better decisions than anyone else. And when that happens, you have real problems.
I am not saying that Epstein is anything other than a very good decision maker. I am saying that considering that the Red Sox operated as some sort of group-think collective for their decisions, we really do not know whether Epstein is a very good decision maker.... and that being "very smart" is not even one of the top three qualities I would want in a person making important decisions.
-
All this crap coming out of Boston trying to tarnish both Theo and Tito is disturbing, but it is normal for Beantown. What bothers me is when Tito says that there were things going on in the locker room that he did not approve of. So? You're the manager. Is he really saying he had no support or authority to put a stop to the shenanigans?
-
Ron, we're all in this together; we're all on the same side. The info you've provided is extremely fun to read and informative.
As for "organizational philosophy," Jes, only a numbskull would use it as a straight jacket and Theo's no numbskull.
Among other things, organizational philosophy will help set:
* decision-making criteria, so ALL important information is considered
* expectations of employees (including coaches and players), so they can be more precise in their preparation and more accountable to specific outcomes
"Organizational philosophy" is not the end in itself...it will help achieve the end result.
Being "smart," as i've thrown the word around, isn't just about having a hi IQ, it's about being smart enough to leverage all potentially available data. Ed Lynch may have a very hi IQ, but i don't think he was very "smart" in a baseball sense.
As for how the REd Sox operated (as a "group-think" collective) and the Cubs will operate, there's little question but that Theo was the PRIMARY driver of the "group-think" and that he will continue that decision making process as the Cubs' leader.
Finally, Ron, I'll continue to respect any opinions you offer on all baseball topics and I'll remain convinced that Sandy Alderson is one brilliant dude, in large part because he's the godfather of a great deal of the "modern" baseball thinking.
Sandy, not Billy Beane (or anyone else), brought sabermatics and "moneyball" philosophy into the mainstream of baseball. Sandy was merely a smart guy with a big problem: he was at a competitive disadvantage operating in a small market when he took over the A's. He was smart enough to borrow from strategic business planning by looking for "competitive advantage," which he found in sabermetrics guys who were at that time relegated to Stars-Wars type conventions. Sandy was the first one to create the "secret sauce" of metrics to identify players (pro and amateur) that he wanted and do other rather unconventional (at the time) things to help improve the odds.
-
YIKES! No offense meant toward Sandy Alderson, more than anything I was just poking a little good natured fun. Really. I did mean to give you credit where credit was due, though.
-
Ron, I'm sure Sandy wouldn't take the least bit of offense to anything you've ever said (at least what I've read). He'd get a kick out of the fact that all of us love baseball and the Cubs so much, and I believe he'd appreciate the divergence of reasonable opinions that appear on this Board.
-
I wonder if Bill James will be joining the Cubs?
-
That would mean Kaplan's position is moot, and I doubt Boston would allow that anyway.
-
As for "organizational philosophy," Jes, only a numbskull would use it as a straight jacket and Theo's no numbskull.
I don't believe I have ever suggested that he was.
Now, I have suggested that your slavish devotion to repeating for the last five years the importance of "an organizational philosophy driving all decisions" from the top down was rather foolish... but that is not quite the same as saying Theo was.
Among other things, organizational philosophy will help set:
* decision-making criteria, so ALL important information is considered
* expectations of employees (including coaches and players), so they can be more precise in their preparation and more accountable to specific outcomes
Doesn't that sort of depend on just what the "organizational philosophy" is?
Being "smart," as i've thrown the word around, isn't just about having a hi IQ, it's about being smart enough to leverage all potentially available data. Ed Lynch may have a very hi IQ, but i don't think he was very "smart" in a baseball sense.
And you are still missing my basic point -- that is only a small part of making good decisions, and by no means is it the most important part.
As for how the REd Sox operated (as a "group-think" collective) and the Cubs will operate, there's little question but that Theo was the PRIMARY driver of the "group-think" and that he will continue that decision making process as the Cubs' leader.
Unless you were part of that decision-making collective, you really have no way of knowing who was the primary driver, or how much the "group-think" kept him from making bad decisions, or spurred him to make the good ones.
I know you worship the guy, and want to believe that he is for the Cubs what liberals in 2008 thought Obama was for them. And without trying to make this a political discussion or to offer my own opinion of Obama as a president, liberals seem to have become somewhat disappointed by the reality as compared to the blank screen onto which they were before inauguration able to project their hopes and dreams.
I am hopeful with Epstein. Genuinely hopeful, and for many of the same reasons you have mentioned.
But even without the exclamation points, I just don't have the feeling I am close to as certain as you are that Epstein is the savior of the Cubs... and I agree with Dave that if the Cubs do enjoy a resurgence in the years ahead, much of it is likely to be a result of an improved farm system, better scouting and more money for prospect procurement.... things Hendry will have persuaded Ricketts to do, not Epstein.
-
Ed Lynch was also "a very smart guy."
On what do you base this statement?
-
...if the Cubs do enjoy a resurgence in the years ahead, much of it is likely to be a result of an improved farm system, better scouting and more money for prospect procurement.... things Hendry will have persuaded Ricketts to do...
On what do you base this statement?
-
Bleacher Nation rumors:
- Good chance Theo will hire Josh Byrnes away from the Padres. Even possible but less likely that Theo would be president and Byrnes GM
- Logan Morrison is the number one realistic trade target he's heard discussed
-
Confirm that from other boards, along with Sandberg rumors. Likelihood of no more than one, if any, cohorts at Boston coming with him. Strong indications that he's the kind of guy who might justify a Pujols or Fielder to Ricketts.
Unlikely to extend ARam. More likely to prefer fuscia to peach in the rest rooms.
Some writers still convinced that either Castro or Jackson will be the compensation; other writers think that's nonsense. I tend to agree.
-
Cacti, the Morrison rumor, is that in connection with Z? If so, is that straight up or in a multi-player?
-
if we could get byrnes and lomo... wow
-
"Strong indications that he's the kind of guy who might justify a Pujols or Fielder to Ricketts."
Sorry, I don't understand this.
-
I think he probably means that Epstein is the kind of guy who might be able convince Ricketts to invest in getting either Pujols or Fielder.
-
Bleacher Nation rumors:
- Good chance Theo will hire Josh Byrnes away from the Padres. Even possible but less likely that Theo would be president and Byrnes GM
- Logan Morrison is the number one realistic trade target he's heard discussed
Why, exactly, would the Marlins trade Logan Morrison?
-
Because ownership is stupid and doesn't like him.
There has been some real friction between Morrison and management and Morrison and Hanley Ramirez. The kind of friction which would make it reasonable for at least one of them to play on another team. If someone is going to go, it is more likely going to be Morrison.
But a desire to trade him does not necessarily equate to a desire to move him for less than he is worth... that is where the "ownership is stupid" part of the hope comes in.
-
Thanks, Ron. Yes, tico, on other boards they mentioned that Theo was in on Texeira and when the Sox didn't get him, he pushed hard for Adrian Gonzo this past winter. Had they not gotten that done, they would probably be players for either Pujols or Fielder to keep pace with the Yankees. As a result, the conjecture was that if a logical argument could be put forward to offer a huge contract to Pujols, for example, in spite of current finances, Theo would do it. At times, with Jimbo there was a feeling that no such effort would be made.
Logan Morrison is not getting along well with some in Miami management, Ron.
-
At times, with Jimbo there was a feeling that no such effort would be made.
Yeah, cuz Jimbo hated giving out long term, high dollar FA contracts...
-
I have been against the Cubs pursuing Fielder, but watching him so much during the playoffs, and with new leadership for the Cubs, I'm wavering. And he does seem to fit the profile of the type of player Epstein might like a lot. I assume Pujols is staying in St.Louis.
-
Ben, I am responding to your post in the Farm thread here because it seemed you posted in the wrong thread by accident.
This much we know:
* there's been much greater focus on - and investment in - the farm (both in the draft and overseas signings) since Ricketts bought the Cubs,
And I think I explained one of the reasons there was little focus there from 2006 until the Rickett's bought. Those are expenses that are only going to show results and increase franchise value (if ever) at least 3 years after the money is spent on it, meaning short term owners are not going
n to put money there.
* the Epstein/Red Sox model was to build the foundation from the ground up, outspending other teams re the farm/amateur procurement,
Honestly not trying to be argumentative, but is that actually the case?
Have the Red Sox always outspent everyone else in prospect procurement since Epstein became GM?
* Ricketts fired Jim Hendry and replaced him with Theo Epstein.
Thus, it's perhaps not real logical to assume Hendry was the driving force behind Ricketts investing more in the farm than previously....
Sorry, but your premise does not lead to your conclusion. The Cubs began spending more on prospect procurement and development after Ricketts became owner, while Hendry was GM, and before Ricketts fired Hendry.
Hendry brought in Wilken before Ricketts was on the scene, and Wilken was seen as one of the top prospect evaluators/drafters in the game. That would indicate that Hendry did appreciate the significance of evaluating and acquiring young talent. Hendry himself had earlier been in charge of both Scouting and Minor League Operations, meaning he likely had some sense that the evaluating and acquiring young talent was important.
Unfortunately for Hendry, MLB GMs are in the results business, not the best efforts business.
Complete agreement there, and that is what Hendry was fired. Whether Hendry persuaded Ricketts to invest more heavily in the farm and scouting and prospect acquisition, he had simply produced terrible results, and was fired because of it.
But arguing that Hendry likely did not persuade Ricketts to invest more heavily in the farm and in scouting and prospect evaluation... that conclusion is just not supported.
-
Yeah, cuz Jimbo hated giving out long term, high dollar FA contracts...
LOL m0, I don't deny what you're saying, but I don't think I'm alone with thinking Jimbo was operating like he couldn't make any more big big deals. I'll readily admit that I might be wrong, after all, he surprised me a lot the last three years or so.
-
Thanks, Jes. While we can disagree about what persuaded Ricketts to want to build from the ground up, there's NO doubt in my mind that Hendry loves scouting, player development and all aspects of the farm system and the industry. I suspect he felt tremendous pressure to produce at the MLB level and that influenced his thinking and actions, but he's a true baseball guy who, in my opinion, would greatly benefit any organization in the right role.
While I don't believe he was in the right role for the Cubs, I'd love to see Hendry back in the Cubs farm development system or helping the front office, somehow. His bringing Maddux back was a terrific move for the franchise and fans! He brought back Woody, another stand-up guy i'd love to see the Cubs keep in the organization long after his playing days. Those kinds of guys cement loyalties and show the younger ones how to act and go about the business.
I can't think of anything better than Ricketts and Theo getting awarded the Championship trophy and those guys calling up Hendry to join them and thanking him on that stage for his incredibly hard work for the Cubs (even while in the ER etc.). I'm sure it would bring him to tears...and me, too. A guy can dream, huh (I'm sure JeffH would say I've now gone completely off the deep end).
At any rate, i think it would be unbelievably fun to have dinner or a couple beers with Hendry....I'm sure he's got stories on top of stories that would entertain any of us for days. I'll hope he's still around if/when we ever do win it and that he gets acknowledged for the contributions he did make and those he tried to make. He's a great guy!
-
7:31 p.m. CDT, October 13, 2011
Boston radio station WEEI reports: The first day of negotiations between the Boston Red Sox and Chicago Cubs regarding compensation for the Cubs hiring Theo Epstein as general manager revealed a gap between the sides.
WEEI's John Dennis tweeted that the talks "did NOT go well today" and that the Red Sox want prospects while the Cubs want to pay only cash.
-
Chicago Cubs chairman Tom Ricketts has turned over a list of players to his three top baseball people to evaluate as compensation for bringing Theo Epstein from the Boston Red Sox to run baseball operations for the Cubs, according to sources familiar with the situation.
http://espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/story/_/id/7097913/sources-chicago-cubs-eye-players-theo-epstein-swap (http://espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/story/_/id/7097913/sources-chicago-cubs-eye-players-theo-epstein-swap)
-
Minneapolis columnist Jim Souhan notes that Andy MacPhail and Theo Epstein both left teams after winning two World Series and points out a couple mistakes Andy made that Theo should avoid.
http://www.startribune.com/sports/twins/131836553.html
-
Bruce Miles has been virtually missing in action during the recruiting and hiring of Theo Epstein. The Daily Herald has had a number of articles (two from good ol' dependable Barry Rozner's poison pen, several from Mike Spellman and one from AP), but only one pretty nondescript one from Miles a few days ago. It's commendable that he's not just spitting out other people's stories, I guess, but it's surprising to me that he's being so absent during the Cubs' biggest story of the year. Especially since I'd think he'd be doing cartwheels about getting someone so knowledgeable and committed to sabremetrics.
Maybe he's going to be part of the compensation to Boston?
-
Rogers is fine with the notion of the Cubs giving up Brett Jackson to get Theo:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/chi-your-morning-phil-theo-jackson-verlander-20111014,0,6949790.story
-
Crazy reports out of Boston have compensation as nobody in our top 20 prospects to requiring us to take Lackey's contract. Nobody feels, other than Rogers in that article, that Boston is in the drivers seat. Most feel MLB will tell them to take cash and like it,
-
Rogers had written stupid things about the Epstein saga before this piece, though I grant this may be his worst. I particularly enjoyed his speculation that Theo might feel disrespected if the Cubs gave up too weak a prospect to get him.
I would so much rather be reading Bruce Miles instead of the other reporters. Paul Sullivan is, sadly, the guy most worth reading among the local writers right now. Does Bruce Miles have so few sources outside the Cubs organization that he can't do reporting on this? Is he on vacation? In the doghouse?
-
Well, Boston has already elevated someone to GM, so they're in the driver's seat? They demand so much the Cubs say no, and now they have both Cherringon AND Theo? If we give someone up, it will be someone to whom we say, who?
BTW, Ron, did you get my email?
Recovering from this surgery, I watch a lot of ESPN. Is there a bigger moran than Skip Bayless? Sometimes I think he's a setup like people on some of the Springer-like shows...the arguments and loud back-and-forth seems forced.
-
Phil Rogers is an embarrassment to sports writing.
-
Thanks for the link, Cactus...I think the author got some things right about MacPhail:
* he delegated too much and became so immersed in the business side that he lost track of the field side
* he hired some folks to direct the field side (e.g. Lynch) who weren't very good
The author didn't mention that MacPhail also did a poor job directing the building of the Cub organization from the bottom up.
It seemed like MacPhail was rather lost with the Cubs - he failed to replicate what had made the Twins great (building farm system as a small-market team) and he got lost on the business side, failing to focus on the right things with the big-market Cubs.
MacPhail was way too old school...Theo most certainly isn't.
-
I should have said that MacPhail may well have HAD to focus quite a bit on the business side as the Trib suits didn't seem to help.
I supsect that he (and Hendry) had to spend a bunch of their time taking action to increase revenue and getting the Trib to spend...they made a great hire in McDonough (who went over to the Blackhawks) and otherwise upgraded Cub marketing by a lot under their watch.
Substantially increasing revenue/spending seems to me to have been MacPhail/Hendry's greatest contribution and I believe it was VERY significant...setting the stage for today's opportunity in some ways.
-
Well, Boston has already elevated someone to GM, so they're in the driver's seat? They demand so much the Cubs say no, and now they have both Cherringon AND Theo? If we give someone up, it will be someone to whom we say, who?
Recovering from this surgery, I watch a lot of ESPN. Is there a bigger moran than Skip Bayless? Sometimes I think he's a setup like people on some of the Springer-like shows...the arguments and loud back-and-forth seems forced.
The Cubs are in the driver's seat regarding Theo. If the Red Sox don't budge, the Cubs can simply wait for Theo's contract to expire.
The Sox don't want a lame duck GM running their operation and have already promised the job to Cherington, who can most certainly write his own ticket in Baltimore or Houston, if the opportunity presented itself.
Ultimately, what would happen is that Theo would get paid to sit at home and have no contact with the Cubs, the Cubs would hire Josh Byrnes to be an interim GM while they wait for Theo and the Red Sox would be paying two guys to do the same job with only one actually doing said job.
If that happened, Theo could take anyone he wanted from the Red Sox front office without Boston's approval, which is something they don't want.
Both sides are simply posturing, and the Red Sox ownership is trying to save face in the media after the collapse and the subsequent trashing of Terry Francona and Theo Epstein in the newspaper the other day.
When you deal with Boston, you should expect this sort of circus.
Oh, and Curt, Skip Bayless is Satan.
-
Ben, Andy MacPhail got a lot of undeserved credit for the success the Twins had. Almost the entire '87 team was in place by the time he got there and a guy named George Brophy was who built the farm system that produced a lot of the '91 team.
-
I think you are absolutely right, Cactus. Unfortunately, with the Cubs, Andy never seemed to grasp that it was the farm system that was the key driver to those Championships. There's certainly a lesson there.
-
I agree, SZ. Or you agree with me, whatever. The writers who think Boston is in control here, are clueless.
-
If you’re at all skeptical and cynical, you have to start to wonder why all of the leaks are coming from the Boston side. A cynical reader would figure that the Sawx are trying to manipulate the discussion – perhaps, for example, work Cubs fans up into a frenzy (“OMG! WE’RE GOING TO LOSE THEO! JUST GET IT DONE, TOM!!! GIVE THEM WHAT THEY WANT!!! ROAAAR!!!!”), to pressure Cubs ownership to making a deal on favorable terms to the Red Sox. As their ownership has demonstrated in recent days, they have no problem using the media to nefarious ends.
The leverage question. Some people, as we have here, say the leverage lies with the Cubs – the Red Sox have all but named Ben Cherington the GM, they’ve trashed their own team, and they’ve started the “we’re ok without Theo” narrative among their fans. Their only option right now to kill the deal is to cut off negotiations with the Cubs, and then pay Theo to sit at home for the 2012 season. Would they really do that, and become the greatest villains in all of sports?
-
Near as I can tell Boston writers and fans think Boston has the upper hand in negotiations, and Cub fans (not sure about writers) think the Cubs do. Somebody is wrong. Maybe everybody is wrong and neither has the upper hand.
Man, the remaining Boston leadership (other than Cherington) is getting lambasted in the media now though. There have been any number of reminders of the many once beloved Red Sox who have left town only to be vilified as they did so - with the suggestion being that it came from the front office (Lucchino seems to be the prime suspect). Of course the press has been an all-too willing ally in the attacks.
-
Near as I can tell Boston writers and fans think Boston has the upper hand in negotiations, and Cub fans (not sure about writers) think the Cubs do. Somebody is wrong. Maybe everybody is wrong and neither has the upper hand.
Assuming close to the worst, that we have to give up someone like Brett Jackson or Andrew Cashner as compensation, I think Phil Rogers and Keith Law are right. Even if the compensation is high, we need to have faith that Theo knows what he's doing, and he can make up for the loss of a good young player like that.
It certainly doesn't sound to me like we'll have to give up anyone close to the caliber of Jackson or Cashner, but even if we do, at this point, I think I can live with it.
-
Actually, I liked the Lackey for Soriano scenario. We actually save a few shekels and have a player with a decent chance to redeem himself or be of value in another trade down the line. He was horrible this year. What was the consensus? Conditioning? Injured? poor attitude?
Won't happen, so no need to get wound up about it.
-
Actually, I liked the Lackey for Soriano scenario. We actually save a few shekels and have a player with a decent chance to redeem himself or be of value in another trade down the line. He was horrible this year. What was the consensus? Conditioning? Injured? poor attitude?
Won't happen, so no need to get wound up about it.
fat, drunk, and stupid
-
Well, yes, I am, Pistol, but I've never attacked you, buddy.
-
Actually, I liked the Lackey for Soriano scenario. We actually save a few shekels and have a player with a decent chance to redeem himself or be of value in another trade down the line. He was horrible this year. What was the consensus? Conditioning? Injured? poor attitude?
Won't happen, so no need to get wound up about it.
He had a chaotic personal life (wife with breast cancer, divorce) that many believe caused him to be less than focused.
-
I just saw another report that in contrast to the report that no major leaguers would be involved, the Sox expressed interest in Jeff Baker. The Cubs said no. Are you kidding me? We would prefer to give up a prospect like Jackson or any real prospect over Jeff Baker? Hope that report is nonsense.
-
Baker is a much more valuable player than he is given credit for. A pull hitter that kills lefties, he is made for Fenway Park.
That said, the Cubs would be crazy if they didn't send him rather than a decent prospect.
-
Agreed re Baker...seems like he might help the Red Sox vs LH pitching, but of virtually no value to the Cubs at this point.
-
Yes, I agree that Baker is underrated, but sometimes I think the Cubs very much overvalue their players. One of the reasons that we didn't accept any claims in August. Sheesh.
-
It seemed like MacPhail was rather lost with the Cubs - he failed to replicate what had made the Twins great (building farm system as a small-market team) and he got lost on the business side, failing to focus on the right things with the big-market Cubs.
Ben, Andy MacPhail got a lot of undeserved credit for the success the Twins had. Almost the entire '87 team was in place by the time he got there and a guy named George Brophy was who built the farm system that produced a lot of the '91 team.
What Cactus said.
-
If that happened, Theo could take anyone he wanted from the Red Sox front office without Boston's approval....
Not if Boston is at all pro-active. The Red Sox could very easily put the underlings under contract with liquidated damage clauses for anyone choosing to leave and break the contract, and with serious liquidated damage figures in the contracts, they would not likely be broken.
-
Even though the Theo negotiations seem to involve players, it's certainly not like a trade negotiaton because, here, neither side really has the option to walk away. Seems like more of a salary arbitration negotiation---mostly looking at comparables--Ozzie, MacPhail from the Twins, etc.
I don't think you should have to give up any of your top 3 or 4 prospects. I'd be fine with two or three guys in the Dolis, Lake, Flaherty, LeMahieu group. If you're looking for some kind of benefit, moving some guys might allow Cubs to roster a couple of guys who might otherwise be exposed to the Rule 5.
For G--'s sake, if Sox want Jeff Baker, give him up.
-
It certainly doesn't sound to me like we'll have to give up anyone close to the caliber of Jackson or Cashner, but even if we do, at this point, I think I can live with it.
If we do, at this point, I think we can live with Friedman.
-
Mass. courts tend to be very reluctant to enforce clauses that prevent employee opportunities to gain new employment...on the other hand, there are, no doubt, lots of judges in Boston who are huge Red Sox fans :)
Let's hope the deal gets finalized without that type of conversation...it likely will.
-
Baker is a much more valuable player than he is given credit for. A pull hitter that kills lefties, he is made for Fenway Park.
That said, the Cubs would be crazy if they didn't send him rather than a decent prospect.
The Cubs may be refusing to give up either, though if the Red Sox are excited about what Baker could do in Fenway, trading him for a couple of THEIR prospects might not be a bad idea.
What Ricketts agrees to give up here could be quite telling about him. I am hoping he has the gonads to refuse of give up anything of consequence.... Of course, I would also still be happier if the Cubs changed direction and hired Friedman.
-
I'd be fine with two or three guys in the Dolis, Lake, Flaherty, LeMahieu group.
I was thinking Flaherty made a lot of sense, since he's a New Englander.
-
There is no way in the world I would give up either Jackson or Cashner for Theo.
No way, no how. Period.
-
Theo has a huge challenge ahead of him. He needs every break he can get.
-
The compensation for Theo can't be determined until it is known how many of his Red Sox staff will be coming with him.
-
From ESPN Boston
http://espn.go.com/boston/mlb/story/_/id/7101409/source-boston-red-sox-theo-epstein-taking-aides-chicago-cubs
MLB tv will be running a report about the current status of the talks between Cubs and BoSox regarding compensation and what staff Theo may take with him...
-
The Red Sox are just throwing Theo under the bus for everything on the way out. John Henry says he didn't want to sign Carl Crawford, who the Red Sox are still going to be paying for another 6 years:
http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/10/14/red-sox-owner-john-henry-i-personally-opposed-signing-carl-crawford/
The Red Sox really are past the point of being able to bring Theo back. They've pretty much killed their leverage to get something good for the Cubs, so it'll be very disappointing if the Cubs end up sending them especially significant for compensation.
-
Fine, the Cubs get Theo Epstein and Carl Crawford and all the underlings Theo wants and the Red Sox get Jeff Baker, Alfonso Soriano and Carlos Zambrano.
Done.
-
br, that's a positive sign that negotiations are not going well for the Sox. They already see that what they get for Theo is going to look piddly and so they have to convince Red Sox Nation that it's so good to get rid of Theo that, look, we took peanuts to rid ourselves. That's fine by me.
-
The more I've read on a number of boards, I've come to a conclusion. We can be satisfied with whomever, if anyone, the Cubs end up giving up, including Jackson. Why? Because the Red Sox aren't getting anybody that Theo doesn't okay. If Theo gives the nod to Jackson, it's a backhanded way of saying he's not Theo's kind of player. I know that may be a stretch of sorts, but I think it has some merit.
-
The more I've read on a number of boards, I've come to a conclusion. We can be satisfied with whomever, if anyone, the Cubs end up giving up, including Jackson. Why? Because the Red Sox aren't getting anybody that Theo doesn't okay. If Theo gives the nod to Jackson, it's a backhanded way of saying he's not Theo's kind of player. I know that may be a stretch of sorts, but I think it has some merit.
But of all the Cubs minor league players, Brett Jackson is the one that is Theo's kind of player.
Just about anyone else is a Jim Hendry special.
-
That's my opinion, too. I don't know Theo's.
In any case, it's pre-emptive rationalization.
-
For all that the BoSox do right, it's tragic to see them work so hard to demonize people on the way out, especially ones that have done so much for the team.
-
For all that the BoSox do right, it's tragic to see them work so hard to demonize people on the way out, especially ones that have done so much for the team.
Agree.
-
For all that the BoSox do right, it's tragic to see them work so hard to demonize people on the way out, especially ones that have done so much for the team.
Yep.
And it's not something that's new, either.
They've done this for generations, it seems.
-
For those saying BOS could just keep Theo: You'd need to add a couple of rings to the 3-ring circus BOS has now if he stayed, as lame duck.
-
And another...
Rival GM: "Cubs should just keep saying no (on compensation for Theo). What are the Red Sox going to do -- bring Theo back? No way."
-
Another source is saying that the prospect package Boston is requesting is so ridiculous the only possible response is no.
-
from another board:
"Kaplan just tweeted that a great source is telling him Boston is asking for an insane prospect package right now. Cubs are saying no.
Also said 2 MLB execs are saying Cubs should just keep saying no and calling their bluff.
I don't know why they're being so d*ckish over this. Really showing their arrogance. They gave Theo permission and it's his decision. Go ahead and try to kill this deal and see how easy it would be to keep him this year bozos. They'd take a humongous PR hit."
-
I suppose that asking for the moon early in the process can't hurt if you look at it from Boston's view but at some point they have to get serious and accept the reality that they've painted themselves into a corner and could end up losing not only Theo, but Cherington, as well.
-
John Henry is talking about Theo as his GM in the past tense, how in the world could anyone think the Red Sox have the leverage?
-
What's happening in Boston right now is nothing short of astonishing. The Francona stuff is among the most stomach-turning that I have ever seen.
Imagine if they only win 89 games next year!
-
Sounds like they aree getting closer...
http://espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/story/_/id/7097913/sources-chicago-cubs-eye-players-theo-epstein-swap
-
That was from yesterday.
-
I will be very upset if the Cubs give any significant prospect to Boston. If the press and other MLB organizations recognize that Boston has burned all of their bridges with Theo, Ricketts should too. They can ask for Castro, Cashner and B. Jackson, but they'll have to settle for Junior Lake, or even less. The only way the compensation should be any more than that is if Theo wants to bring other BoSox employees currently under contract with him to the Cubs.
-
I like an idea posted on another board: if Boston continues to be unrealistic in its requests, our negotiator should close his manila folder and say, "I think we're at an impasse. At this time we'd like to interview Mr. Cherington for our opening."
-
Was perusing a red sox message board to get their thoughts on Theo and came across this post. Gotta say, this list is less than impressive, but he is still my second choice behind Friedman.
"Theo's Big Ticket FA Acquistions (i.e. anything over $10 million):
Lackey
Crawford
Drew
Dice K
Lugo
Cameron
Jenks
Renteria
Clement
Foulke
Am I missing anyone? Do we really need to research WAR on these guys. It's a damning list."
-
I predict that Ricketts will try to allow the Red Sox to save some face by agreeing to send them a couple of second tier prospects.
-
I agree. And I think saving face is what this is all about. The media is being unmerciful to the Sox right now; they have to come away with something.
-
It seems like only yesterday that the Red Sox were being touted as an organization the Cubs should emulate. Maybe not in all respects.
-
Was perusing a red sox message board to get their thoughts on Theo and came across this post. Gotta say, this list is less than impressive, but he is still my second choice behind Friedman.
"Theo's Big Ticket FA Acquistions (i.e. anything over $10 million):
Lackey
Crawford
Drew
Dice K
Lugo
Cameron
Jenks
Renteria
Clement
Foulke
Am I missing anyone? Do we really need to research WAR on these guys. It's a damning list."
Yeah, that's a really ugly list. There's a lot of luck of the draw with free agency, since obviously free agents tend not to be young, and therefore have injury and age-related-decline risk. Hopefully Theo's fired all his blanks with Boston, and is due for some silver bullets in free agency with the Cubs.
But clearly his success in Boston really depended on home grown talent and some K-mart pickups. Hopefully he'll produce some Manny Ramirez/Nomar/Ellsbury/Pedro/Lowe/Papelbon/Varitek types really quickly for us, and his low-price guys will turn into Ortiz and Bill Mueller and Mark Bellhorn type hits.
The other thought that list of big-ticket FA's showw me is that there really aren't all that many. For such a big-budget team, most of those are "B" type players at second-tier price. Some exceptions, (Crawford, Lackey, Drew, DiceK...) but not all Teix/Sabbathia/Soriano type contracts. Hopefully that reflects that Theo isn't really overly oriented toward FA.
-
From the Boston Globe: Interestingly, the Boston media seems convinced that all of the leverage is on the Red Sox' side. I don't really understand why that would be the case, other than the Cubs' desire to get their new era underway sooner than later.
The Sox would appear to hold all the good cards in this poker game. Epstein has made it clear he wants to leave, and is already being hailed as a savior by Cubs fans. Cubs owner Tom Ricketts has virtually no choice but to make a deal.
Also from the same column:
One snag in the talks appears to be how many (and which) staff members Epstein can take with him to Chicago.
According to several reports, one of the staffers he wants to take is from the medical department.
That could be head trainer Mike Reinold, one of Epstein’s closest confidants. Epstein also has great trust in vice president of baseball operations Brian O’Halloran.
-
The reason I've suggested Buehrle and Cuddyer is that I think that's where many, not Theo necessarily, but many of our winning teams in the last 15 years have picked up rather than the multi-million dollar bonus babies. The second tier guys like Ortiz, Swisher, Ibanez, Beltre (sort of), Wolf, along with real wise trades: Greinke, Pedro, Hamilton, Granderson, Young, etc. That's where I think Theo's judgement and acumen will put us over the top. Hey, anybody and everybody wants Pujols and Fielder, and if we get one of them fine, but they could bust, too. (Probably not) It's the total team, from draft picks to trades to free agents that gets the job done.
-
From the Boston Globe: Interestingly, the Boston media seems convinced that all of the leverage is on the Red Sox' side. I don't really understand why that would be the case, other than the Cubs' desire to get their new era underway sooner than later.
The Sox would appear to hold all the good cards in this poker game. Epstein has made it clear he wants to leave, and is already being hailed as a savior by Cubs fans. Cubs owner Tom Ricketts has virtually no choice but to make a deal.
Also from the same column:
One snag in the talks appears to be how many (and which) staff members Epstein can take with him to Chicago.
According to several reports, one of the staffers he wants to take is from the medical department.
That could be head trainer Mike Reinold, one of Epstein’s closest confidants. Epstein also has great trust in vice president of baseball operations Brian O’Halloran.
Thinking Boston holds all the good cards is typical Beantown media Red Sox @$$ kissing.
If they don't free Theo, they owe him somewhere around $6.5 million and still have to pay Cherington to be their GM, which is going to cost them probably another $2 million or so.
Sure, they have a lot of money, but throwing away $6.5 million just to spank Theo because Larry Lucchino has to throw a tantrum seems a little petty, even for Boston.
They should end up settling for Josh Vitters and could sell it as "a former top five pick" and maybe another #25-30 prospect that has some sort of potential.
That's all it should take.
-
"It's the total team..." That's a very good point, Curt.
And you can include in the total team the field coaches, the medical staff, the developmental coaches, the advance secretary and all of the other folks who make up the operation. Increasingly, it's a team game...and it's an extended team.
-
I still consider Vitters as "top tier". I think two lesser prospects will do the trick.
-
Former first round picks Hayden Simpson and Earl Cunningham.
-
Yeah, that's a really ugly list. There's a lot of luck of the draw with free agency, since obviously free agents tend not to be young, and therefore have injury and age-related-decline risk. Hopefully Theo's fired all his blanks with Boston, and is due for some silver bullets in free agency with the Cubs.
Wow. I hope you weren't serious. That is like thinking a guy who is 0-20 at the plate is "due" and should be counted on to carry the club the next few games. Bad track records in a given area are not an indication that you should expect a good track record there.
The other thought that list of big-ticket FA's showw me is that there really aren't all that many. For such a big-budget team, most of those are "B" type players at second-tier price. Some exceptions, (Crawford, Lackey, Drew, DiceK...) but not all Teix/Sabbathia/Soriano type contracts. Hopefully that reflects that Theo isn't really overly oriented toward FA.
How many teams during the same period have had more than that? Anyone other than the Yankees? Seems to have been pretty FA oriented to me.
-
Former first round picks Hayden Simpson and Earl Cunningham.
If they insisted, I would even add Ty Griffin to that,
-
I visited the Sons of Sam Horn website, and got a laugh out of the fact that there was a debate going on regarding whether the Red Sox could get Starlin Castro as compensation, and even more humorous was the debate about whether that would be enough.
Meanwhile back here on earth, like everyone else on this board, I certainly hope the Cubs don't have to give up anything significant to the Red Sox. But from a Red Sox perspective, I think it's reasonable to expect something significant. How significant is the question I guess.
Several articles have suggested that the amount of compensation could end up being tied to the Red Sox staff that Theo is allowed to bring with him.
I'm glad that Ricketts is reportedly hanging tough in the negotiations. But at some point in the next few days, the two sides are going to have to compromise - it's inconceivable that Ricketts will give up only what he finds acceptable, just as the Red Sox won't get what they want.
I would be shocked and very, very disappointed if Brett Jackson or McNutt were be included. But even if that happened, I'd still consider the exchange to be beneficial to the Cubs long-term. And it's long-term that I'm interested in at this point. In any event, I do expect that there will be people here who consider the compensation to have been too high a price, just as there will be Red Sox fans who are upset about getting so little.
-
Well said, Ron. I agree.
And i sure hope we don't lose BJackson or McNutt...the farm is seemingly a bit thin at this point as is.
-
As long as they don't surrender Brett Jackson or anyone that I think could help the Cubs in 2012, I don't think I'll have too big a problem with the compensation package.
I still don't see how the Red Sox can expect to get anything of real value after they've moved on already and their owner has talked about Theo in the past tense in public.
Larry Lucchino is starring in his own little production of The Madness of King George.
-
Both sides are really in a no-win case.
Ricketts must be pretty committed to have gone this far and with all of these contract agreement numbers out there. (Not sure who leaked that. I wonder?) And I'm sure Ricketts wants to get moving with the 2012 decisions.
But I've likewise felt like Boston seemed pretty ready to let him go, and if they were so unwilling why didn't they extend his contract and his powers?
Seems hard to go back now for either side, I'd think. Still, I think it's such a baseball norm that guys are allowed to leave for other positions if it's an upgrade in title/responsibility. Seems pretty unique for Boston to think they should be getting meaningful compensation. I'll be pretty shocked if we have to sacrifice a very substantial prospect.
What was the Jeff Baker gossip? Perhaps he was one of six players they were requesting, or perhaps it was baloney. But if Jeff Baker individually would have been satisfactory, and the Cubs said no, that's too much, that would suggest we aren't likely to end up giving up a lot.
-
Both sides are really in a no-win case.
Ricketts must be pretty committed to have gone this far and with all of these contract agreement numbers out there. (Not sure who leaked that. I wonder?) And I'm sure Ricketts wants to get moving with the 2012 decisions.
But I've likewise felt like Boston seemed pretty ready to let him go, and if they were so unwilling why didn't they extend his contract and his powers?
Seems hard to go back now for either side, I'd think. Still, I think it's such a baseball norm that guys are allowed to leave for other positions if it's an upgrade in title/responsibility. Seems pretty unique for Boston to think they should be getting meaningful compensation. I'll be pretty shocked if we have to sacrifice a very substantial prospect.
What was the Jeff Baker gossip? Perhaps he was one of six players they were requesting, or perhaps it was baloney. But if Jeff Baker individually would have been satisfactory, and the Cubs said no, that's too much, that would suggest we aren't likely to end up giving up a lot.
You know, I wonder if this crap drags on beyond the World Series, if the Commissioner gets involved with all this nonsense.
Cubs: We asked permission and you granted it.
Red Sox: We granted you permission to interview, NOT to offer him a job and SIGN him!
Cubs: We are offering him an increase in title and responsibilities.
Red Sox: We have him under contract for another year.
Commissioner: You both have good points. Here's what I'm going to do. Cubs -- you will pay Boston $5 million. Theo can't take any Red Sox personnel with him for two years in any lateral moves. He's limited to two people per year for the next three years in non-lateral titles only. The Cubs can't sign any Red Sox free agents for a period of one year. Chicago is forfeiting its third round draft pick in next year's first year player draft to Boston. This matter is now closed.
It wouldn't shock me if something like that went down as badly as this thing is going right now.
You would think that there would be some sort of mediation process or even binding arbitration in place for this sort of thing.
-
I'd encourage Tom Ricketts to take a very hard line with the Red Sox. He has baseball tradition on his side, in that Theo will have a spiffy new title, more dollars and greater authority with the Cubs.
There are other viable GM candidates out there. Most importantly, Boston doesn't need two GM's, both on whom would be very upset with the powers that be in Beantown. I'd suggest that Ricketts tell Henry et al that he's willing to keep Randy Bush on the job for another year, if necessary, and then point out that Theo would then be free to bring along more of his key people from the Boston front office.
-
I'd suggest that Ricketts tell Henry et al that he's willing to keep Randy Bush on the job for another year, if necessary, and then point out that Theo would then be free to bring along more of his key people from the Boston front office.
I would prefer that Josh Byrnes would be hired as the interim GM in this case, so he could start carrying out the reforms that Theo would eventually want to implement. Byrnes is already rumored to be hired on as an assistant to Theo, so why not just start the process a year early?
Byrnes has worked with Theo before, so he would know what kind of changes Theo would want to make.
-
I'd encourage Tom Ricketts to take a very hard line with the Red Sox. He has baseball tradition on his side, in that Theo will have a spiffy new title, more dollars and greater authority with the Cubs.
There are other viable GM candidates out there. Most importantly, Boston doesn't need two GM's, both on whom would be very upset with the powers that be in Beantown. I'd suggest that Ricketts tell Henry et al that he's willing to keep Randy Bush on the job for another year, if necessary, and then point out that Theo would then be free to bring along more of his key people from the Boston front office.
I agree. Boston has no hand. Give them a drop-dead offer on your terms, and let the Commissioner (LOL) intervene if Boston refuses.
-
I agree. Boston has no hand. Give them a drop-dead offer on your terms, and let the Commissioner (LOL) intervene if Boston refuses.
Boston has less than no hand.
The Red Sox owe Theo about $3M next year, and they have so soiled the nest at this point there is no way they would want him back. He would be more than mildly unhappy, everyone would view him as a lame duck, and they would end up trimming his authority to nothing. They would be paying him $3M to do nothing.
The only way the Red Sox avoid that is if the Cubs hire Theo.
At this point, Ricketts ought to send Henry a copy of the most famous work by O'Henry (The Ransom of Red Chief) and start asking for the Red Sox to compensate the Cubs for taking Epstein, and at the same time contact Friedman about the job.... and let that leak.
-
Carrie Muskat says not to worry about Brett Jackson going to Boston.
https://twitter.com/#!/CarrieMuskat/status/125222488094425088 (https://twitter.com/#!/CarrieMuskat/status/125222488094425088)
-
Thanks, Ron. Can't say that I was worried though.
-
Anything more than a guy or two outside of our top 20 is too much...
-
I have submitted a list of posters here at Bleacher Bums that we would send to be part of Red Sox Nation in exchange for Theo. I cannot divulge names, but several are on a majority of Ignore lists already and one or two are Dutch and therefore have no value. We await response from Boston.
-
I've submitted my resume for personal private executive secretary of Theo. He's cute!
-
But Robin Ventura is across town...
-
I have submitted a list of posters here at Bleacher Bums that we would send to be part of Red Sox Nation in exchange for Theo. I cannot divulge names, but several are on a majority of Ignore lists already and one or two are Dutch and therefore have no value. We await response from Boston.
Are you saying that Todd Hollandsworth posts here?
I've submitted my resume for personal private executive secretary of Theo. He's cute!
But Robin Ventura is across town...
Scoop, our own little Mata Hari.
-
Given his upside and relatively strong performance in the AFL, i wouldn't be surprised if Junior Lake was in the package.
Hope not.
-
Pretty good, realistic assessment by Patrick Mooney in my opinion.
http://www.csnchicago.com/baseball-chicago-cubs/news/Epstein-will-hit-the-ground-running-with?blockID=578012&feedID=619 (http://www.csnchicago.com/baseball-chicago-cubs/news/Epstein-will-hit-the-ground-running-with?blockID=578012&feedID=619)
-
Anything more than a guy or two outside of our top 20 is too much...
Anything less than them sending us one of their top 20 prospects is too much.
At this point the Red Sox can not realistically take Theo back, and if he doesn't sign with the Cubs the Red Sox could end up paying him his 2012 salary to do nothing. The Cubs will be doing the Red Sox a serious favor to take him.
-
I have submitted a list of posters here at Bleacher Bums that we would send to be part of Red Sox Nation in exchange for Theo. I cannot divulge names, but several are on a majority of Ignore lists already and one or two are Dutch and therefore have no value. We await response from Boston.
Todd Gak?
-
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2011/10/14/felger-mazz-john-henry-invades-felger-and-massarotti/
-
This guy thinks a lot like us.
sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/joe_sheehan/10/14/cubs.epstein/index.html?eref=si_writers
-
Sorry you have to cut and paste that link...if someone can fix it...
-
Here's my advice for Theo:
Stay away from Pujols and Fielder. Trade for Logan Morrison (Zambrano, a Brinks truck full of cash, and a couple of B prospects) or Alonzo for 1B.
Offer arbitration to ARam, but let him walk. Trade Marmol to the Mets for David Wright.
Spend your FA money on starting pitchers (Wilson, Buehrle, Edwin Jackson). The Cardinals already have five SP's signed for 2012, so they probably won't offer arb to Jackson.
Replace Koyie Hill.
Keep Soriano to keep the Ricketts solvent, but trade Marlon Byrd at the end of Spring Training if Brett Jackson appears to be ready. Pray that a healthy offseason will help Tyler Colvin regain his confidence and batting stroke.
Replace Quade and most or all of his coaches. At a minimum, the 3B and P coaches must go.
Build your bullpen around Marshall, Cashner, Samardzija, Wood, Carpenter and Russell.
-
Here's my advice for Theo:
Stay away from Pujols and Fielder. Trade for Logan Morrison (Zambrano, a Brinks truck full of cash, and a couple of B prospects) or Alonzo for 1B.
Offer arbitration to ARam, but let him walk. Trade Marmol to the Mets for David Wright.
Spend your FA money on starting pitchers (Wilson, Buehrle, Edwin Jackson). The Cardinals already have five SP's signed for 2012, so they probably won't offer arb to Jackson.
Replace Koyie Hill.
Keep Soriano to keep the Ricketts solvent, but trade Marlon Byrd at the end of Spring Training if Brett Jackson appears to be ready. Pray that a healthy offseason will help Tyler Colvin regain his confidence and batting stroke.
Replace Quade and most or all of his coaches. At a minimum, the 3B and P coaches must go.
Build your bullpen around Marshall, Cashner, Samardzija, Wood, Carpenter and Russell.
Cubsin, considering that those moves are not the kind which would make the Cubs a winner in 2012, and considering that the starting rotation was at best weak in 2011 (only Garza had an ERA+ better than 88, and the 88 was from Lopez....), and further considering that Marshall, Cashner and Samardzija each could be front of the rotation starters and that starting pitching is far more important than relief pitching.... wouldn't it make a lot more sense to put each of them into the starting rotation in 2012 and see how they perform?
-
Is it reasonable to assume we could get Wright for Marmol?
Both players saw quite a drop in their values last season, but Wright has the 3b thing going for him, a position that is atrocious at the major league level right now.
Also, I have zero interest in the pitchers you mentioned. IMO, it's CJ Wilson or whatever is left on the scrap heap.
-
Is it reasonable to assume we could get Wright for Marmol?
Both players saw quite a drop in their values last season, but Wright has the 3b thing going for him, a position that is atrocious at the major league level right now.
Also, I have zero interest in the pitchers you mentioned. IMO, it's CJ Wilson or whatever is left on the scrap heap.
I like most of Cubsin's list, although I would make a modest effort at Fielder. Not sure on Morrison. Seems to be a conflicted guy. I wish something could be worked out for Alonzo. Maybe that's where Marmol might work, since the Reds need a closer, but being in the same division hurts. Dempster and Marmol? Don't know.
I'm not unsure that we can't get something for Zambrano, and I'm not that anxious to dump Soriano. If the NL is forced to adopt the DH in a year or two, Soriano would finally have a role his last year or two with us. So I'd keep him because of that? No, I'd keep him over throwing away all that money.
If we include Castillo in the Boston package, it would be nice to bring up Clevenger, making Soto and Byrd viable trade possibilities.
-
Ticohans, I really don't know if Wright for Marmol is possible, or even a very good idea.
I'm very much against bringing ARam back. IMHO, he's going downhill rapidly, and his next big contract will be his last one, so he'll be even less motivated after it's signed.
Both the Mets front office and their fans were really down on Wright this year, and the Mets need a closer. I have no idea what it would take to balance out the trade, or the terms of Wright's current contract.
-
I'd rather see Marmol in the AL, because you just know, he'd never meltdown against us. I'd prefer Mets or Dolphins over Reds, because frequency of seeing him. But I just have lost confidence in whether we can trust him in the clutch. His erratic performance is numbing.
-
I have no idea what it would take to balance out the trade, or the terms of Wright's current contract.
$14.25M this past year. $15M in 2012. $16M team option in 2013, with a $1M buyout.
-
I'd give Marmol to whoever would take his contract. He's probably going to spend half of the rest of his contract on the DL anyway...losing as much velocity and movement has he did this year is almost always a precursor to an injury. And even if it's not a precursor to injury, he will never be any better than he was this year consistently with his lack of command. He needs special stuff to overcome his lack of command, and he didn't have that this year.
I think the Reds have decided they're going to find some way to get by with Alonso playing other positions next year, then trade Votto either at the deadline or next offseason. I think it's Morrison or bust for a young former top prospect who may be traded, possibly with Dominic Brown as a dark horse.
I feel like the third baseman is going to come out of nowhere. It's going to be someone in a trade that we didn't really expect to be available. Maybe Headley, maybe Prado...I wouldn't be surprised if the combination of the Red Sox collapse, Francona/Theo debacle, and Theo's relationship with Cherington put Youkilis on the market with only one year left until free agency.
I still think it's time to just cut bait with Soriano. Move on...it's going to have to happen sometime in the next year or two, and they might as well do it now. I don't know if everyone looked at the Posnanski article on bad contracts that Ron posted in the Around Baseball topic...but it made the point that according to Baseball Reference, Soriano provided more value in on defense (0.7 WAR) than he did on offense (0.6 WAR) in 2011. Think about that for a minute.
-
One more thing about Soriano...his total WAR shows as 1.3 by both Baseball Reference's and Fangraphs' calculations. Generally, a WAR of about 2.0 is considered league average. So Soriano is solidly below league average in both systems...and that is with both systems grading his defense as a slight positive.
He's not a good player anymore, and he wouldn't be hard to replace. His greatest value to the Cubs might be as a symbolic gesture that shows the Cubs are moving on from the Hendry era.
-
br, I'm as down on Marmol and Soriano as you are, I'm just not sure the rest of baseball is. It will be interesting to see when Theo begins flexing his power as to how much he agrees or disagrees with us. I really look forward to this off-season.
-
I have no idea whether the guy from Bleacher Nation actually has good sources or not (does anyone else?). But he claims a non-Cubs front office guy says the compensation talks are moving toward a conclusion and provides three names. He also says the source confirms that Josh Byrnes will join Epstein.
The source doesn’t have a perfect read on what the compensation will be (few do), but the names he’s been hearing are Matt Szczur, Jay Jackson, and Ryan Flaherty. The source cautions that it’s not likely the Cubs would send all three, and he’s not sure whether that would mean additional employees would be coming over from the Red Sox.
http://www.bleachernation.com/2011/10/16/rumor-cubs-and-red-soxs-talks-nearing-conclusion-theo-epstein-and-josh-byrnes-to-join-cubs-front-office/ (http://www.bleachernation.com/2011/10/16/rumor-cubs-and-red-soxs-talks-nearing-conclusion-theo-epstein-and-josh-byrnes-to-join-cubs-front-office/)
-
I think I'm willing to deal Marmol because I think we have three options that are better: Wood, Marshall, and Cashner. I know Wood can be erratic too. I really don't see trying Cashner as a starter again. It seems foolhardy to keep pushing that, but if the powers that be decide otherwise... Marshall, I think, is a key off-season person. I think Theo or his people need to sit down with Marshall and or his agent and uncover his desires for the future. Does he want to be a starter? Does he want to be a closer? Is he content with his current role? How he responds may determine whether he's got a future with the Cubs or not or real delicious trade bait. If he would love to close, goodbye Carlos. If he wants to start, and Cub superiors don't see it, then trade him before he leaves for zippo. And if he loves his current role...man, that's sweet too.
-
I have no idea whether the guy from Bleacher Nation actually has good sources or not (does anyone else?). But he claims a non-Cubs front office guy says the compensation talks are moving toward a conclusion and provides three names. He also says the source confirms that Josh Byrnes will join Epstein.
The source doesn’t have a perfect read on what the compensation will be (few do), but the names he’s been hearing are Matt Szczur, Jay Jackson, and Ryan Flaherty. The source cautions that it’s not likely the Cubs would send all three, and he’s not sure whether that would mean additional employees would be coming over from the Red Sox.
http://www.bleachernation.com/2011/10/16/rumor-cubs-and-red-soxs-talks-nearing-conclusion-theo-epstein-and-josh-byrnes-to-join-cubs-front-office/ (http://www.bleachernation.com/2011/10/16/rumor-cubs-and-red-soxs-talks-nearing-conclusion-theo-epstein-and-josh-byrnes-to-join-cubs-front-office/)
I know the Bleacher Nation Guy and while I don't know who his source is, I'm sure he's legit with what he says.
-
Thanks, Pistol. That's interesting.
-
How would people feel about giving Boston their choice of 2 out of those 3?
-
Any of those three are more than I would hope to see the Cubs part with.
Trading Jackson is selling low. I'd rather see if he can rebound.
Szcurzr seems to have exciting raw talent. If we're sending high-ceiling guys their way, I'd rather it be of a fringier variety.
And of all the guys, Flaherty seems the most likely to provide real value at the major league level. Not only do I think he'll be a solid contributor, but he can do so at 3b, which is a barren position right now.
If we're giving up one of those names, I hope it's because we're getting other front office people that Theo believes are extremely valuable.
One person I wouldn't mind is Boston's team doctor. From what I understand, Theo is big on injuries as one of the major inefficiencies in the current mlb economy, just as OBP was many years ago before the publication of Moneyball. Theo is reputed to have a high level of confidence in his doc, and based on his injury-inefficiency ideas, that would seem to be a key staffer from Boston that it would be nice to bring over.
If we're giving up MORE than just one of those prospects, that would be very disappointing in any plausible scenario, IMO.
-
Another board says Jay Jackson and Wellington Castillo.
-
In order, I would prefer to surrender: Jay Jackson, Jay Jackson, Jay Jackson, Jay Jackson, Jay Jackson Jay Jackson,........... Ryan Flaherty, .............. Matt Szczur.
I think Jackson + cash would be a fair price, Flaherty would be too much because I feel that he can contribute at the Major League level in 2012 (and beyond) and I feel that Szczur is an important building block for the future.
-
Jackson would definitely seem to be the one to surrender out of those 3.
-
I'd be disappointed if we give up Wellington Castillo. Mainly because I am hoping that the Cubs trade Soto this offseason.
-
Got to keep Sczur due to his potential and high ceiling. I'd be OK with Flaherty, Jackson, or Castillo/Clevenger. Two of the three plus cash should work.
The Cubs are bargaining from a position of strength, and it looks like Ricketts is a tough negotiator. The Red Sox have burned their bridges with Epstein, and wouldn't dare keep him in limbo for a year. The PR hit is too much. They're going to blink first.
I'm looking for a Monday announcement.
-
The Cubs are bargaining from a position of strength, and it looks like Ricketts is a tough negotiator. The Red Sox have burned their bridges with Epstein, and wouldn't dare keep him in limbo for a year. The PR hit is too much. They're going to blink first.
That's why the Cubs don't need to give up any prospect they think has any real chance of contributing.
At this point, the Cubs should offer a couple of **** bats and say it is the team's final offer.
Or give them Soriano and some cash.
-
I understand not wanting to surrender anyone who would actually be valuable. But I believe that's inconsistent with the very purpose of compensation.
I've read that the Marlins gave up two of their top 5 or top 10 prospects to get Ozzie. Is that true? If so, would anyone here seriously suggest that Ozzie is worth more than Theo?
-
Ron, the Marlins did give up two good prospects, but, I don't think it's a matter of comparing Ozzie with Theo. It's a matter of is there any evidence of tampering if the White Sox chose to push it?
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2011-09-27/sports/sfl-ozzie-guillen-marlins-manager-092711_1_jhan-marinez-marlins-organization-ozzie-guillen
-
I don't think we know that the compensation for Ozzie had anything to do with what people have speculated was tampering.
But if you don't like the Ozzie example, how about Lou Piniella for Randy Winn, who was 28 at the time and coming off a 2002 season in which he had a .821 OPS? Was Lou Piniella worth more to Tampa Bay at that time than Theo Epstein is to the Cubs now?
-
Compensation Trivia
Who did the Cubs send to the Twins to compensate for Andy MacPhail?
-
It would be wise for Ricketts to help Henry save face. Jay Jackson plus a lesser prospect seems about right to me.
-
Compensation Trivia
Who did the Cubs send to the Twins to compensate for Andy MacPhail?
Class A P Hector Trinidad who never made it to the majors.
-
I still fail to see why the Sox deserve any compensation, either way. Isn't Theo getting a promotion? I thought etiquette dictated you let a guy go for a promotion...why do the Sox think they are above this?
I say just let it leak that the Cubs are going to contact Friedman about interviewing. There is no way they can take Theo back, so putting a little pressure on them might help finish this up.
-
Each of those was different. Lou wanted to go home. Seattle was willing to let him out of his contract if Tampa was willing to go along with it. The Cubs asked Boston for permission to talk to Theo after the Red Sox season was over. Boston could have said no. The Ozzie situation was truly odd. Tampering? Not sure, but something smelled. Ozzie leaves with one game left in the season? The whole world knows he's going to the Dolphins? He couldn't wait another 24 hours? The Dolphins couldn't wait another 24 hours? Just odd. Whether fear of a tampering charge encouraged the Dolphins to do better in prospects or not, I don't know.
But it's apples and oranges. If Seattle and Tampa hadn't come to a resolution, Lou would have stayed in Seattle, if I remember correctly. I don't know what would have happened in Miami. I just don't think anything forces the Cubs to come up with great prospects, regardless of Theo's value.
-
Jay Jackson seems to be a universally mentioned prospect on numerous boards. The only names mentioned consistently on other boards are Castillo or Lake.
-
I hear Castro, Brett Jackson and Cashner. Of course that's Gammons, so there might be a bias.
-
I understand not wanting to surrender anyone who would actually be valuable. But I believe that's inconsistent with the very purpose of compensation. I've read that the Marlins gave up two of their top 5 or top 10 prospects to get Ozzie. Is that true? If so, would anyone here seriously suggest that Ozzie is worth more than Theo?
Ozzie could easily have returned to the White Sox, and he and the White Sox both would have remained happy.
Theo can not return to the Red Sox.
The Red Sox have no leverage. The most the Red Sox could do is tell Ricketts that if he doesn't give them enough to make them happy, they will allow other teams to interview and hire Theo... but since they can't TRADE Theo they way they would a player, and Theo would have to agree to the new deal and be happy with it, that is also not much of an option.
Ricketts quite seriously needs to simply make clear that he understands what they want, but that he also understands that they can not possibly take Theo back, and that if they do they would essentially simply be paying his salary while allowing him to do nothing, and that the Cubs are quite seriously at this point doing the Red Sox a favor by hiring Theo. Ricketts then needs to tell Hendry that he has to put him on hold for just a moment while he takes a call from Andrew Friedman in Tampa Bay.
And Whether Ricketts is going to play real hardball with the Red Sox or not, he does need to start talking with Friedman.... or other prospects.
-
While I agree the Cubs have all the leverage, and I do NOT want to give away the farm (my previous post lamented the potential loss of even Jackson), there is something to be said for preserving good will with the BoSox. MLB is quite a tightly knit old boys network, and there is some value to doing the gentlemanly thing by helping Boston save face.
-
Hayden Simpson and Koyie Hill. There's your face.
-
Ozzie could easily have returned to the White Sox, and he and the White Sox both would have remained happy.
Theo can not return to the Red Sox.
The Red Sox have no leverage. The most the Red Sox could do is tell Ricketts that if he doesn't give them enough to make them happy, they will allow other teams to interview and hire Theo... but since they can't TRADE Theo they way they would a player, and Theo would have to agree to the new deal and be happy with it, that is also not much of an option.
Ricketts quite seriously needs to simply make clear that he understands what they want, but that he also understands that they can not possibly take Theo back, and that if they do they would essentially simply be paying his salary while allowing him to do nothing, and that the Cubs are quite seriously at this point doing the Red Sox a favor by hiring Theo. Ricketts then needs to tell Hendry that he has to put him on hold for just a moment while he takes a call from Andrew Friedman in Tampa Bay.
And Whether Ricketts is going to play real hardball with the Red Sox or not, he does need to start talking with Friedman.... or other prospects.
I think the real reason the White Sox got top prospects was because they were holding tampering claims over Miami's head as they had been supposedly been talking with Ozzie for quite some time...
-
While I agree the Cubs have all the leverage, and I do NOT want to give away the farm (my previous post lamented the potential loss of even Jackson), there is something to be said for preserving good will with the BoSox. MLB is quite a tightly knit old boys network, and there is some value to doing the gentlemanly thing by helping Boston save face.
That's right, it's a good old boys network, and the standard practice is, if you let somebody in your organization talk to another organization about a promotion, and the parties agree, there is NO compensation.
The only reason the Cubs may have to give Boston any compensation would be if Theo wants to bring along some of his staff who are currently under contract there.
-
I really hope that Theo lets Aramis walk. Aramis wants a long term deal and once he has it he plans to collect checks. He isn't a winner and he isn't dedicated to staying in shape. Whomever signs him long term will definately regret it.
-
Cubs have all the leverage? Would you guys like to see us conclude negotiations (and bring Theo in) before the GM meetings?
Before the Cub convention?
Time pressure is not insignificant leverage.
Certainly, there are pressures on the Red Sox, too. As is typical, the pressure/leverage cuts both ways.
Jay Jackson and Koyie Hill for Theo, please.
As for ARAM, he hits the 1st pitch 42% of the time in addition to the very legit questions about age/future durability. I'd be very surprised if Theo re-signs him, but I do believe it will depend on all other options/configurations he perceives. ARAM can still hit and, at present, Cubs have very few plus hitters.
-
Cubs have all the leverage? Would you guys like to see us conclude negotiations (and bring Theo in) before the GM meetings? Before the Cub convention? Time pressure is not insignificant leverage.
Andrew Friedman would be fine by me. And Ricketts needs to not only talk with him, but let Boston know he is doing so.
Jay Jackson and Koyie Hill for Theo, please.
And, if Boston has significant "cards" in this, why should they settle for a prospect pitcher who has lost much of his prospect status with a very weak year (and had an ERA of 4.63 the year before), and a catcher who is not as valuable as the broken bats I suggested the Cubs offer?
-
ARAM can still hit and, at present, Cubs have very few plus hitters.
But will he still be a plus hitter by the time the Cubs have a plus team? I don't think so.
-
Doubt Boston would settle for Jackson and they wouldn't want Hill...a guy can dream though.
Sure didn't sound as though Friedman was interested...if he is, I don't see how Ricketts can walk from Theo at this point...the franchise has enough egg on face after the last 100+ years!
-
Agree re ARAM, Jes...if we were close, he might be a nice piece for a couple years...as is, not so much
-
Oh, if we were close, resigning ARam, if you could get him to agree to 3 years or less, would be a no-brainer.
What indication has there been that Friedman was not interested?
And it would not be "walking away" from Theo at this point if Ricketts simply announced that the Cubs had signed Friedman. It would simply be announcing Friedman. I don't see any way that would be perceived as constituting egg on the face for the Cubs.
-
o gud lawrd...ESPN is supposedly saying the Red Sox began asking for Garza? For crying outloud. Tell them to take a hike.
-
I don't worry what Boston asked for, though we are all concerned about what we will ultimately have to give up.
Saying that, we've seen what last season's Cubs could do with Garza, who was one very good starter.
The current organizational needs simply are too great to be met by ANY one pitcher or one position player.
Theo won't be the savior, but maybe he can get us on a much better track...in that sense, something as ridiculous as Garza for Theo could actually turn out to be a reasonable exchange for us.
Fortunately, neither the precedent nor MLB will require anything like Garza for Theo (not even B. Jackson it appears).
We will likely have to give up a couple youngsters we'd rather keep, but they will be well worth it IF Epstein can help turn things around.
Cards in the Fall Classic AGAIN and us not even competitive (with little immediate help on the way) puts in perspective the tremendous organizational needs the Cubs have!
Time to Think Differently, which Theo will certainly do...hopefully, his thinking/planning and system will work!
-
Jon Heyman is a tool. He just said on MLB Network that he understood and is sympathetic to the Red Sox asking for Matt Garza, although he acknowledges that's unrealistic. Since the Cubs are willing to pay $18.5 million for Theo, then the Red Sox have lost something of great value and should be compensated appropriately. Others he mentioned as reasonable were Samardzija, Casey Coleman and Cashner (one of these things is not like the other).
-
Fortunately, the precedent in MLB is FAR different from the precedent in the NFL.
-
They can have Casey Coleman and Zambrano and Soriano. And we'll throw in Quade since they need a manager.
-
Jon Heyman is a tool. He just said on MLB Network that he understood and is sympathetic to the Red Sox asking for Matt Garza, although he acknowledges that's unrealistic. Since the Cubs are willing to pay $18.5 million for Theo, then the Red Sox have lost something of great value and should be compensated appropriately. Others he mentioned as reasonable were Samardzija, Casey Coleman and Cashner (one of these things is not like the other).
Heyman is the worst.
He also said that the Red Sox have all the leverage in this situation.
Wrong, again, pal.
They've trashed Theo in a public forum, saying that he signed Carl Crawford against the wishes of Red Sox ownership. They not only gave the Cubs permission to interview Theo Epstein but went on TV and radio to say that they only allow teams permission to interview for non-lateral moves. Teams usually allow employees that are moving on for a promotion in titles and responsibilities to do so without requiring compensation.
Boston could have stopped this at any point along the way but they chose instead to do nothing and then they criticized their employee in the press. They've also anointed Ben Cherington as their next GM.
Their employee no longer feels welcome there for obvious reasons. Their GM-in-waiting is in limbo, as is their search for a new manager. Their owner or CEO leaked a story about their former manager's divorce and reliance on pain medication.
Their PR image couldn't be worse than it is right now. If they don't allow Theo to go where he wants, what executive would ever want to work for them in the future? How would that play in their current front office if/when another team wants to hire someone else that works for them? Doesn't this whole thing make them seem petty?
The Red Sox are being childish here and Heyman is sympathetic to them?
Idiot.
The Cubs could walk away and hire someone from their B-list and leave the Red Sox holding a $6.5+ million bag, two p!ssed off general managers and egg on their face, further embarrassing them after their epic September collapse.
Meanwhile, the Cubs would still have a quality GM (Theo Epstein is good but he's not the only guy capable of doing that job) and all the players they currently do.
-
What Strike Zone said. I expect the Cubs will give up a pair of "B" or "C" prospects to smooth the Red Sox feathers and give Theo an opportunity to take along a few other front-office personnel. I'll consider Ricketts a fool if he gives them any of our top 10 prospects.
-
I hope he doesn't have Jim Hendry advising him.
-
Which Cub prospects should be untouchable in the Theo affair?
-
http://www.csnchicago.com/blog/cubs-talk/post/-?blockID=578868&feedID=9399
-
What Strike Zone said. I expect the Cubs will give up a pair of "B" or "C" prospects to smooth the Red Sox feathers and give Theo an opportunity to take along a few other front-office personnel. I'll consider Ricketts a fool if he gives them any of our top 10 prospects.
Unless the folks Theo would like to take with him from the Red Sox have contracts preventing them from working for another MLB team, there is little to nothing that Boston could do about Epstein having folks follow him.
-
http://www.csnne.com/baseball-boston-redsox/news/Sources-Epstein-announcement-several-day?blockID=578982&feedID=3947
-
Jes, I have no idea how the Red Sox structure their front-office contracts, and I suspect you don't either.
-
The Cubs, one baseball person said, continue to stress to the Red Sox that compensation issues for non-uniform personnel has historically been minimal. It's the view of the Red Sox that, given the magnitude of the deal being given to Epstein and owner Tom Ricketts's desire to have Epstein run his organization's baseball operations department, that this deal defies precedent.
Oh, really?
In 1994, a few weeks after agreeing to terms with Twins general manager Andy MacPhail to become the president and chief executive officer, the Cubs sent Class A pitcher Hector Trinidad to the Twins as compensation.
Trinidad never pitched in the Majors.
This is the exact same promotion -- from GM to head of baseball operations. In fact, you could say that the Twins deserved more because MacPhail became CEO in addition to president.
What's holding this up is that the Red Sox are being childish and petty.
They're a bunch of classless j@ck@sses and the second Theo is introduced, they'll leak stories to the press about how he cheated on his SATs, banged Jason Varitek's wife and hates Dunkin' Donuts.
-
Though McNutt playing at the major-league level at any point is no sure thing, i'd hate to see him included in the comp.
Looks like we are going to have to wait for awhile for an announcement.
I'm starting to like the Yankees more and more as each day passes!
-
Jes, I have no idea how the Red Sox structure their front-office contracts, and I suspect you don't either.
That's a pretty safe suspicion, considering I as much as said that: "Unless the folks Theo would like to take with him from the Red Sox have contracts preventing them from working for another MLB team..."
But I take it that you are not disagreeing with my point.
-
Be Smart Tom, don't give them di ck
-
From a link someone else posted: http://www.csnne.com/blog/redsox-talk/post/Schilling-Lesters-comments-embarrassing-?blockID=578724&feedID=3947
Ex-Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling called Jon Lester's comments to Peter Abraham of the Boston Globe about the Sox needing "more structure" than Terry Francona providing "embarrassing and . . . sad", because it showed a lack of maturity on the parts of the players, and that the 2011 Sox had "no leadership whatsoever in that clubhouse".
"That kind of boggles my mind that [Lester] said that, because at the end of the day, these are grown men," Schilling said on WEEI Radio's 'Mut and Merloni' Show. "Do you need a manager to tell you? They all knew, and you always know, when you’re doing something questionable or wrong.
"They chose not to correct it, and because they chose not to correct it, I think some of them were absolutely not in good enough shape to pitch through September and help them win games.
Schilling went on to add: "That’s sad. That’s embarrassing, and that’s sad. That basically says, at the age of 28, 29, 30, I need an adult more mature than me to give me rules and guidelines. ... That’s sad, because that’s why we won World Series. We won those World Series because [Francona] was that way, because he allowed us to police ourselves. What it says to me even more clearly, they have no leadership whatsoever in that clubhouse."
Now, keep in mind what Schilling is saying.
He is saying not that the Red Sox problem was the manager, but was the lack of clubhouse leadership among the players.... in other words that the GM had not done a good job of assembling a team with internal leadership or with the character to deal with problems.
Sounds an awful lot like the criticism many here voiced about Hendry.
-
I'm guessing the Garza story was floated to make it more palatable to Cubs fans when we send McNutt to the Red Sox.
-
I'm guessing the Garza story was floated to make it more palatable to Cubs fans when we send McNutt to the Red Sox.
While it's clear no one outside the negotiators can be sure what's going on, based on several reports it appears that the Cubs are unwilling to give up McNutt (so far). I've always assumed that Boston will insist on someone(s) meaningful and that there would be some level of disappointment on the part of Cub fans who are knowledgeable about Cub minor leaguers. My own hope is that McNutt, Szczur, Vitters and Carpenter will not be among those who are given up (I'm sure Cashner was off the table from the beginning, along with Jackson).
In any event, I'm glad that Ricketts is hanging tough and that they are (obviously) leaking the fact that they are willing to wait past the World Series for a resolution, if necessary. I'm guessing that Theo communicated his thoughts about players like Ramirez, Zambrano and perhaps Pena during the interview(s) he had with Ricketts.
I will say that's a very long time for everyone concerned (including Theo) to stay under cover. Maybe he'll go tour again til this is over.
-
If we had ten Cub-version Chris Carpenters, the Red Sox could have all of them in exchange for Epstein.
-
Does this mean the Cubs could hire a GM that Jeff won't trash?
I wonder how long that will last.
-
Well, what's the logic behind going after Theo?
-
Must be faith-based.
-
Theo logic.
-
Nice, P2
-
well played P2...
-
Don't encourage the man to set up his own puns.
-
why does MLB prevent teams from making any announcements such as trades,new hires,etc. during the WS?
-
They think it detracts from their star attraction. Scheduling games in the freezing cold of November and at night too late for kids to watch doesn't detract. Two teams announcing a trade or managerial change that the other 28 teams don't give a damb about detracts.
-
That doesn't detract nearly as much as having two mid market teams playing in the world series.
Where are the Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, and Cubs when the network needs them?
-
I know it's Heyman, but might as well mention it here.
In a possible surprise twist, the Chicago Cubs and Theo Epstein are said to have interest in Padres general manager Jed Hoyer to join a baseball operations department they hope is headed soon by Epstein, who is waiting in limbo while the Cubs and Red Sox resolve the compensation issue to complete the trade that would put Epstein in charge of Chicago's beloved North Side team.
...
A move by Hoyer, 37, would be seen as fairly shocking since he's already a GM, but perhaps the Cubs could give him the same title, while making Epstein a president. Nothing is known to be finalized yet, and it could still be Byrnes going to Chicago, but the possibility that it could be Hoyer instead was raised by several people familiar with the talks.
Hoyer declined comment when reached by phone Tuesday, as did Byrnes.
...
It is also believed Epstein, who won two World Series in his nine years as Red Sox GM, is interested in Padres assistant GM Jason McLeod, who like Hoyer and Byrnes had worked for Epstein in Boston. The Cubs as of now haven't agreed to let Epstein hire from his current Red Sox front office, so it's no surprise he's considering his former assistants in Boston.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/baseball/mlb/10/18/heyman.hoyer/
-
If we would just contract the Cardinals we'd avoid this mess.
-
Maybe Ricketts has reached the point where he is looking at other GM possibilies as a way to get the Red Sox to back down their demand for compensation. I have never viewed Theo as the must have GM. Question is, if Ricketts leaves Theo at the altar and move on to a new bride, will this negatively effect Ricketts or the cubs credibility?
-
Yes, I believe it would. I think there would have to be a serious breach in the negotiations for Ricketts to do that. He has an agreement in place with Theo, and just as we wouldn't expect Theo to make himself available anywhere else during these negotiations, I think he deserves the same consideration.
-
if Ricketts leaves Theo at the altar and move on to a new bride, will this negatively effect Ricketts or the cubs credibility?
The Cub's "credibility"?
"Credibility" with whom?
For what?
-
If the Heyman story is correct (and considering his track record in these proceedings, that's a big stretch), hiring Jed Hoyer (or Josh Byrnes) would give the Cubs more leverage.
It would show the Red Sox that the Cubs are willing to wait for Theo to become a free agent after the 2012 season while at the same time, they could have a Theo-esque GM (and one that Theo hand-picked) begin the process of setting up the Cubs organization.
Also, it bolsters the Cubs assertion that they are promoting Theo to a higher position and not hiring him only to be their general manager, thus weakening Boston's claim that he's simply going to be a run-of-the-mill Major League GM.
-
Yes, hire Byrnes right now. He's not a bad fallback as a GM, and if Theo came over he'd likely hire him as his deputy anyway. It's win-win - and Byrnes is an underrated baseball guy. He'd still be an order of magnitude better than anyone we've had since Dallas Green.
And I don't think walking away from the Theo deal hurts the Cubs cred at all - quite possibly the opposite. The other owners know what Henry's like to deal with - I think it would stamp Ricketts as nobody's fool and someone with serious balls. The Cubs Convention would be a nightmare, but beyond that it wouldn't be the end of the world. I want Theo in the job pretty badly, but I'd tell Henry to f ck himself before giving him anything exorbitant.
-
I think the Jed Hoyer story is preposterous. The Cubs would need to get permission from the Padres before they could talk to Hoyer ... about taking a position that is actually beneath the one he currently has.
The Josh Byrnes rumor has been around for a while, with some stories saying that Theo is definitely going to add him to the Cubs front office. That's believable, and assuming that Theo definitely plans to do that, it's not unthinkable that Ricketts would go ahead and bring him on board to take charge until the compensation issue is resolved - if things got stretched out to far, say well past the World Series.
But I don't see any of that actually happening until after the World Series, and I assume this will get resolved well before then.
-
I'm still trying to understand why Cubs should have to give up any more compensation to hire Theo than Cubs had to give up to hire MacPhail in 1994. In both cases, the hire is a promotion and not a lateral move, as it appears that Theo is coming to be team president.
In September 1994, when MacPhail came over, Cubs farm system was in terrible shape. The top pitching prospect was Amaury Telemaco---and second was Hector Trinidad,who turned out to be the compensation. Cubs first round pick in June 1994 was pitcher Jayson Peterson, who was not eligible to be traded. (The top overall prospect was probably Brooks Kieschnick, who had a disappointing season at AA in 1994 with only a .770 OPS).
Trinidad was coming off a good season at Daytona at a young age: with a 3.23 ERA and low walks. But, Trinidad was not a power pitcher and reports of the time had his fastball in the 80s. Trinidad was the #2 pitching prospect because of the dearth of Cubs pitching prospects but hard to argue that he was equivalent of McNutt. Even off his disappointing 2011 season, McNutt is way better than Trinidad.
Unfortunately, I think the Red Sox are in a stronger bargaining position than the Cubs because the Sox front office is basically already in place--even without Theo--and the Cubs have mostly lame ducks in place and the brain trust is waiting to come on board. The folks mentioned to join Theo would come because of Theo. No Theo--maybe different story. So, there is more urgency on our end, I think.
The problem is that you don't want the Commissioner to decide compensation, if you can't make a deal. G-- knows what he would send over to the Sox. And, it's not realistic that Cubs wait a year to get the front office in place.
In the end, the deal probably won't be pretty for the Cubs, but it's got to get done soon and let's hope we don't get robbed.
-
In the court of public opinion (and, perhaps, even in the Commissioner's Office if it gets that far), the stupid "shelf life" comment made by Henry will probably help us as much as anything.
And don't think for a minute that "public opinion" doesn't matter. These guys are all in the entertainment business and the Commissioner knows that better than anyone (e.g. turning a blind eye toward steroids until public opinion turned against steroid users)!
Had Henry not opened his mouth, Cubs could really be wearing the black hat (approaching the arguable savior of the Red Sox franchise who was still under contract)...as is, we approached (and did a deal with) the GM who was wildly successful for Boston, but who appeared likely to be on his way out anyway in a year (or sooner)...his "shelf life" there was pretty clearly about over, despite Henry's backtracking.
It's hard to imagine the deal not getting done at some point. We likely won't be thrilled with who we lose and Boston fans will feel they should certainly have gotten more for Theo...that's the nature of negotiation. Had Henry not let the cat out of the bag, they would probably get more.
-
Regarding Henry's comments, Theo was gone from the Sox when Sox gave Cubs permission to talk and Theo/Cubs came to a deal. Comments are comments but the above are discrete acts with consequences and I think Red Sox Nation understood that aside from the Henry comments.
Further, every tough negotiation needs a deadline. Here, neither party can walk away. Sox feel--probably correctly--that the deadline is on their side for the most part. I think, from the Cubs perspective, that you have to get this done before the end of the World Series because stuff starts to happen five days after the Series. Sox probably understand that. They will get Cubs best offer shortly. I hope its gets done by Friday with minimal damage.
-
Had Henry not opened his mouth, I'm not sure there would be good reason to assume Theo would have been gone (with or without the Cubs). Fortunately for us, Henry rather clearly suggested that Theo was on the way out by end of his contract, if not sooner.
My best guess is that if we ever have a baseball exec who leads us to a pair of WS championships, we won't feel great about another team approaching him to be CEO etc., even after a bad season.
Reb, I believe your assessment of the relative timing pressures and how this will go down is about right. I suspect both sides will feel some pain. I also believe it's significant that Theo be in place in his new role as much before the GM meetings as is practicable. There's one helluva lot of work to be done and my guess is that Ricketts will want THE GUY orchestrating it, rather than another guy keeping his seat warm for a year!
-
If John Henry wanted to keep Theo he would have not granted the cubs to talk to him or extended Theo's contract.
-
FWIW, from the Sun Times, Tuesday evening:
Sources said an announcement of Epstein’s five-year, $18.5 million deal with the Cubs is a matter of when, not if. It is being held up only by the compensation talks that have bogged down over specific names, including top starting-pitching prospect Trey McNutt, whom the Cubs refuse to give up.
Other high-end prospects, such as outfielders Brett Jackson and Matt Szczur, are also off the table, team sources said. And despite reports that 2007 first-round pick Josh Vitters is in the same class, there is a divide among team evaluators about whether Vitters should be allowed to go to the Red Sox, a source said.
And cash compensation, which the Red Sox steadfastly had refused to consider initially, now might be part of the deal.
-
Ken Rosenthal is now reporting that Theo will have the title of President, and not GM, and that he is actively searching for a GM (even as he's still officially GM of the Red Sox).
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/theo-epstein-will-join-chicago-cubs-but-may-not-serve-as-general-manager-101811 (http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/theo-epstein-will-join-chicago-cubs-but-may-not-serve-as-general-manager-101811)
I don't know if this is true or not. But in any event, it must be pretty weird over in the Red Sox front office right now. I'm curious what the reality is about how much Theo is or is not using this opportunity within the Red Sox organization to assess Cubs players (I assume there are scouting reports on Cubs - including minor leaguers), and possibly to soak up other specific information that could be used in his new role with the Cubs.
-
Gordon Edes (ESPN) has chimed in, saying that there is agreement that Theo can bring (at least?) one major Red Sox front office guy with him, suggesting a new and surprising name. Edes also mentions the possibility that Theo will be President and hire a GM (presumably from the Padres).
There appears to be resolution on at least one issue, according to a baseball source who has spoken with Red Sox officials. As things stand now, Epstein will be permitted to take one prominent member of the Red Sox organization with him to Chicago.
One surprising name that has surfaced, according to the source, is Jonathan Gilula, who would not come from the baseball side but is the executive vice president of business affairs. Gilula, who has been in MLB for 14 seasons and with the Red Sox for nine, played a major role in the renovations, remodeling and expansion of Fenway Park, and with the Cubs looking to do the same with Wrigley Field, Epstein might invite Gilula to join him in Chicago.
Trainer Mike Reinold, whose importance to the Red Sox goes beyond the major league clubhouse, may also be in play, the source said. The Boston Herald first raised the possibility that Reinold might join Epstein in Chicago. Not believed to be in play are existing department heads on the baseball operations side, including Mike Hazen, director of player development, or Amiel Sawdaye, director of amateur scouting. The possibility remains that Epstein could ask special assistant Dave Finley or assistant to the GM Allard Baird to join him.
According to the same source, while there is still some uncertainty what title Epstein will have in Chicago, there is credence to reports that Epstein would become president and hire a general manager rather than hold dual titles. If that is the case, Epstein could look to former aides currently outside of the Red Sox organization, with three of his top aides now in San Diego -- GM Jed Hoyer, VP/baseball operations Josh Byrnes, and VP/assistant GM, player development and scouting Jason McLeod. Jon Heyman of SI.com was the first to report that Epstein may be targeting Hoyer, who just completed his second season as Padres GM and is signed through 2013, with an option for 2014.
-
Baker, Coleman, and a little cash.
Interesting at some of the other names missing: Flaherty, Castillo, and Lake. Seems like they were mentioned frequently in the past. Hadn't really heard Vitters before; rather surprised.
-
Chicago columnists are out in force saying stupid things. Steve Rosenbloom – who just last week said hiring Epstein was a mistake (you know, after saying previously that Tom Ricketts would never man up and hire someone like Epstein) – says Ricketts needs to get the deal done or else his legacy will be ruined. You’ll note I’m not linking to the article – it’s terrible, ridiculous, hypocritical, poorly written, and everything you’ve come to expect from Rosenbloom. Don’t bother.
Brett goes on to say that David Haugh isn't much better.
-
Baker, Coleman, and cash sounds OK to me...
-
Baker, Coleman, and cash sounds OK to me...
If Baker goes to Boston and Aramis leaves too, that leaves D J LeMahieu as your 3B in 2012.
-
I almost forgot: Koyie Hill has played a couple innings at 3B too.
-
I really kind of want The Henry comments to come back and bite him in the ass. Henry is getting killed in the media for his comments on Carl Crawford. I would love to put him in LF. Trade them Z, and Soriano for Theo, Crawford and cash. Couple b level prospects on either side and move on. I really think Crawford has a huge bounce back season next year. It is never gonna happen but it really makes a lot of sense.
-
Also heard Beckett is all but done in Boston he has 3 years and about 47 million dollars left. Soriano for Beckett? Again with cash and others to make the deal work.
-
Interesting that Theo is coming over as president. President gets to oversee things. Not sure what else he does. Will the president be phoning GM's to talk trade? Phoning agents and players to sign as FA? Visiting draft choices to persuade them to sign? Perhaps some, perhaps none of that.
Many presidents oversee, and delegate actual baseball responsibilities to the draft boss, the farm boss, the international scouting boss, the GM. So when it gets down to cases, my guess is that while Theo might do some consulting, if he's the pres he's not going to be spending his time studying players, and spending the kind of hours on scouting that for example a football GM like Green Bay's Ted Thompson does.
I expect that when it gets down to cases, it's the GM who's responsible for the case-by-case player analyses. Byrnes? Hoyer? I wonder who.
Will we now also have to trade another top prospect for the GM, too? Trade McNutt and Lake for Theo, then trade Lemahieu and Coleman for Hoyer?
-
In September 1994, when MacPhail came over, Cubs farm system was in terrible shape. The top pitching prospect was Amaury Telemaco---and second was Hector Trinidad,who turned out to be the compensation. Cubs first round pick in June 1994 was pitcher Jayson Peterson, who was not eligible to be traded. (The top overall prospect was probably Brooks Kieschnick, who had a disappointing season at AA in 1994 with only a .770 OPS).
Yea.... those were the days.
-
If John Henry wanted to keep Theo he would have not granted the cubs to talk to him or extended Theo's contract.
Not quite accurate.
If Henry was unwilling to allow Theo to leave regardless what compensation was offered, that is right, but if Henry was always of the opinion, even in 2004 or 2005 or 2006, that he would allow Theo to leave IF the compensation offered was high enough, then allowing allowing Theo to talk with Ricketts now does not mean Henry wanted Theo to leave.
-
Craig - Theo may or may not be coming to the Cubs as President with someone else as GM. There have been varied reports on that, I'm not sure anyone making those reports knows squat. But my guess is that if he has that arrangement with a Josh Byrnes or Jed Hoyer or someone else with whom he's had a very close working relationship in the past, then it will continue to be fairly hands-on. I think there are lots of ways of dividing up responsibilities. It seems unlikely that Theo would feel restricted to dividing up responsibilities the ways that it's been elsewhere by others.
One of these days, hopefully sooner rather than later, we'll find out his exact title. And we'll find out who he's bringing in with what responsibilities. The division of labor may not become clear for a long time. He's probably using this period to try to get that stuff as figured out as possible so that he can hit the ground running when this all becomes official. I'm guessing he's also preparing himself for immediate decisions on Ramirez, Pena and Zambrano (not to mention the 2012 field manager).
-
It's been written in a lot of places that the Cubs have the smallest front office staff in baseball. Several teams have two headed monsters sharing the GM duties, under titles like head of baseball operations. Apparently Epstein's management model was to surround himself with like-minded people to bounce ideas off of. Apparently Ricketts has signed off on the concept, otherwise Epstein wouldn't be making the move.
It looks like the Cubs are finally moving into the 21st century. It's going to be interesting.
-
Man, do I hate to say this, but Phil Rogers actually has an interesting take on all of this.
He points out, as others have that Jeff Moorad and Josh Byrnes were very close when they were both with the Diamondbacks. He adds that when Moorad took over the Padres and hired Jed Hoyer as GM, Josh Byrnes was still GM for the Diamondbacks and (more or less) unavailable. After Byrnes was fired, Moorad/Hoyer brought him on in San Diego. The theory is that as much as Moorad likes Hoyer, he may like Byrnes even more, so would be content to let Hoyer go and move Byrnes into the spot he may have wanted him to have all along. It's an interesting theory.
Rogers also addresses Craig's question about what on earth a President does. He mentions two different models, Cleveland, where the President apparently really does delegate running the baseball operation to the GM, and Florida, where the President really functions as the direct decision-maker. As I mentioned in my earlier post, Theo could, presumably, design a structure any way he wanted, in order to utilize most fully various folks' strengths.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/chi-your-morning-phil-hoyer-berkman-preller-20111019,0,3659315.story (http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/chi-your-morning-phil-hoyer-berkman-preller-20111019,0,3659315.story)
-
Gilula could be a sleeper. The modernization/optimization of the ballpark and surroundings is a huge element in the future success of the franchise, and he was a critical factor in the success of that project in Boston.
-
Anything that would make Crane Kenney a former Cubs employee would be just nifty with me.
-
Source says Cubs may make announcement on World Series off days and two other sources confirm SI report of yesterday that would make Theo president and Jed Hoyer GM.
http://espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/story/_/id/7123358/source-chicago-cubs-announce-theo-epstein-hire-world-series?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
-
(Theo)'s probably using this period to try to get that stuff as figured out as possible so that he can hit the ground running when this all becomes official. I'm guessing he's also preparing himself for immediate decisions on Ramirez, Pena and Zambrano (not to mention the 2012 field manager).
My guess is that he is also actually doing a bit of work for the Red Sox.
Just a guess. And I would hope that decisions regarding ARam, Pena and Zambrano would be made after considerable discussions with Quade, Cub coaches, perhaps each of those players, and even other teams.
If he instead is making those decisions in the relative vacuum of Boston, we will likely become unhappy with Theo rather quickly.
-
Carrie Muskat with some comments from Peter Gammons. If anybody might have some inside info from the Red Sox it would be him
http://muskat.mlblogs.com/2011/10/19/1019-gammons-on-cubs-red-sox-talks/
-
Whether he meant bottom three or bottom third, it's obvious Gammons is clueless about the state of the Cubs farm system...
-
If it's not Yankees or BoSox, it's not happening. The only reason the story gets as much pub as it does is because Theo is from the BoSox.
-
Whether he meant bottom three or bottom third, it's obvious Gammons is clueless about the state of the Cubs farm system...
And if you said Gammons could be accused of trying to slant a story in favor of the Red Sox, you'd be right there too.
-
Once Gammons left ESPN, he quit trying to hide his Red Sox bias and went to full on Boston fanboy mode.
Everything he's said on the Theo matter has been 100% propaganda.
-
Heh, they traded 3 of their top 10 to get Gonzalez...I seriously doubt they have 24 others better than McNutt...
I like Gammons, but he's full of chowder...
-
Carrie Muskat with some comments from Peter Gammons. If anybody might have some inside info from the Red Sox it would be him
http://muskat.mlblogs.com/2011/10/19/1019-gammons-on-cubs-red-sox-talks/
Gammons is nothing more than a shill for the Red Sox in this story.
Gammons, by the way, was way behind the curve when the stories began that Epstein might leave the Red Sox. My recollection is that he didn't believe it until after virtually everyone else had reported it as fact.
-
I originally scoffed at the notion of Theo hiring Hoyer away from San Diego. But either there are some credible sources getting a lot play or else the herd mentality among baseball writers has taken over. Plus the various relationships involved (Moorad with Byrnes, and now, according to Bruce Levine, between Moorad and Ricketts) make this more plausible than I initially imagined.
Meanwhile, Hoyer provides a non-denial denial. Actually not even that.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/chi-padres-gm-hoyer-mum-on-speculation-hes-on-epstiens-radar--20111019,0,6526786.story (http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/chi-padres-gm-hoyer-mum-on-speculation-hes-on-epstiens-radar--20111019,0,6526786.story)
At least the rumors are interesting ... given the lack of any really hard information.
-
I met Gammons at an AFL game seven or eight years ago. He seemed to get a kick out of being recognized and was willing to talk to anybody.
-
Paul Sullivan speculates that Jed Hoyer might be able to bring Heath Bell to the Cubs with him if he becomes GM.
Dream on, Paul.
-
Tom Krasovic throws some nice dry wood on the fire:
Hoyer is close to Epstein, and as GM of the Cubs, he'd spend $90 million more on player payroll than he does here.
If Hoyer departs for Wrigley Field, I expect he'd take with him Jason McLeod, who oversees San Diego's scouting and player development. Epstein and McLeod are best friends, and when Epstein left the Padres nearly 10 years ago, McLeod followed him to Boston not long after.
Epstein speaks well also of Byrnes, who worked for him in Boston before becoming GM of the Diamondbacks. Last week, a major league executive told me the chance was good Epstein would hire Byrnes.
Let's say Padres CEO Jeff Moorad has to decide which exec he would prefer as GM, Hoyer or Byrnes. My guess is Byrnes would get the nod. Moorad hired Hoyer as his GM and guaranteed him a salary through 2013 with a club option for 2014.
But the CEO's regard for Byrnes is pure platinum. Moorad was part of the executive team that installed Byrnes as Arizona's GM after the 2005 season, and it was Moorad who gave Byrnes an eight-year extension. The length of the deal left other GMs astonished.
Another favored exec of Moorad's is A.J. Hinch, whom he hired along with Byrnes last offseason, not long after they were fired by the Dbacks. "Josh and A.J. are like Jeff's sons," a Dbacks player told me last year.
If McLeod goes to the Cubs, don't be surprised if his powerful job is filled by Hinch, who was Arizona's farm director when Moorad ran the Dbacks. Moorad also has long been said to view Hinch as a potential GM.
http://insidethepadres.blogspot.com/2011/10/moving-on.html (http://insidethepadres.blogspot.com/2011/10/moving-on.html)
-
AJ is a good Stanford guy.
-
AJ is a good Stanford guy.
Even though they are the "Cardinal", not the "Cardinals", that doesn't sound right.
-
I'd rather have Byrnes than Hoyer, personally.
-
I'd say Gammons is right in at least a couple of respects:
* both teams need to move on; and
* Theo (and whoever else he brings in) will have one helluva lot of work to do! This won't be like turning around the Red Sox when he started there as GM...far worse MLB team, worse farm/development system.
I don't know whether our farm system is "bottom-three," but it sure doesn't seem to be much above the bottom third, if it is.
I'm incredibly pleased that Tom Ricketts has taken the steps he has so far to bring new leadership in...the turnaround won't happen overnight, but it will happen.
-
Not that I consider BA's ratings definitive, but I believe that the Cubs' farm system was rated one spot above the Red Sox' last spring.
I wouldn't expect Gammons to know anything about the Cubs' prospects. He just shouldn't act like he does.
-
Red Sox system had to go WAY down in the ratings after the Gonzales trade...it would also surprise me if Gammons kept a close eye on the various farm systems, even that of the Red Sox.
-
This won't be like turning around the Red Sox when he started there as GM...far worse MLB team, worse farm/development system.
The reason for that is that Theo did not have to "turn... around the Red Sox." The Red Sox hired Epstein on November 22, 2002. The Red Sox had just finished 93-69.
The next year, 2003, the Red Sox were 93-67. In 2004 the Red Sox won the WS, and also had a regular season record of 98-64, the most wins the team has had under Theo, and the most by any Red Sox team since 1978.
In the 9 years since Theo became GM of the Red Sox, the Red Sox have four times won two more games than they won in 2002, and one time won five games more, and four times won FEWER games than they won in 2002.
In each of the five seasons before Theo became GM the Red Sox finished 2nd. Five straight 2nd place finishes. In the 9 seasons since then, the Red Sox have finished 2nd 5 more times, and first once... along with 3 3rd place finishes.
If you actually look at the team's record each season, and the moves Theo made, or did not make, he is not someone who "rebuilt" the Red Sox. Not even close to it.
-
The Cubs can't trade any of their 2011 draft picks yet, and when you take them out of the equation, the system may be bottom three.
-
I don't agree with your take re what the new leadership group (including Theo) provided in Boston, Jes, and I doubt many rabid Red Sox fans would either.
They had been sucking on the Yankees tailpipe for years and could just not get over the hump (certainly not in the playoffs) before that group arrived.
Was Theo at the right place at the right time? Certainly. Did he have tremendous resources at his disposal (including a very good core group of players)? Without question.
However, everyone knowledgable about that Red Sox situation I've heard weigh in credits Theo (and others in that leadership group) with making some VERY significant changes (including greater emphasis on analytics) that substantially improved the organization and helped enable the phenomenal run they had that finally did get them over the hump.
Little doubt that his task will be significantly harder as the Cub leader, but I'm still extremely pleased that a baseball executive of his calibre is coming our way!
-
Saying the Cubs farm system was bottom third may have been what the Red Sox told Gammons to say in order to get a better player.
-
I'm not sure I share the urgency to get things done.
1. Manager is not at all urgent. If they don't hire a manager until January, so what? The whole idea of having smart upper management is that they will do the thinking and scouting and get the players. The manager doesn't need to do that. (It never helped a lot when Baylor or Baker were influencing acquisition targets. Got us Ismael Valdes and Shawn Estes...) The manager can call a player a couple of times during the winter, but that is not urgent.
2. Aram's option needs to be picked up, but that's a no-brainer. Theo won't need to be pondering that one.
Sure, we'd all like to get on with things. But there are no difficult decisions that are pressing.
-
I highly doubt the Cubs will make a decision based on what Gammons says in his column.
-
I don't agree with your take re what the new leadership group (including Theo) provided in Boston, Jes, and I doubt many rabid Red Sox fans would either.
They had been sucking on the Yankees tailpipe for years and could just not get over the hump (certainly not in the playoffs) before that group arrived.
....
ben, I completely disagree with you. Theo was hired into a 93-win team at Boston. Theo's stated goal has been to win 95 games during the season, get into the playoffs, and take your chances there. Walking into a 93-win clubhouse didn't make the goal of winning 95 that monstrous of a jump. And walking into a clubhouse that had six star centerpieces in their prime didn't hurt either: Manny (30), Varitek (30), Nomar (28), and Damon (28), along with Derek Lowe (29) and Pedro (30) acing the staff. It's going to be a little different walking into the Cubs clubhouse and looking at our centerpieces.
-
Craig, I'd think new leadership would want to participate in organizational meetings before the GM meetings (and, of course, be there, too).
I'd think the new folks would want to start working on an in-depth organizational assessment (which will likely include such things as interviewing scouts and coaches at all levels and checking facilities, as well as a careful analysis of all current players) and, then, start putting together a strategy/plan, which may include such things as devising the new "Carmen" and deciding on moves that need to be made short-term and long-term to change the culture and direction.
Such moves will take time, though I'd wonder how a guy (even at age 37) could go from the pressure cooker he's been in to another pressure cooker without at least a week or two away from the eye of the hurricane. Of course, some of the MLB front-office types (e.g. probably Theo and Hendry) just seem to thrive in those non-stop, 100-hour per week, high-pressure environments.
-
It's going to be a little different walking into the Cubs clubhouse and looking at our centerpieces.
Are you saying that Theo is a dope?
-
Craig, I'd think new leadership would want to participate in organizational meetings before the GM meetings (and, of course, be there, too).
I'd think the new folks would want to start working on an in-depth organizational assessment (which will likely include such things as interviewing scouts and coaches at all levels and checking facilities, as well as a careful analysis of all current players) and, then, start putting together a strategy/plan, which may include such things as devising the new "Carmen" and deciding on moves that need to be made short-term and long-term to change the culture and direction.
Such moves will take time, though I'd wonder how a guy (even at age 37) could go from the pressure cooker he's been in to another pressure cooker without at least a week or two away from the eye of the hurricane. Of course, some of the MLB front-office types (e.g. probably Theo and Hendry) just seem to thrive in those non-stop, 100-hour per week, high-pressure environments.
It's preferable sooner than later. But it's not urgent. No urgency that should justify overpaying in talent compensation. Ricketts shouldn't be caving on prospect compensation based on an urgency timeline.
Sure, things will take time; the sooner the better; of course they'd like to have organization meetings and set the offseason agenda and all that. But if the most urgent time deadline is going to the GM meetings so that you can talk about possible deals that you might end up making in January, I'm not going to sacrifice an A prospect instead of a C prospect for that.
-
Craig, I couldn't agree more about not sacrificing an "A" prospect for a "C" in order to bring Theo in some number of days earlier.
It seems like Tom Ricketts must agree with you, too, at least based on what we are hearing so far.
Theo and his team are going to need all the "A" Cub prospects they can get!
-
I don't agree with your take re what the new leadership group (including Theo) provided in Boston, Jes, and I doubt many rabid Red Sox fans would either.
ben, let's be really clear about what you are disagreeing with.
You are disagreeing with me disputing one very narrow point in a post of yours, and a point which it seems you have drawn back from.
You wrote that This won't be like turning around the Red Sox when he started there as GM.
I pointed out simply that Epstein did not "turn around" anything. He took an extremely strong, very successful franchise, which had just won 93 games, and which had finished 2nd five straight years, and over the 9 years since he has finished with a better record six times, and poorer 3 times, including the last two seasons, with the best season being a whopping five wins better, and he has finished third three times, including the last two years.
I am NOT saying he did a poor job. I am only saying that what he did does not remotely resemble turning anything around. He will need to turn around the Cubs, and he may well be able to do so.
So far he has no track record of turning thing around.
-
Another board reports that it looks like a deal is done and that we have lost McNutt. Source has had a decent amount of accuracy.
-
I wouldn't give my right McNutt for Theo.
-
Another board reports that it looks like a deal is done and that we have lost McNutt. Source has had a decent amount of accuracy.
Where was this posted? And are you saying that the source has "a decent amount of accuracy" or did the post on the other board say that?
-
The poster has been right on a number of calls. He (or she) sounded like he had heard something official, but who knows. I'm just telling you what was posted. I believe he was the first who said that Ricketts had permission to talk to Theo, long before it was a universal rumor. Hey, I've read a lot of stuff that said it was Jay Jackson and Castillo too, so... Just passing it along. May have more legs than the normal rumor.
-
ooop...same guy just posted this tweet from Kaplan:
I just spoke with two excellent sources on Epstein negotiations and it appears deal is basically done with announcement of agreement tmrw.
-
Perhaps this guy's primary source is Kaplan, I don't know.
-
Dave Kaplan
It appears that Cubs and Red Sox are close to finalizing deal that will allow Theo Epstein to head to the Cubs. Could be finalized tomorrow.
@rxdude94 Not yet but it will be something fairly significant.
The last one was in response to asking if he knew who it was.
-
Anything significant is way too much.
Bring Hendry back.
-
Thanks, Curt.
-
More from Kaplan,
David Kaplan I've been working phones non-stop and latest confirms what I reported earlier. Deal is basically done. Word should leak tmrw +press conf Fri 5 minutes ago via TweetDe
-
Watching a bit of the Cards winning game one of the WORLD SERIES makes me even more convinced that it's high time for MAJOR CHANGE!
While I'd hate to see us give up McNutt for Theo, it's abundantly clear that we need to do lots of things VERY differently in order to compete with the freaking Cardinals (who, a decade ago, we thought we would stomp for a decade), let alone all the other teams we will, somehow, need to leapfrog.
Simply, we are way, way behind the Cards and the other good franchises (with little help near).
If McNutt is part of the price to get the right guy at the right time, then so be it!
For the first time in well over a decade, I find myself very wiling to trust that our organizational leader will make the best move he can make - given all the circumstances - in a key situation.
If Theo turns out to be the right guy, as Ricketts believes, then even an upper-tier prospect or two will be a VERY small price to pay. Under any circumstances, i'm confident Theo will make better decisions and MAJOR organizational improvements that will be reflected on the field down the road.
-
The poster has been right on a number of calls. He (or she) sounded like he had heard something official, but who knows. I'm just telling you what was posted. I believe he was the first who said that Ricketts had permission to talk to Theo, long before it was a universal rumor. Hey, I've read a lot of stuff that said it was Jay Jackson and Castillo too, so... Just passing it along. May have more legs than the normal rumor.
Thanks for sharing your stuff, Curt. I know boards posting sources is never a safe bet. But it's interesting, and sometimes guys who are reasonably connected do post when they hear stuff. So thanks for passing it along.
If McNutt is it, so be it. A year ago he was well regarded, and maybe he'll get that back and end up good. He's been very ineffective this year, so maybe he's just gone through some temporary issues and will bounce back as a high-level prospect, or maybe he's just not really very good.
-
David Kaplan ~ No word yet on compensation package but I am confident that it will not include Brett Jackson or anyone of note off of ML roster. 14 minutes ago via Twee
-
http://www.csnchicago.com/baseball-chicago-cubs/news/Kaplan-Epstein-Cubs-deal-could-be-done-t?blockID=579992&feedID=8487
-
or anyone of note off of ML roster.
That must've been a hard decision.
-
http://chicagocubsonline.com/archives/2011/10/cubsrumors10201_1.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Chicagocubsonlinecom+%28ChicagoCubsOnline.com%29
Most interesting in there is the shot at Kenney. With Boston allowing one of their top business people to come with Theo, you wonder how long Ricketts will suffer the clown.
-
Not sure where to put this. I advocated that Cuddyer would be a good target because he can play so many spots he would allow us to pursue a variety of other options from free agency or our minors or in trades.
Somebody said his kind of stats would not interest Theo, but ESPN is reporting that Cuddyer is being pursued by many teams and top on the list is the Boston Red Sox. hmmmmm
-
Some time just before midnight Dave Kaplan says two excellent sources say deal is done, then sometime before 1:00 AM he says he's confirmed that.
At 12:06 AM, Phil Rogers says:
With the sides apparently no closer to resolving the question of what Theo Eptstein is worth to the Cubs, major league sources indicate Commissioner Bud Selig is monitoring the situation and weighing the need to try to facilitate a deal.
Selig has been hopeful Red Sox President Larry Lucchino and a Cubs' negotiating team headed by Chairman Tom Ricketts and interim general manager Randy Bush can reach agreement. But the sides remain at an impasse, with Lucchino reportedly not dropping his demand for top prospects as compensation for the man who will head the Cubs' baseball operations.
One of these guys is going to have egg on his face today.
-
If McNutt is it, so be it. A year ago he was well regarded, and maybe he'll get that back and end up good. He's been very ineffective this year, so maybe he's just gone through some temporary issues and will bounce back as a high-level prospect, or maybe he's just not really very good.
I'm pretty much reconciled to losing McNutt. If Theo is as good as we hope he is, losing McNutt is small potatoes. I think some of the angst over losing McNutt has more to do with the weakness of the pitching in our farm system as opposed to how good he actually is. Yeah, I'd rather not lose McNutt, but when he's your top pitching prospect, that's more of a sign of the weakness of the farm than anything else.
-
It's partly because the system is so weak that it's hard to give up anybody who has half a chance to become more than a back-of-roster guy. McNutt's chances to ever become an average major leaguer might be modest, but how many guys do we have with even half the chance that he's got?
-
Craig has mentioned several times how poor a season McNutt had this year. But it's been reported numerous times that he had a couple of different injuries that affected his performance. I don't see how that can be held against him.
There's never any way of knowing how any prospect will turn out, but there is every reason to believe that McNutt could become a very good major league pitcher one day, so if he's included in the compensation, that'll be a real shame - both because he's the Cubs' top pitching prospect and because he could be very good very soon.
But my primary interest these days is toward the long view, and I'm confident that Epstein (et al) will over time bring fundamental, long lasting improvements to the team - improvements that put the Cubs in the playoffs more often than not. I don't even want to think about the World Series unless and until the Cubs are knocking on that door.
-
If Theo is as good as we hope he is, losing McNutt is small potatoes.
If Theo is remotely close to being as good as many here believe he is, he is a lot better than his record indicates he is.
He took over a team which had finished 2nd five straight seasons, and in the next nine seasons the team finished 3rd 3 times, 2nd five times and 1st once.
-
It's great to hear that we will also increase scouting, as well as beef up operations. New international facilities happening.
Building from the ground up with cutting-edge baseball leaders!
Separating the business side and having top folks there also makes great sense as we look to maintain the financial advantage.
ANY edge we can get we will need!
Ricketts sure seems to have things headed in the right direction...very exciting!
-
Craig has mentioned several times how poor a season McNutt had this year. But it's been reported numerous times that he had a couple of different injuries that affected his performance. ....
Ron, do you have any idea what those were? I try to follow the minors pretty closely, but I'm not sure I recall what happened. I know he had a blister; but what was/were the other injury/injuries? I know there was something else, but I can't remember; an oblique strain? A shot to the mound that damaged his fingers? I can't recall. Not everything gets reported, of course, and you don't know how often a guy is rushing back and playing at 80% all year and never having a chance to recover. But I thought my sense had been that his blister thing was in April, and his next issue in maybe early May? But even in July and August, when I'd thought those issues were fairly long past, that he still tended to be laboring.
I think clearly his results as well as the scouting suggest that something was different this year than the year past. In 2010, there was talk about him being a power pitcher. This year, the reports I recall were that he was sometimes 91-94 on good days, but often less. Back in spring training a game report had him only upper 80's. A blister won't last forever. But if something cost him some velocity, I wonder what caused that and whether it will go away over the winter?
That's life with prospects, of course, there is little certainty. some guys get faster, many have things happen that make them get a little slower. No way to really tell. I'd very much like to keep McNutt and hope he's one who gets his arm back 100%, improves both arm strength and pitching skill, and becomes an effective asset for us.
-
It's great to hear that we will also increase scouting, as well as beef up operations. New international facilities happening. Building from the ground up....
Isn't this something we not already heard last year, but which we have already seen some of the results of?
Are you talking about hearing of some new major increase beyond what was already announced at least a year ago or which has been seen in the last year?
-
In 2010, there was talk about him being a power pitcher. This year, the reports I recall were that he was sometimes 91-94 on good days, but often less. Back in spring training a game report had him only upper 80's. A blister won't last forever. But if something cost him some velocity, I wonder what caused that and whether it will go away over the winter?
No idea what the physical problems were, but his statistical profile as a pitcher changed in 2011.
In 2010 he was with three different teams for the Cubs in 3 different levels, for an aggregate average of 2.9 BB/9, 10.2K/9, and 3.57BB/K. In 2011 those numbers were 3.7BB/9, 6.2 K/9, and 1.67BB/K.
-
If McNutt is in the package, he will become a star. We're the Cubs. It's how it works.
-
Curt, McNutt suffered a rib injury when he collided with Josh Vitters.
-
There ya go.
-
Ron, do you have any idea what those were? I try to follow the minors pretty closely, but I'm not sure I recall what happened. I know he had a blister; but what was/were the other injury/injuries? I know there was something else, but I can't remember; an oblique strain? A shot to the mound that damaged his fingers? I can't recall. Not everything gets reported, of course, and you don't know how often a guy is rushing back and playing at 80% all year and never having a chance to recover. But I thought my sense had been that his blister thing was in April, and his next issue in maybe early May? But even in July and August, when I'd thought those issues were fairly long past, that he still tended to be laboring.
I think clearly his results as well as the scouting suggest that something was different this year than the year past. In 2010, there was talk about him being a power pitcher. This year, the reports I recall were that he was sometimes 91-94 on good days, but often less. Back in spring training a game report had him only upper 80's. A blister won't last forever. But if something cost him some velocity, I wonder what caused that and whether it will go away over the winter?
That's life with prospects, of course, there is little certainty. some guys get faster, many have things happen that make them get a little slower. No way to really tell. I'd very much like to keep McNutt and hope he's one who gets his arm back 100%, improves both arm strength and pitching skill, and becomes an effective asset for us.
From Carrie Muskat yesterday:
McNutt, a 32nd-round pick in 2009, has been rumored to be one of the players the Red Sox are targeting. He's just trying to get back on track after an injury-riddled season with Double-A Tennessee. He missed time because of blisters and a bruised rib cage suffered in a collision with teammate Josh Vitters. http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20111019&content_id=25718168&vkey=news_mlb&c_id=mlb (http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20111019&content_id=25718168&vkey=news_mlb&c_id=mlb)
From ESPN
However, an injury plagued 2011 (a finger blister on his throwing hand and later on bruised ribs) led to inconsistent performances, command issues, and a worrisome decrease in strikeouts (65 Ks in 95 innings). However, scouts tend to remain very encouraged by his stuff -- a power fastball, strong breaking ball and a developing changeup -- and most seem to agree that McNutt’s 2011 is a bad year that the Cubs can just write off due to injuries. http://espn.go.com/blog/chicago/cubs/tag/_/name/trey-mcnutt (http://espn.go.com/blog/chicago/cubs/tag/_/name/trey-mcnutt)
From CBS Fantasy Baseball
The young right-hander dealt with blisters and a rib injury this season, which probably contributed to his disappointing stats in Double-A. Still, he is considered to be among the Cubs' top prospects. Whether with the Cubs or Red Sox, McNutt is worth targeting in long-term keeper leagues, and he could make an impact in league specific formats as soon as next season. http://fantasynews.cbssports.com/fantasybaseball/players/playerpage/1757234/trey-mcnutt (http://fantasynews.cbssports.com/fantasybaseball/players/playerpage/1757234/trey-mcnutt)
From Cubsnow, John Arguello in July:
Don't let the stats fool you. McNutt has been dealing with finger blisters all year and it has affected his performance. With some rest to finally allow those blisters to heal, we'll once again see a guy with a mid-90s fastball, a powerful curve, and surprisingly good command for a power pitcher. He has all the makings of a frontline starter and is my pick to breakout next year. http://www.chicagonow.com/cubs-den/2011/07/cubs-mid-season-top-prospect-list/ (http://www.chicagonow.com/cubs-den/2011/07/cubs-mid-season-top-prospect-list/)
Kevin Goldstein doesn't mention the injuries in his assessment in discussing McNutt as possible compensation at a Boston fans website. But he clearly hasn't given up on him.
McNutt "fell apart mechanically" in 2011, but mechanics can often be fixed. He has thrown five innings in the Arizona Fall League, walking three and striking out zero, but it's just five innings, so it's tough to glean anything from it. He doesn't have the ceiling of the kind of prospect we might want for Epstein, but it's pretty obvious that no amount of stalling is going to get the Sox a Vitters or a Jackson, or even a Cashner. McNutt, who is both talented and a project, might be the kind of return you see Boston getting. Given how much he dominated in 2010, and his youth, it could be just the kind of guy you want the Red Sox asking for, though, especially since the Cubs might be more willing to part with him given his recent struggles. We could be very thankful for McNutt in two-to-three years, if he and Anthony Ranaudo were both major-league ready at the same time. That's a lot of "if," but that's prospects. http://www.overthemonster.com/2011/10/18/2497752/trey-mcnutt-you-say (http://www.overthemonster.com/2011/10/18/2497752/trey-mcnutt-you-say)
As I said earlier, there's no way to predict how well any prospect will perform in the future. The fact that McNutt struggled this year is reason for some doubt, but given his injuries, it appears that there's reason to attribute that to his injuries
.
-
It's great to hear that we will also increase scouting, as well as beef up operations. ...
I agree on this. I hadn't been aware that the Cubs had a small front office.
But it does seem that good decision-making benefits from having a volume of smart guys to exchange ideas with. I'm certainly often influenced by the insights and opinions of thoughtful posters here. I'm not sure that Hendry consistently had either the volume or the smartness in his group. Who did he really have to consult with before pursuing Bradley? The prospect of bringing in a new GM, while retaining Wilkins and Fleita (especially if they continued to hire the guys who worked under them), I'd wondered how much anything was really likely to change. But if there is a whole fleet of new smart voices joining the organization, I'd think over a long time period things should change very meaningfully, for the better.
I don't think we should underestimate how long that all might take, though. Even if hired tomorrow, Theo's not suddenly going to have a whole new minor-league instructional staff and whole new group of draft scouts in place tomorrow. The new regime might not be fully constituted and optimized by next spring. And even the smartest drafters/developers don't have big success with every draft class. And even if they do strike gold in their first two drafts, draftees still take time to arrive and win. And while giving up a couple of prospects each for Theo and Hoyer might be well justifiable long-term, doing so won't make it any easier for them to see quick results in the majors.
Very likely that this will all be a long-term process, and we may need to be very patient in seeing it through.
Or, of course, maybe not. Maybe some new instructors, and suddenly guys will turn on quickly. Vitters will suddenly be a disciplined hitter, and with discipline his OBP will skyrocket and so too his power. Szczur's contact skills will stay excellent, but his BABIP will improve, and if he's persuaded to take walks he'll suddenly look like an almost perfect prospect. Lemahieu will suddenly have IsoD, and perhaps add some token HR's. Jackson will stay on balance and translate nicely to the majors. McNutt will show up healthy, be throwing 94-97, and be winning in wrigley by July. Samardz will be better than he was this year, but succeeding as a rotation guy. Castro will be emerging into a star. Soto will have his every-other-year resurgence. Aram will be back, revitalized, reenergized, and hitting like a machine. A new coach will touch up Marmol and he'll be back to 95 with modest control. Marshall and Cashner will also join the rotation, and by August we'll think our Garza-Marshall-Samardz-Cashner rotation, with Dempster/Wells at #5 and with McNutt available as a high-ceiling guy waiting, the rotation will look more than strong and plenty young and poised for years of contention. Why not?
I do think it will be pretty interesting to see how the next management handles Samardz, Marshall, and Cashner. If two of those guys actually did shift to rotation, and did so healthy and successfully, the short-term future could look a whole lot different.
-
Strange new rumor that part of the agreement with Boston is Lackey to San Diego for Hoyer. Why would San Diego do that?
Other rumors are that Trey McNutt is NOT in the package. 50/50 in the rumor mill.
-
Strange new rumor that part of the agreement with Boston is Lackey to San Diego for Hoyer. Why would San Diego do that?
Other rumors are that Trey McNutt is NOT in the package. 50/50 in the rumor mill.
There have been published reports that the Padres are interested in Lackey, so long as Boston absorbs a lot of his salary. Still that would be a novel approach to the compensation issue. I'm guessing that's a Cub fan fantasizing.
-
According to Levine, the compensation for Theo will not include McNutt, Jackson or Szczur.
-
Lackey in that ballpark and that division might actually work pretty well.
-
I have to ask: with all the criticism from the press as well as Cub insiders about Crane Kenney, why is Ricketts hanging on to him. Does he have naked pictures of TR?
If he has been that big a problem and causes these kinds of problems, fire his a$$.
-
Bruce Levine has a new report saying that the deal is expected to be announced tomorrow, that McNutt is not part of the package and that Hoyer will be announced a few days later as well (with no compensation involved for him).
http://espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/story/_/id/7126311/chicago-cubs-expected-hire-theo-epstein-thursday (http://espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/story/_/id/7126311/chicago-cubs-expected-hire-theo-epstein-thursday)
Gee, does this mean Phil Rogers was wrong? Imagine that.
-
Pretty amazing what changes we're seeing with the Cubs. Who would have thought a month ago we'd be getting both Theo and Jed Hoyer to run the baseball side?
Can't wait to see these guys get to work.
-
Paul Sullivan concurs. (although he doesn't rule out McNutt being part of the deal). He also says that the Padres haven't been asked about Hoyer yet simply because Theo isn't on board yet, but that will happen once he is.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/chi-epstein-signing-will-be-made-official-on-friday-20111020,0,5835313.story (http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/chi-epstein-signing-will-be-made-official-on-friday-20111020,0,5835313.story)
-
Curt, McNutt suffered a rib injury when he collided with Josh Vitters.
McNutt, a 32nd-round pick in 2009, has been rumored to be one of the players the Red Sox are targeting. He’s just trying to get back on track after an injury riddled season with Double-A Tennessee. He missed time because of blisters and a bruised rib cage suffered in a collision with teammate Josh Vitters.
The right-hander didn’t know he was in the middle of the Epstein-to-Cubs talks until his Mesa Solar Sox teammates told him.
“I just thought it was a joke and then they showed me and I was like, ‘It’s for real,’” McNutt told WEEI in Boston after his start Wednesday. “I just didn’t think [the Cubs] would trade me because we need the starting pitching. But anything can happen. that’s just how the world works.
“[The rumor] just caught me by shock,” McNutt said. “I just didn’t think my name would be brought up, so I’m just going to sit and wait and see. Nothing’s probably going to happen until after the World Series, so that’ll probably be this time next week. You just kind of sit around and wait. Either way, they’re both good organizations. If they do trade me, sometimes organizations have to do things they don’t want to do and that’s just the nature of the game.” http://muskat.mlblogs.com/
-
http://www.mycubstoday.com/2011/10/10/trey-mcnutt-continues-climb-up-cubs-pitching-ladder-wrigley-field-101011/
Trey McNutt continues to climb up the Cubs pitching ranks – let’s hope we see him soon at the MLB level. McNutt looks to be a steal as the 980th pick in the 2009 Draft – in the 32nd round. McNutt sported a nice 2.34 in his 1st 8 starts at Double-A Tennessee this season. But he injured his ribs in an in-game collision after tossing 7 shutout innings in a game on May 28th and after that, he never had the same “stuff” the rest of the way. The Cubs proceeded cautiously with McNutt and he finished the season with a 5-6 record and 4.55 ERA in 22 starts. He was named a mid-season All-Star of the Southern League and he will continue to pitch some this fall in the Arizona Fall League. He pitched 3 perfect innings in his 1st appearance for the Mesa Solar Sox on Friday, retiring all 9 batters that he faced.
McNutt had this to say about his roller-coaster ride of a season: “I started the season strong. I had the injury at the end of May that carried into the 1st week of June and it was hard for me to get going, to get sharp again. The second half, it just wasn’t a good half. I was trying to take something positive from it. The adversity was probably the best thing for me… I just have to get back on track, and that’s the reason I’m here.”;
-
I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that when the compensation for Theo is announced, Cub fans will think it's too much and Red Sox fans will think it's too little.
-
Pretty thick limb, P2.
-
Phil Rogers struggles to remove the egg from his face:
The The Epstein announcement may be at hand for the Cubs, which makes me wonder if Commissioner Bud Selig jumped into the fray at some point Wednesday, before he joined Michelle Obama in a Busch Stadium suite to watch Game 1 of the World Series.
-
Did that come through?
No
-
Did that come through?
The "Preview" feature works quite nicely.
-
Well, I removed it. It was a cartoon, a picture of Pujols and Fielder during their series. Pujols has a speaking box that says "Remember, the loser has to sign with the Cubs." I thought it was humorous.
-
Nick Cafardo supposedly asked John Henry less than an hour ago if they were close to finalizing the deal with the Cubs and he said "No not close." http://mobile.twitter.com/nickcafardo (http://mobile.twitter.com/nickcafardo)
Hopefully Henry meant to say, "No, not close. It's done."
Not sure what to make of this. Cherington said something similar earlier in the day.
-
Jon Heyman is twittering that Boyer will be named Cubs GM and the Padres will promote Byrnes to take his place.
-
Something is amiss. Vastly different reports coming out of Boston from those coming out of Chicago. This is from within the last hour.
A top Red Sox official just relayed word that reports of an imminent resolution to the Theo Epstein compensation talks with the Cubs are false.
“There seems to be a fundamental divide in the way the two clubs look at this,” said the source. That means the Red Sox are still not satisfied with the quality and/or quantity of Cubs minor leaguers Chicago wants to send their way in return for installing Epstein to the top post, probably president of baseball operations, while he still has a year remaining on his Red Sox GM contract.
http://www.bostonherald.com/blogs/sports/red_sox/index.php/2011/10/20/red-sox-say-fundamental-divide-still-exists-with-cubs-on-theo-comp-talks/ (http://www.bostonherald.com/blogs/sports/red_sox/index.php/2011/10/20/red-sox-say-fundamental-divide-still-exists-with-cubs-on-theo-comp-talks/)
-
I'm guessing mcNutt and Lake.
-
Now Paul Sullivan has amended his earlier article, backtracking somewhat.
Theo Epstein is expected to be announced as the Cubs’ president of baseball operations on Friday at Wrigley Field, a source said.
Responding to multiple media reports, Red Sox owner John Henry told the Boston Globe the deal is “not close,” putting the Epstein coronation on hold for the moment.
The Cubs had no comment Thursday.
A source said the Cubs are prepared for an announcement, but added the deal is “not done” yet.
-
I saw it mentioned that maybe the Cubs eat some of Lackey's salary for him going to the Padres.
-
Kaplan's now backing off as well. From 7 minutes ago.
Here is latest: Deal not yet signed off by BoSox. No presser yet scheduled but deal will get done. Still hoping for Fri but not guaranteed.
-
Sigh. Back into holding pattern apparently.
-
Guressing that there's probably an implicit Friday deadline for the parties and there's some last minute jockeying going on. Gotta have a deadline of sorts.
-
After all the conflicting rumors, I starting to think I should become a baseball writer. Lack of competence doesn't seem to be an issue.
-
I'm guessing that there's a gag order for today because of the World Series and that everyone has been told that leaks will be punished.
Probably after tonight's game, there will be a trickle of info coming out about the Friday afternoon press conference.
Maybe that's just the optimist in me typing.
-
Henry grew up a Cardinal fan, so he's got extra motivation to stick it to the Cubs.
In this kind of situation, I find it comforting to have a business savvy guy like Ricketts doing the negotiating.
-
http://www.csnchicago.com/baseball-chicago-cubs/news/Kaplan-Epstein-Cubs-deal-could-be-done-t?blockID=579992&feedID=8487 (http://www.csnchicago.com/baseball-chicago-cubs/news/Kaplan-Epstein-Cubs-deal-could-be-done-t?blockID=579992&feedID=8487)
Interesting article. The following is from some other baseball exec, who may or may not know any more than you do.
“I was very impressed with Ricketts' openness and honesty to do whatever it takes to make the Cubs one of the elite franchises in all of baseball," he said. "He is focused on the organization as a whole, not just a quick fix to stabilize the major league club. He is fully prepared to spend significant dollars on baseball operations and he is going to allow the next GM total authority. I wish it was going to be me but they are getting a great one in Theo Epstein and he and his staff should have the ability to appropriate how they want to spend the budget which should be in the area of 150 million dollars including the draft and amateur signings."
Do you think he means $150 just for payroll and procurement? Or would all kinds of other management and facilities and travel and other expenses also fall under that umbrella?
Assuming $150 for players, both new signees and existing guys, that sounds very healthy and promising.
-
This is from the Boston Globe beat writer:
Cherington also indicated that the reports were premature------the sides appear to be working all out to make something happen.------The Sox want Cubs top pitching prospect Trey McNutt, but may consider righty Chris Carpenter.
-
Bruce Levine was on the Waddle & Silvy show and has backed off from his report, saying that he was reporting what his source said, but acknowledging that the report was wrong about it being resolved today.
He seemed perplexed about what the hold up is and why his source was wrong. He was hyper critical of the Red Sox leadership. He said if there is not a press conference to announce a deal tomorrow, it's a very bad sign because nothing would be able to be announced until Monday or Tuesday at the earliest.
-
This is from the Boston Globe beat writer:
Cherington also indicated that the reports were premature------the sides appear to be working all out to make something happen.------The Sox want Cubs top pitching prospect Trey McNutt, but may consider righty Chris Carpenter.
Now we're talkin'.
-
Nick Cafardo supposedly asked John Henry less than an hour ago if they were close to finalizing the deal with the Cubs and he said "No not close."
Not sure what to make of this. Cherington said something similar earlier in the day.
I would make of it that they are not close. But then we all know how I parse things.
-
“There seems to be a fundamental divide in the way the two clubs look at this,” said the source. That means the Red Sox are still not satisfied with the quality and/or quantity of Cubs minor leaguers....
Yea, Cub fans haven't been satisfied with the quality or quantity for years....
-
Now Paul Sullivan has amended his earlier article, backtracking somewhat.
Theo Epstein is expected to be announced as the Cubs’ president of baseball operations on Friday at Wrigley Field, a source said.
Responding to multiple media reports, Red Sox owner John Henry told the Boston Globe the deal is “not close,” putting the Epstein coronation on hold for the moment.
The Cubs had no comment Thursday.
I do like the fact that while the Red Sox appear to be making a**es of themselves, the Cubs are keeping their mouths shut.
-
If it's definite that the Cubs are going to bring in Hoyer, I wish they'd announce it tomorrow whether the Theo deal is done or not. Then they could give the Red Sox a take it or leave it offer...and if they don't take it, tell Theo that the door is open for him to come in as president in a year with the same salary they've already negotiated.
-
If it's definite that the Cubs are going to bring in Hoyer, I wish they'd announce it tomorrow whether the Theo deal is done or not. Then they could give the Red Sox a take it or leave it offer...and if they don't take it, tell Theo that the door is open for him to come in as president in a year with the same salary they've already negotiated.
This has been suggested by others. Among other things, it assumes that would be acceptable to Epstein and to Hoyer. I wouldn't assume either is the case.
-
Seems a little odd that at least two sources (Kaplan originally said there were two sources, and Levine had at least one - possibly the same as one of Kaplan) would have been as definitive as they apparently were.
Perhaps there was a virtual deal with only some tweaking or final selection to be made by Boston (for example, Red Sox finally agreeing to pick from among specific names the Cubs offered, but not having made the selection yet). If that were the case, it wouldn't be surprising if the Red Sox denied a deal was final, as they had not yet reached an internal decision on who would be included.
I think I'll choose to figure it's something like that, rather than that there is actually a serious obstacle yet to be overcome.
-
Jes, in at least one of the recent articles, there was a comment attributed to Ricketts re adding scouts and beefing up infrastructure...may have been the unnamed GM candidate who was real impressed with Ricketts' vision and had regrets he was not selected for the job.
-
http://twitter.com/#!/GordonEdes/status/127100249419423745
-
http://twitter.com/#!/GordonEdes/status/127100249419423745 (http://twitter.com/#!/GordonEdes/status/127100249419423745)
Hopefully Edes' source is not Dave Kaplan or Bruce Levine. ;)
-
Edes just said that Hoyer as Cubs GM is done, Byrnes as Padres GM is done, but Epstein to Cubs is NOT done "per compensation. Review of medicals remains." Whatever that means.
-
Edes just said that Hoyer as Cubs GM is done, Byrnes as Padres GM is done, but Epstein to Cubs is NOT done "per compensation. Review of medicals remains." Whatever that means.
I would assume that the "Review of medicals" means the Cubs want to make sure there is no reason to expect Epstein to croak any time soon.
-
Edes just said that Hoyer as Cubs GM is done, Byrnes as Padres GM is done, but Epstein to Cubs is NOT done "per compensation. Review of medicals remains." Whatever that means.
Presumably the Red Sox want to check out medical reports on which ever player(s) being sent to the Red Sox. Good news IF that's the only thing left.
-
I think I like Ron's presumption better. :)
-
I wouldn't be that thrilled to give up Carpenter. No matter the flaws, guys who throw 100 MPH aren't exactly common.
-
I wouldn't be that thrilled to give up Carpenter. No matter the flaws, guys who throw 100 MPH aren't exactly common.
I'm confused. I thought you had said that you would give up 10 Chris Carpenters for Epstein. Was that someone else?
-
Jes, in at least one of the recent articles, there was a comment attributed to Ricketts re adding scouts and beefing up infrastructure...may have been the unnamed GM candidate who was real impressed with Ricketts' vision and had regrets he was not selected for the job.
ben, I am betting that the unnamed GM candidate was merely addressing what he had just learned, but that those of us who have been following the Cubs closely have already heard announced or seen reports of it actually happening.... unless Ricketts is planning some further major "beefing up infrastructure" beyond was has already bee
n announced or begun (which seems unlikely). The same with adding scouts. Many have already been added, and it may be that some more will be, but these are already plans that have been announced, discussed, and to a large extent even seen discussed as having happened.
-
New article from San Diego on Hoyer coming to the Cubs, perhaps as early as Tuesday.
-
If it's definite that the Cubs are going to bring in Hoyer, I wish they'd announce it tomorrow whether the Theo deal is done or not. Then they could give the Red Sox a take it or leave it offer...and if they don't take it, tell Theo that the door is open for him to come in as president in a year with the same salary they've already negotiated.
My feelings exactly. He can still hint advice and we don't have his salary for a year or pay any extortion. Not the best, but if the Sox are that nuts, so be it.
-
I'm confused. I thought you had said that you would give up 10 Chris Carpenters for Epstein. Was that someone else?
That was me.
-
Edes just said that Hoyer as Cubs GM is done, Byrnes as Padres GM is done, but Epstein to Cubs is NOT done "per compensation. Review of medicals remains." Whatever that means.
I expect some gold from Jeff on this one...
-
I'm confused. I thought you had said that you would give up 10 Chris Carpenters for Epstein. Was that someone else?
That was me.
Couldn't have been. I don't read your posts.
Well, I usually don't. Thanks for reminding me why. ;)
Deeg - I apologize profusely for getting confused about this.
-
Even as good as he looked against the Phillies and last night in the WS opener, I'd give them Chris Carpenter too. Besides it would pi$$ off the Cardinals.
-
After the formal announcement, "Oh, you meant THAT Chris Carpenter. Sorry, he's not available."
-
So toward the end of a whirlwind day, this is what seems to be definite (or awfully close to definite).
1. Agreement has been reached between Epstein and the Cubs, with Epstein becoming President or CEO of baseball operations or some similar title.
2. The groundwork has apparently been laid for a quick hiring of Jed Hoyer as GM, apparently without compensation going to San Diego.
3. A.J. Hinch Jason McLeod may be accompanying Hoyer from San Diego.
4. An agreement regarding compensation for the Red Sox seems to have been reached, pending a review of medical reports on the players.
Right?
-
And the most likely candidates who those player(s) is(are) is McNutt (and Chris Carpenter)
-
Meanwhile, Boston media (other than Edes) continues to say "nothing" has been agreed upon for compensation, and the two teams are still "logjammed" on compensation.
http://www.csnne.com/blog/redsox-talk/post/Cubs-Sox-still-apart-on-compensation-for?blockID=580486&feedID=3352 (http://www.csnne.com/blog/redsox-talk/post/Cubs-Sox-still-apart-on-compensation-for?blockID=580486&feedID=3352)
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/extras/extra_bases/ (http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/extras/extra_bases/)
Can this get more bizarre? (Don't answer that)
-
Ron, many of those "sources" on other boards are doing the same retractions as we're hearing but they sound pissed as if they know more, like there was a deal and somebody backed out. Just my feeling.
-
Jes, the changes that have been made are nothing compared to what's coming...and that's a good thing!
-
Most of the sources are bloggers, who have no more access to inside information than you and I. The Boston bloggers are parroting Gammons and Edes, the Chicago ones are parroting Sullivan and Wittenmeyer.
BTW, does it seem to you that Wittenmeyer has an axe to grind with Crane Kenney? He never misses a chance to slam him. I'm no Kenney fan, but there seems to be some deep personal animosity there.
Too bad the voice of reason, Bruce Miles, is a prisoner of the Daily Herald's paywall.
Looks like we'll know tomorrow.
-
Bruce Miles is on a family vacation. I was curious why he was absent and emailed him. Said he'd be back soon.
-
Jes, the changes that have been made are nothing compared to what's coming...and that's a good thing!
We may be quibbling over changes which have in fact been made, and changes which have been announced but are not yet complete.
You keep suggesting there are going to be some changes in the NUMBER of scouts and the minor league/development physical structure/facilities which have not yet been announced.
And I will ask again, what have you heard or read leading you to that conclusion? What are these additions going to be?
-
What I'm wondering is whether Cubs and Hoyer are prepared to announce Hoyer's GM appointment before the Theo compensation negotiations are finalized.
Once Cubs have a GM in place, Cubs can do whatever needs to be done with player issues and off-season business for the near future. At that point, seems to me that the bargaining power vis a vis Red Sox shifts to the Cubs. Sox would enter the off-season with a lame duck GM and Cubs would have a permanent GM in place. Seems more awkward for the Sox than for the Cubs.
Caveat would be that Epstein gets disgusted with the delay at some point or mostly blames the Cubs for the impasse and the agreement blows up. That obviously hurts Cubs more than Sox.
Seems a lock that that the deal gets done soon but how the deal plays out has more to do with bargaining power than "fairness." What's fair is what you can get from the other guy, with these parties and the public hoopla.
-
I'm confused. I thought you had said that you would give up 10 Chris Carpenters for Epstein. Was that someone else?
Certainly wasn't me. Though I'd give up Carpenter for Epstein, don't get me wrong - my point is that there are other guys I'd much rather give up. Coleman and Baker spring to mind.
-
http://www.csnne.com/blog/redsox-talk/post/Cubs-Sox-still-apart-on-compensation-for?blockID=580486&feedID=3352
-
With Jeff, I won't complain about giving Carpenter for Epstein, and while I have doubts about McNutt's arm and projection, I'd much rather sacrifice Carpenter than McNutt.
With everybody, I hope this wraps up soon. But I still don't feel any urgency, other than my own interest and limited patience. Tomorrow, next Tuesday, or next Friday, whenever.
I thought that Hendry and the Cubs were really good during his era for not leaking. I wonder who's doing all these seeming leaks now? It was dumb to leak that they'd reached agreement with Theo before the compensation was arranged, and it seems dumb to be leaking now. Certainly it seems weird to leak to Gordon Edes or Wittenmeyer or anybody like that. And likewise it seems weird to leak to some friend who's going to pass it along to a Cubs blog. Just seems weird to me.
Unless there is some express strategy in doing so, and you think it will benefit you somehow. Maybe the brainy Theo leaked his original signing for some reason, or maybe it's his people who see some strategic leverage advantage in leaking that it's done or almost done. I don't get it, but whatever.
-
Kaplan was interviewed by Boston’s ESPN radio station. The guy was very aggressive and way unrealistic about the leverage issue. Kaplan got pretty irritated (appropriately so).
Kaplan thinks the differences between Boston accounts and the reports from Levine and him are probably a matter of semantics.
Kaplan and Levine and Edes are all saying that it’s to the point of reviewing medical records of players who will serve as compensation. While most of the reports out of Boston say there has not been agreement on who the specific compensation will be (other than the "logjam" report). These things could conceivably both be right. It’s possible that there is a pool of names that have been agreed upon and the Red Sox are reviewing medical records of each of the players before they decide who they will pick.
I hope that’s the case.
By the way, Kaplan also said, as though he was certain of it, that, if it came to it, the Cubs would go ahead and hire Hoyer as GM, and wait for Theo to be available in one year.
-
Certainly wasn't me. Though I'd give up Carpenter for Epstein, don't get me wrong - my point is that there are other guys I'd much rather give up. Coleman and Baker spring to mind.
I apologize for the mistake, Deeg.
-
When MacP came in 15 years ago, he came with a development philosophy and immediately enlarged the Cubs scouting staff, as related to the draft. The Cubs used to list their draft scouts and their regions. Until Ricketts arrived, that volume didn't change. I think there is evidence that recently Hendry had added some international scouts. And Wilkins has already added some extra scouts for the draft. MacP committed to Dominican, and recently Ricketts has recommitted.
My sense from the gossip is that while Theo may or may not be committed to adding more drafts scouts, that the rumor is that he's going to add more front office guys. Not necessarily guys watching teenage pitchers in Nebraska. But more guys at the topic, more assistant GM's and the like. Boston had reference to the "Gang of Four" while Theo was on his temporary resignation. Those weren't draft scouts, those were front office guys.
The Cubs have usually seemed to have a GM, and maybe Ed Lynch for a few years as an "assistant GM" who didn't seem to do much. They had a couple assistant GM's, the scout with the Cowboy hat and boots, more recently Randy Bush, and for a while a different guy, Champion or somebody? But in recent years, it's seemed to be largely Hendry, Bush, perhaps the Cowboy, and perhaps not much more.
-
I apologize for the mistake, Deeg.
At least you didn't call him an anti-Semite! :)
-
I'm surprised there hasn't been more discussion about Hoyer. Is he any good? We've spent a while thinking that GM Hendry was a problem. Now a new guy seems to be coming in. What do we know about him, and will be good?
-
I'm surprised there hasn't been more discussion about Hoyer. Is he any good? We've spent a while thinking that GM Hendry was a problem. Now a new guy seems to be coming in. What do we know about him, and will be good?
Bleacher Nation has a "Meet the GM Candidates" feature that covers Hoyer today
http://www.bleachernation.com/2011/10/20/meet-the-gm-candidates-cheat-sheet-jed-hoyer/
-
It won't matter. Epstein will be in charge, regardless of the title.
I live in San Diego, and to some extent have followed the local press on Hoyer. He gets good marks for getting the most for Gonzalez, and didn't get the blame for the Padres' flop this year. As a matter of fact they gave him credit early on for their brief moments in the sun.
The conjecture is that Moorad wanted Byrnes, but he was under contract to the Dbacks, so Hoyer was the fallback position. With Byrnes now in the fold, the Cubs opportunity gives him a chance to put his guy in place. That's why he won't ask Ricketts for compensation.
I was at a SABR meeting recently where a couple of the Padres front office people spoke. They looked like college sophomores. Definitely a young group, very much into sabermetrics.
-
Thanks, Clark. Interesting.
-
Thanks for the Hoyer info, Cactus....that's interesting reading, too. Seems like he and Theo are on the same page.
It may take awhile, guys, but it's gonna be interesting.
-
I wonder if some of the delay in compensation talks are becouse the Boston writers don't have their smear campaign against Theo ready to go yet.
-
I live in San Diego, and to some extent have followed the local press on Hoyer. He gets good marks for getting the most for Gonzalez....
For Gonzalez, the Padres got Eric Patterson, 28 years old now and he had an OPS+ of 61 last year, and has a career OPS+ of 72 in five years in the majors; Casey Kelly, now 22, RH starting pitcher, just turned in an ERA of 3.98 in his second full year in AA, after a 5.31 ERA in 2010, and with peripherals that are rather uninteresting; Anthony Rizzo, now 22, 1B, with 153 plate appearance for San Diego this year and an OPS+ of 51, .141/.281/.242, but in the minors before his callup he did hit .331/.404/.652 for an OPS of 1.056 and 26 HR in AAA; Reymond Fuentes, only 20, LH hitting CFer who hit .275 with no real power in high A ball in 2011, but with 45 steals.
-
This just needs to hurry up and be over with. From Rotoworld . . .
Scott Miller of CBSSports.com reports that not only will the Cubs give up compensation to the Red Sox for Theo Epstein, but they'll also have to give something to the Padres for Jed Hoyer and Jason McLeod.
The compensation for Epstein is expected to be a little steeper than it is for Hoyer and McLeod, who will only require a couple lower-level prospects. The Cubs will likely have to surrender a decent prospect and/or cash for Epstein. Epstein, who will be the club president, will receive a five-year, $18.5 million deal, while Hoyer, who will be GM, is also expected to get a five-year deal with a bump in pay from his salary with the Padres. McLeod will be brought in as the assistant GM, though it's not clear if he'll also be locked up for five years.
-
ben must be having a wet dream right now
-
This just needs to hurry up and be over with. From Rotoworld . . .
Scott Miller of CBSSports.com reports that not only will the Cubs give up compensation to the Red Sox for Theo Epstein, but they'll also have to give something to the Padres for Jed Hoyer and Jason McLeod.
The compensation for Epstein is expected to be a little steeper than it is for Hoyer and McLeod, who will only require a couple lower-level prospects. The Cubs will likely have to surrender a decent prospect and/or cash for Epstein. Epstein, who will be the club president, will receive a five-year, $18.5 million deal, while Hoyer, who will be GM, is also expected to get a five-year deal with a bump in pay from his salary with the Padres. McLeod will be brought in as the assistant GM, though it's not clear if he'll also be locked up for five years.
Actually the Miller article seems to only assume the the Cubs are likely to have to provide one or two prospects. It did not appear to me that he had any actual information to that effect.
Meanwhile, Dave Van Dyck has an interesting piece on Hoyer.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/ct-spt-1021-hoyer-cubs-chicago--20111021,0,1004671.story (http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/ct-spt-1021-hoyer-cubs-chicago--20111021,0,1004671.story)
-
Does anyone else think the orbits of McLeod and Wilken are uncomfortably close together?
-
Does anyone else think the orbits of McLeod and Wilken are uncomfortably close together?
It's an obvious question of how those two will relate in the new arrangement. I suppose it's possible that McLeod would have other responsibilities, but given the way his background is described, it seems unlikely.
-
It's really kind of incredible that three sabremetric-oriented 37 year olds are apparently being brought in to run the Cubs baseball operations. I doubt if anyone here imagined that there would be this sort of departure from the past. It's downright mind boggling.
-
Does anyone else think the orbits of McLeod and Wilken are uncomfortably close together?
It certainly won't hurt my feelings if McLeod pushes Wilken out of that orbit.
-
JFYI about McLeod . . .
Under McLeod, the Red Sox drafted many of their young stars, including Jacoby Ellsbury, Craig Hansen, Clay Buchholz, Jed Lowrie, Michael Bowden, Daniel Bard, Justin Masterson and Josh Reddick, as well as top prospects Lars Anderson, Nick Hagadone, Will Middlebrooks, Anthony Rizzo, Casey Kelly and Ryan Westmoreland.
-
FWIW, Gammons has changed his tune substantially, saying that the teams are now haggling about a couple of A-ball prospects. He says the Cubs have a few premium guys that they don't want to trade and "that's understandable." Says both teams need to get their new teams in place and move on.
http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=19925153&c_id=mlb (http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=19925153&c_id=mlb)
Now, granted, Gammons isn't knowledgeable about the Cubs minor leaguers, but still, you'd hope he would know that McNutt is not an A-ball player.
-
In case anyone is confused, there's a good summary of the day's crazy turns at Bleacher Nation.
http://www.bleachernation.com/2011/10/20/theo-epstein-squeal-watch-evening-rundown/ (http://www.bleachernation.com/2011/10/20/theo-epstein-squeal-watch-evening-rundown/)
-
FWIW, other boards are quiet, mostly reporting what we have here. I think they're tired of being burned. :)
-
FWIW, other boards are quiet, mostly reporting what we have here. I think they're tired of being burned. :)
The tone of the Sons of Sam Horn board seems to have changed to one of resignation however.
-
GOOD
-
JFYI about McLeod . . .
Under McLeod, the Red Sox drafted many of their young stars, including Jacoby Ellsbury, Craig Hansen, Clay Buchholz, Jed Lowrie, Michael Bowden, Daniel Bard, Justin Masterson and Josh Reddick, as well as top prospects Lars Anderson, Nick Hagadone, Will Middlebrooks, Anthony Rizzo, Casey Kelly and Ryan Westmoreland.
In a what-have-you-done-for-me-lately world, McLeod's track record is definitely more impressive than Wilken's.
-
Now, granted, Gammons isn't knowledgeable about the Cubs minor leaguers, but still, you'd hope he would know that McNutt is not an A-ball player.
And he may... and he may still be right that the argument at this time is over a couple of A-ball prospects.
-
JFYI about McLeod . . .
Under McLeod, the Red Sox drafted many of their young stars, including Jacoby Ellsbury, Craig Hansen, Clay Buchholz, Jed Lowrie, Michael Bowden, Daniel Bard, Justin Masterson and Josh Reddick, as well as top prospects Lars Anderson, Nick Hagadone, Will Middlebrooks, Anthony Rizzo, Casey Kelly and Ryan Westmoreland.
Someone was using the term "stars" rather loosely.
-
Now, granted, Gammons isn't knowledgeable.
Fixed that for ya, Ron.
-
Phil Rogers has a nice, lengthy article on Theo. Really.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/ct-spt-1021-epstein-theo-rogers-cubs-chicago--20111021,0,858141,full.story (http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/ct-spt-1021-epstein-theo-rogers-cubs-chicago--20111021,0,858141,full.story)
-
In case anyone is wondering, the Boston media continues to say that talks are at a "standstill," with "no recent progress, a deal today "doubtful," and that the Red Sox "knew nothing about" a "deal pending medicals on agreed upon prospects."
http://bostonherald.com/sports/baseball/red_sox/view.bg?articleid=1374905&position=0 (http://bostonherald.com/sports/baseball/red_sox/view.bg?articleid=1374905&position=0)
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2011/10/21/red_sox_cubs_yet_to_finalize_compensation_for_epstein/ (http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2011/10/21/red_sox_cubs_yet_to_finalize_compensation_for_epstein/)
-
Other boards are barren, Ron.
-
Finally made it to the sons of sam horn message board and was reading the theo compensation thread...it's sorta funny to read them talk about how horrible/barren/terrible the cubs system is when baseball america ranks the cubs 1 spot ahead of the red sox if'n i'm not mistaken. I thought about volunteering that information for them but didn't want to register. If someone has an account there, they should just to see the sox fans go nuts in denial.
Their fans seem as classy as Henry. I've sort of always pulled for the Sox because I disliked the yankees so, but no more.
-
.....it's sorta funny to read them talk about how horrible/barren/terrible the cubs system is when baseball america ranks the cubs 1 spot ahead of the red sox if'n i'm not mistaken. ....
Things do change, though. Where BA had them ranked pre-Garza, where they "ranked" post-Garza, and where they'd rank now are all meaningfully different things. I'm just looking at the list from last year, pre-Garza:
1. Chris Archer, RHP Gone
2. Brett Jackson, OF Good season.
3. Ken McNutt, RHP No progress whatsoever, either regressed or due to temporary injury or due to lasting velocity-sapping arm injury, but not the prospect he was then.
4. Hak Ju Lee, SS Gone.
5. Josh Vitters, 3B Very disappointing season.
6. Chris Carpenter, RHP Very disappointing season.
7. Matt Szczur, OF
8. Hayden Simpson Incredibly disappointing season
9. Rafael Dolis, RHP disappointing season.
10. Brandon Guyer, OF gone
11. Alberto Cabrera, RHP 11 Very disappointing season.
I don't remember who they all had in the next ten to twenty. But "disappointing" applies to most of them. Golden, Raley, Robinson Lopez, Jay Jackson, Cam Greathouse, Brett Wallach, Kyle Smit, Austin Reed.
And of course the one guy who had a surprisingly unexpectedly good season was Barney, who graduated.
I think the system's reputation deteriorated greatly over the course of the year.
System rankings are pretty dynamic.
-
Thanks for the links, Ron. You are right about the Rogers article...surprisingly excellent.
There is much significance in the comments that his staff spent "marathon hours analyzing data, producing manuals for scouts and minor-league coaches and producing Carmine..." However, I think the notion that "he involves everyone in the process" is even more important.
One theme consistent with each article, including this one, is that Theo attempts to "build a scouting and player-development machine" (with substantial use and analysis of data). Certainly, it will take lots of smart, dedicated folks - on a global scale - to get that done.
I've followed the Cubs very closely for more than 50 years...I believe this is the first time Cub fans have ever had reason to feel that the insight of their team's leadership might move ahead of the curve. It's going to take time to build the house, but these are very exciting developments for Cub fans!
-
Anybody else hear that the Sox and Cubs have asked Bud to make an announcement? Thought I just saw that on CNN or ESPN.
-
Haven't seen anything on the Twitter feeds.
-
It would be very interesting to understand how Epstein and Company use statistical analysis in DEVELOPMENT. How one might use it to assist in player procurement seems relatively easy to understand, at least in general terms. Do they track statistics of their own minor leaguers to identify weaknesses and target instruction to those areas? If so, is there more sophistication to it than Hendry and Fleita possibly looking at a stat sheet, noting that LeMahieu doesn't draw many walks, and placing a call to his minor league manager with some vague instructions to work on that? I don't necessarily mean to suggest that's how Hendry and Company did it, but I'm curious how an Epstein administration would approach that kind of issue.
-
JeffH, while I don't know what Theo did with Boston (or will drive with Cubs), I'm aware that some organizations teach "plate discipline" and/or "select aggressiveness" with various drills and constant reinforcement. One such drill used in minors is having a coach stand behind the catcher and call the location of pitches, whether the batter swings or not. I know some organizations chart even scrimmage at bats and review them with the hitter on a regular basis, letting the hitter know whether he is making progress.
Like most skill-development areas, the greater the attention, reinforcement and accountability, the greater the likelihood that more guys will progress in the skill area. Of course, nothing works perfectly and some guys develop the skill more than others. No question but that facing major league pitchers makes plate discipline VERY hard. Of course, having watched REd Sox hitters GRIND away at bats in recent years, there's little question but that Boston was placing significant emphasis on it,almost certainly via guys selected and development.
I recall hearing Sarge Matthews once say that he adjusted from being a hackaway hitter to a disciplined hitter as a result of experience seeing a variety of pitches and focused effort on making himself more disciplined in order to get better pitches to hit as well as getting on base more. Don't recall that he, or anyone else, was too concerned about driving up pitch counts back then.
-
Phil Rogers' four page piece on Epstein in this morning's Trib is the best thing I've ever read from him.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/ct-spt-1021-epstein-theo-rogers-cubs-chicago--20111021,0,7461247.story?page=1
-
From the Van Dyke column on Hoyer and Epstein:
Hoyer is his own man, despite his association with Epstein. He was not afraid to make sweeping changes in the Padres' front office and, in his first season, was almost uncanny in player acquisitions.
The Padres won 92 games, staying in contention with eventual the World Series champion Giants until the final day of the regular season.
In his second season — minus star Adrian Gonzalez, whom he traded for salary purposes to Epstein's Red Sox — the Padres finished with 91 defeats.
And if that sounds familiar, it's because that's the same number the Cubs lost.
That is pretty encouraging to me, suggesting that Hoyer understands there there may well be times when a team needs to bite the bullet, rebuild and accept the losses which come with it in order to improve for the long term.
-
JeffH, while I don't know what Theo did with Boston (or will drive with Cubs), I'm aware that some organizations teach "plate discipline" and/or "select aggressiveness" with various drills and constant reinforcement. One such drill used in minors is having a coach stand behind the catcher and call the location of pitches, whether the batter swings or not. I know some organizations chart even scrimmage at bats and review them with the hitter on a regular basis, letting the hitter know whether he is making progress.
Not arguing what is or isn't done, but it would seem that the approach described above should be the default, that such an approach would seem to be such a no-brainer that everyone should do that.
-
Variables would include the rigor of the instruction and the degree to which progress in this area by the prospect factors into advancement in the system.
-
The Angels have already talked to Andrew Friedman. Baltimore is after him too.
A number of other possibilities for the Angels are listed.
http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/mlb/story/_/id/7127641/source-tampa-bay-rays-andrew-friedman-los-angeles-angels-gm-radar
-
So I guess the Theo announcement isn't happening today, huh?
-
Dumb@ss of the week:
1
Root for Theo if you want, but I want my Cubs back
By Gary Karton October 20, 2011 5:20PM
I never thought the day would come when I’d actually be rooting against the Cubs. But that’s what I’m forced to do now that Theo Epstein is coming to Chicago.
This won’t be easy. I practically grew up at Wrigley Field. When I was a reporter for the Washington Post, I was known as the “guy in the Cubs hat.”
But Epstein isn’t the right guy for the Cubs. I could root for anyone but Epstein.
Don’t get me wrong, Epstein was a great GM for the Red Sox and if I were rooting for him to be the first GM in the Hall of Fame, I’d be psyched right now. If he can do for Chicago what he did for Boston, it will be great for him personally. A major part of the headline will be: “Epstein leads Red Sox and Cubs to World Series victories.” But after everything Cubs fans have been through, that’s not good enough for me.
continued at: http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/8323434-452/root-for-theo-if-you-want-but-i-want-my-cubs-back.html (http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/8323434-452/root-for-theo-if-you-want-but-i-want-my-cubs-back.html)
-------
the résumé of the author:
Gary Karton (Senior Consultant) joined E-Squared Communications after spending five years as senior writer/editor for the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation. In addition, he spent the 2005 baseball season covering the Washington Nationals for the Washington Post Express, a publication of the Washington Post. For six years, Gary was a reporter for The Washington Post, where he wrote news and feature articles on political figures and athletes. He was the co-author of No Free Lunch (Ballantine/One World, May 2002), the inspiring true story of Rodney Carroll, the President and CEO of The Welfare to Work Partnership. Prior to joining the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation, he wrote hundred of speeches on welfare issues with business leaders, state governors, members of the White House and Democratic and Republican members of Congress. Gary has also written op-ed pieces that have appeared in several publications, including the Washington Post and USA Today.
http://www.e-squaredcommunications.com/about_e2.html (http://www.e-squaredcommunications.com/about_e2.html)
-----------------
this dumb @ss doesn't want them to win because Theo winning in Chicago. as well as in Boston, would overshadow 'his' team's winning. Sort of similar to the flawed 'logic' I heard from some fans when Dennis Rodman joined the Bulls.
-
Yeah, that's pretty bad.
-
Controversy sells newspapers. ESPN, local TV and radio and all the other major newspapers will have the same facts as you do, so facts won't sell newspapers.
-
Don't know that this means anything, but Cafardo hasn't exactly been Mr. Optimist.
(http://a3.twimg.com/profile_images/1479864620/Nick_Cafardo_normal.jpg) (http://twitter.com/#!/nickcafardo)@nickcafardo (http://twitter.com/#!/nickcafardo)[/size]Nick Cafardo[/size][/font][/color]
Sox-Cubs working hard this afternoon to get a deal done on Theo Epstein compensation. There appears to be some progress.
[/size]35 minutes ago [/size]via Twitter for BlackBerry® (http://blackberry.com/twitter)[/size]
-
The latest from David Kaplan, who insists "the parameters" of a deal are and have been in place:
http://www.csnchicago.com/blog/cubs-talk/post/Kap-Epstein-deal-remains-on-track?blockID=580938&feedID=619 (http://www.csnchicago.com/blog/cubs-talk/post/Kap-Epstein-deal-remains-on-track?blockID=580938&feedID=619)
-
Seems like what Kaplan means by"parameters" is that there's an agreement that nobody from the Cubs 40-man roster is going to Boston. At this point, that's not very helpful to understanding what the current dispute is about, particularly since the real 40-man roster won't be set until the deadline for the off-season 40-man roster approaches.
Seems that Kaplan has been wrong about the deal-about-to-happen-on-Friday and there's some kind of spinning going on.
The national media guys---who seem to get most of the scoops these days--seem to be saying that McNutt is the hold-up. So, if it turns out that Cubs give up McNutt, then Sox "win' and Cubs caved.
Maybe they should just find the equivalent of Randy Winn. That's probably Marlon Byrd. Maybe they should change the "parameters." Goodbye Marlon!
-
This seems to be a pretty recent story (before 5:00 this evening). Not sure whether it has any significance.
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/extras/extra_bases/2011/10/growing_optimis.html (http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/extras/extra_bases/2011/10/growing_optimis.html)
-
After 10 days of seemingly not getting all that close to a deal, I hate to say it but it's probably time for Selig to step in and do some arm twisting.
-
Why? When the Red Sox hired Theo as GM in 2002, that decision was not made until December, and, miracle worker that he was he personally handed the franchise a WS championship the next season, lifting the organization from the absolute abyss when it had been for five straight years. All as a rookie GM.
This is only October 21st. Plenty of time.
-
Pete Abraham of the Boston Globe said the Theo deal is done, announcment coming soon. Didn't name the players.
-
Theo resigned and joined the Cubs, compensation to be determined later
-
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/extras/extra_bases/
-
http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/news/press_releases/press_release.jsp?ymd=20111021&content_id=25745026&vkey=pr_chc&fext=.jsp&c_id=chc
-
Cool!
-
From the Red Sox's board it sounds like Theo and Cherrington will try to come to a deal on compensation, if not Bud will arbitrate.
-
This feels like the day the Cubs organization put on their big-boy pants.
-
Finally.
It sounds to me like baseball is throwing some weight around.
Otherwise, what makes anyone think that the Red Sox will suddenly accept a deal they've been rejecting for ten days?
-
Finally, thank goodness. If all he had to do was resign, he shoulda just done it 10 days ago! But yeah, sounds like perhaps ole bud suggested it.
-
Will be funny for Theo in his first trade as a Cub to be trading a prospect for himself.
-
Let's just hope Ricketts and Epstein don't accidentally start talking politics one day. I'd rather Theo have as good a relationship with the money as possible.
-
Will be funny for Theo in his first trade as a Cub to be trading a prospect for himself.
Prospect, hell. Goodbye Koyie. jk
-
Nice
-
"This feels like the day the Cub organization put on their big-boy pants." Perfectly said, Deeg.
-
Finally!!!!
Cubs win!!!
-
Apparently Theo may be considering Dave Martinez for manager. How's that for irony - Martinez vs. Sandberg?
-
WOOHOO!
-
(http://googlinggod.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/420x316-alg_theo-epstein-cubs-logo-300x225.jpg)
-
Len Kasper comments.
http://www.csnchicago.com/pages/video?PID=PrytBWNrzoDjTOE_VDjcqkMAoJSBz9sr&awid=5517336597321613139-914 (http://www.csnchicago.com/pages/video?PID=PrytBWNrzoDjTOE_VDjcqkMAoJSBz9sr&awid=5517336597321613139-914)
-
Very happy to wake up this morning and find that it's now official. Still curious what the compensation will end up being. Strange to have this result (resolution of Theo leaving without deciding the compensation) after 10 days. I can't really say this is anti-climactic however.
I've been trying to explain to members of my family why I am so enthusiastic/excited about this. I think they were more impressed that Theo's grandfather was a screenwriter for Casablanca and his father director of creative writing at BU than anything else. It's sometimes lonely being a Cubs fan in Virginia.
I really hope (naively) that Cub fans don't expect too much too soon. I think it's possible that the immediate changes will be internal and not that evident on the field. It's very difficult to change the culture of any institution, much less one with as long a history as the Cubs. It's not as though the new leadership is going to be able to replace Zambrano, Soriano and Ramirez with exciting youngsters who are future all-stars. There are limits to what can be accomplished through either trades or free agency.
Hopefully we won't have to wait long to see some evidence of a more strategic and disciplined approach both in the front office and on the field.
-
It's not as though the new leadership is going to be able to replace Zambrano, Soriano and Ramirez with exciting youngsters who are future all-stars. There are limits to what can be accomplished through either trades or free agency.
If ARam is offered arbitration and rejects it, the Cubs get a nice draft pick, and while such things are always uncertain, first round or sandwich round draft picks have a decent prospect of becoming future all-stars (at least being on an all-star team once in their careers). Zambrano is consistently under valued here, and if not for Hendry's last move regarding Zambrano, he might possibly have been dealt late this last season to either NY or to Theo's pitching starved Red Sox for a prospect or two with actual all-star potential.
Soriano.... for the Cubs to get a top prospect out of him, they would likely have to eat every penny of his salary.... and then add a lot more cash.
-
Surprised at the plan to finalize the move before the compensation is decided. Perhaps they thought Theo himself should get some input as to who gets sacrificed. No idea how that would work. A pool of 12 players, Red Sox get to select any two, but Theo gets to look it over and pull any two he likes back?
Pool of players, a couple of trades kind of discussed, Theo gets to pull one back? McNutt plus one player from pool, or else if he pulls back McNutt they are entitle to not two but three? Some kind of controlled packages such that Boston is guaranteed to feel like they'll get some value, and that are perceived by those negotiating as of being of roughly similar value. But in which Theo can look them over and if he feels one is not really of comparable value but is way too rich, he can pull that one back. Without Boston needing to start over or feeling like getting the remaining package(s) are worthless.
-
Nice human interest style article on Theo from right after he became Red Sox GM.
http://www.brooklinehighalumni.org/epstein.asp (http://www.brooklinehighalumni.org/epstein.asp)
Every account from everyone who has spent time with him stresses how incredibly intelligent and hard working Theo is. But he also seems like a really good guy with sense of humor and with remarkably grounded ego. Here are a couple of excerpts. The first has a certain resonance regarding his new position.
''I don't really believe in curses,'' Epstein says, flashing a broad grin. ''Look, I can't sit here and deny that the Red Sox have broken their fans' hearts for the better part of a century. But I think with the right approach, tremendous resources, great ownership, and hard work, we can put ourselves in the position to win the World Series. It's just a matter of time.''
The second says something about his perspective on baseball and life.
But he is unabashedly proud of his family's accomplishments: his father's writing and teaching; his sister, ''so talented as a writer and producer and now as a great mother''; his brother's work with children (''What he does is so much more important than anything I'll ever do'').
-
I found it interesting that Theo's twin brother, Paul, is a high school social worker, given the family background and the fact that he obviously possesses genes that provide plenty of other options.
So I googled him and found this neat article.
http://www.streetnewsservice.org/news/2011/may/feed-281/boston%E2%80%99s-big-brother-paul-epstein.aspx (http://www.streetnewsservice.org/news/2011/may/feed-281/boston%E2%80%99s-big-brother-paul-epstein.aspx)
-
Nothing new about a "player to be named later".
-
Ron, thanks for the links and your excellent thoughts...agree completely re enthusiasm about the long-term, reality for the short-term. It's going to take time, which is fine. We can wait, knowing there is a plan and that Cubs are building something.
Before Trib sold to Zell and Zell sold the club, my expectation was the new owner(s) would be a substantial improvement (about the only thing Trib did well was spend consistent with the big market). Tom Ricketts has certainly exceeded my expectations with the moves of the past week.
No guarantee of success, of course, but the franchise sure appears headed in the right direction...finally!
-
Scott Isaacs @ScottWCVB Scott Isaacs
So @ LynchieWCVB reports Cubs prez Crane Kenney was holding up Theo talks 'for his own interests' and is in hot water with Commish # redsox
If true, please ship him out with Quade.
-
FWIW: newest names mentioned: Robinson Lopez and Ben Wells.
Don't bet a lot of money.
-
Ron, thanks for the links and your excellent thoughts...agree completely re enthusiasm about the long-term, reality for the short-term. It's going to take time, which is fine. We can wait, knowing there is a plan and that Cubs are building something.
Most here seem totally unwilling to wait. And most of those here, including those who are impatient, are among the better informed Cub fans.
How many times have you heard posters here insist that there is no reason whatsoever that with the resources they have the Cubs should not be able to rebuild while also offering a team each year which has a serious prospect of winning the weak NL Central and making it to the post season, with those posters often (wrongly) insisting that other large market franchises have never had to go thru a true rebuilding period when they were regularly out of the running. (The fact that I have pointed out that clearly is not true does not seem to bother those who insist that it is.)
The very idea of a serious rebuild offends them.
And the fact since 2006 that I have continually pointed out it is what the Cubs have needed has irritated them so much it is one of the reasons many have me on ignore.... well, that and the fact that I am sometimes simply an annoying a**hole.
-
Welcome to Chicago, Theo and Jed!.
I'm encouraged that Theo has a five-year contract. That suggests to me that he doesn't share the view held by far too many Cubs fans that he's a miracle worker. I'm not convinced that even five years will be enough to bring us a World Series championship, but I do believe that the organization will be much stronger by then.
-
I'm encouraged that Theo has a five-year contract. That suggests to me that he doesn't share the view held by far too many Cubs fans that he's a miracle worker. I'm not convinced that even five years will be enough to bring us a World Series championship, but I do believe that the organization will be much stronger by then.
Five years should be enough to make the Cubs a strong team which can be expected to make a serious run for things, but the post season is a crap shoot. For a 15 year stretch the Braves were unquestionably the strongest team in baseball.... and only won 1 WS.
-
Im proud of our Cubs.It seems like we're finally trying to do things the right way with people in leadership roles who know how to get that done.I know it'll take time and we all need to know that and give them the time it takes to make this an organization we'll be proud of.
And I'm fine with Quade being fired.
These guys do need their own man.
-
I basically agree, Jiggy. Although I don't think it's really essential to replace Quade now, particularly if there is a strong managerial candidate who will be available after the 2012 season.
I also don't think it will necessarily be a long, slow process to build a strong ML team. Once the organizational principles are established and corresponding personnel decisions are implemented (that part will take a few years given the financial constraints), marked improvement in performance should be forthcoming. Given the weakness of the NL Central, we should be contending for the Division (and perhaps more) by 2014.
-
Although I don't think it's really essential to replace Quade now, particularly if there is a strong managerial candidate who will be available after the 2012 season.
Quade did not seem at all effective in creating the right culture of responsibility, it getting Castro, or much of anyone else to focus on the game and to stay focused on it, or to really get the team to "play right," even if they were not capable of playing it well.
That being the case, the longer he remains the more harm he does to younger players, and the more time is wasted in creating the desired environment.
Even if Theo has someone else in mind for 2013 or beyond, I would make a change now to find someone to help create the right environment, sense of responsibility and focus, even if the guy had made lineup cards with pitchers hitting 3rd, using the sacrifice at least twice a game, and use the intentional walk to set up the double play ANY time a runner is on second with less than two outs.
A complete, good manager, who also uses players well, gets the most out of them, and makes good in game strategy decisions can come later.... like when the team is one likely to win 90 games.
-
Even Beerfa...er, Rosenbloom is happy:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/rosenblog/chi-ricketts-gets-epstein-deal-done-20111021,0,7417029.column
Of course, this is opposed to the opinion he gave when the Ricketts story first broke last week.
-
McLeod's and Hoyer's and Epstein's, oh my!
In all of this, I'm most impressed with Ricketts. I know there's been some concern over the kind of owner he'd be, but any fears I had are shattered. He's bringing in the best minds in baseball.
-
here's my guess on compensation stuff.
sox get a couple c+/b- lvl prospects
cubs get epstein, hoyer, mcleod
pads get lackey and cash from cubs and sox, mostly from cubs
-
WEEI is reporting Cubs/Sawx talking about Samardzija as compensation. Given his great 2011, that's a steep price. Seems unlikely.
Not to mention his no-trade clause.
-
Giving up Samardzija would certainly be a change in philosophy for the Cubs. Imagine, selling high on a guy that 99% of the people this board would have dumped for nothing a year ago at this time, and who has only had success as a relief pitcher--a role that not only has limited value but also produces the most volatile performances in baseball.
What a change from treating Tyler Colvin's fluke good year as a sign of things to come.
-
Not to mention his no-trade clause.
Does he have a no compensation clause?
-
Does he have a no compensation clause?
A trade's a trade, unless I'm missing something.
If a waiver claim is the same as a trade, I don't see how compensation could be considered any different.
-
Deeg has said often that he is purple impaired.
-
Not to mention his no-trade clause.
I am willing to bet he would be happy to waive the no-trade clause to go to Boston... though I think he would be far too high a price. In two years he could easily be a front of the rotation starter.
-
Theo has a full page ad in the Sunday Boston Globe.
-
I don't think that Samardzija can be sent, because of his no trade clause. But I doubt that he should be considered "too much". I suspect that before this is over, the Cubs will lose a lot more than Samardzija-valued compensation.
-
I don't think that Samardzija can be sent, because of his no trade clause. But I doubt that he should be considered "too much". I suspect that before this is over, the Cubs will lose a lot more than Samardzija-valued compensation.
You could be right. But on the other hand, expectations seem to have been downgraded in Boston. This is from Peter Abraham of the Boston Globe.
In the end, the Red Sox will likely get two or three prospects. Or a prospect and a guy like Jeff Baker. That's what precedent suggests. The Red Sox will get some potentially helpful players, not a windfall of talent.
-
Jim Callis and BA seem to think Hoyer and McLeod have done a pretty good job at SD.
Baseball America won't release its 2012 organizational rankings for farm systems for two months, but editor Jim Callis believes the Padres are at least in the top six.
Last season, the Padres were rated eighth among baesball's 30 teams.
This new ranking is hardly surprising.
Over the past 10 months, the Padres had a great amateur draft that was lauded by industry analysts. They've added five good prospects — Anthony Rizzo, Casey Kelly, Reymond Fuentes, Robbie Erlin, Joe Wieland — through the trades of Adrian Gonzalez to the Boston Red Sox and Mike Adams to the Texas Rangers — two of the top farm systems in baseball. And some of their own prospects, Rymer Liriano and Keyvious Sampson, took big steps forward.
"The talent is there and they have a couple of future stars," Callis said by phone on Thursday.
The Padres are so flush with talent that earlier this week, outgoing assistant general manager Jason McLeod offered this assessment.
"I can't ever remember the volume of tools or athleticism going back to Boston," McLeod said.
The turnaround in less than two years under McLeod and Jed Hoyer, who is expected to take over as the Chicago Cubs' GM next week, does reflect a remarkable change from 2009, when the Padres ranked 29th in baseball. Callis backed McLeod's assessment of the system. He said the rise of the team's rank is based on the overall depth and strong early showings by June draft picks Austin Hedges and Joe Ross, among others.
http://www.nctimes.com/blogsnew/sports/padres/article_5a52f6bf-34f6-509f-8ae0-9f0b0112c1c4.html#ixzz1bbxXgLW5 (http://www.nctimes.com/blogsnew/sports/padres/article_5a52f6bf-34f6-509f-8ae0-9f0b0112c1c4.html#ixzz1bbxXgLW5)
-
Theo's full page ad in the Boston Globe
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/extras/extra_bases/2011/10/theo_epstein_th_1.html?camp=misc:on:twit:sox
-
Thank you for that link, Cactus. Theo be classy...
-
Last season, the Padres were rated eighth among baesball's 30 teams.
This new ranking is hardly surprising.
Over the past 10 months, the Padres had a great amateur draft that was lauded by industry analysts. They've added five good prospects — Anthony Rizzo, Casey Kelly, Reymond Fuentes, Robbie Erlin, Joe Wieland — through the trades of Adrian Gonzalez to the Boston Red Sox and Mike Adams to the Texas Rangers — two of the top farm systems in baseball. And some of their own prospects, Rymer Liriano and Keyvious Sampson, took big steps forward.
How quickly we forget.
From about 2002 thru 2004 it seemed the Cubs regularly ranked very highly in "top farm systems." And those up and coming starts might have made the Cubs into a powerhouse franchise in some parallel universe, but not in this one.
Perhaps they have truly collected wonderful talent for the Padres -- I hope have, and that they will continue to do that with the Cubs (which is the approach I have advocated for more than 5 years now), but a highly regarded farm system does not always lead to anything meaningful.
-
Selig says Cubs and Red Sox have until November 1 to work out compensation or else he step in and, presumably, decides compensation for the parties. That's one week between end of the Series and Bud's deadline.
That is scary for the Cubs. Who knows what Selig might do or how he defines "worth" or the like. What are the standards?
Maybe each side will submit an offer and Selig will pick one, like salary arbitration. I don't know. If I'm the Sox, I'm submitting Cashner or B. Jackson or something really good. What do they have to lose? Selig might pick the Sox term. Who's to say?
Seems to me that Sox are in the drivers seat in compensation negotiations and Cubs absolutely will have to work out a deal or face the possibility of getting a very bad result from Selig.
http://www.csnne.com/blog/redsox-talk/post/Selig-to-intervene-SoxCubs-negotiations-?blockID=581840&feedID=3352
-
How are the Red Sox in control ? Boston has been trying to slow down this process from the out-set with their unrealistic demands and now with Epstein in Chicago and precedent on the Cubs side, I believe the Sox will have to settle for a mid-level Grade B prospect or two and that sounds fair to me. Clearly looks like the Cubs have the upper-hand in these negotiations as we go forward.
-
Selig is a wild card, but if the BoSox asked for Cashner or B. Jackson, and the Cubs offered (for example) Lake and Smit, I'm pretty sure the Cubs' offer would win. If the Cubs submitted Koyie Hill and Luis Montanez, they'd deserve to lose Cashner or Jackson.
-
I may be imagining this, but I thought I read somewhere, Selig prefers cash settlements rather than player exchanges for administrative personnel.
-
Seems to me that one advantage of the agreement that the compensation would be settled after Theo was already allowed to move, is that Theo could now get involved in the compensation discussion. And if Theo is now a Cub, Theo could now potentially hire Hoyer and McLeod and get them involved in the compensation discussion.
I'd think having those guys involved could help. They are smart. They know the Boston guys they'd be dealing with. They presumably have a level of credibility with the Boston negotiators. I don't know who's been doing it from the Cub side. Maybe Crane Kennedy, probably Randy Bush. Randy Bush, who's contacting Fleita and Wilken, and perhaps Theo himself, at every break? Theo/Hoyer/McLeod might need to be contacting Fleita and Wilken continuously, too. But it just seems to make more sense to have guys that are accustomed to being GM's involved, and who will be accountable for their own decision, and a guy with a farm background, that makes more sense. Rather than having an inexperienced assistant GM like Bush with limited farm/scouting background do it, when he's not really going to stay in charge so if he ends up giving away somebody who ends up really good, that will be his solitary record of failure in the GM business.
-
So many articles, I can't remember which it's from or link.
But I very much liked two comments by Hoyer, IIRC.
1. He said that Theo is good because he listens to everybody. The caricature that he's all about looking at a computer doesn't really capture why he's good. He listens to scouts and everybody.
2. He also minimized the importance of Carmine, said we've all got it up here in our heads anyway. So the prospect that it's going to take months or years to recreate Carmine as the special formula for evaluation isn't really at issue, they know all the factors that go into assessment.
Again, they seem to understand that it's about case-by-case decisions and scouting and all that. The sabermetrics is a tool to facilitate good evaluation. I guess I got a good impression of both of them as being guys who consider as much as they can, but of having a good balance.
-
I think you are spot on, Craig...sabermetrics is but one tool..."balance" in the decision making is key.
Maximizing information flow, expert analysis, sharing of opinions - and following the intelligent process BEFORE making decisions - are very helpful to tipping the scale and gaining an edge.
We have an inherent disadvantage due to Cub historical futility (that even permeates Wrigley in playoff-type games), if not also playing so many day games.
We will need every possible advantage in order to overcome the difficulties, which is why we've desperately needed the most saavy baseball guys possible. I believe they are about to hit town.
-
I wonder how this is going to work between Epstein and Hoyer. The last time we had a President-GM arrangement with a "baseball" guy as President, Ed Lynch and Jim Hendry both had fairly free reign to shape the roster and minor league operations as they saw fit. Andy MacPhail seemed to restrain them both on spending a little bit. After all, it wasn't until MacPhail was fired that Hendry had the freedom to spend big on guys like Soriano, Lilly, and Marquis. Still outside of MacPhail modifying their strategy to a "spread it around" type philosophy, it seemed Lynch and Hendry both had the freedom to make whatever moves they saw fit within that framework.
I wonder if Jed Hoyer is going to have the kind of freedom Lynch and Hendry had under MacPhail. Or will Hoyer be acting more like an Assistant GM with a GM title while Epstein acts as the GM with a President title? Or maybe Hoyer plays the role Theo did in Boston while Theo takes on the Larry Luccino role where all decisions sounded like they were collaborative?
It seems hard to believe Hoyer would leave the Padres if he didn't get to keep a lot of the power he had as GM, so it does make me wonder how much of the responsibilities for shaping the team that Theo will be delegating to Hoyer.
-
I doubt the way things operated when Andy McPhail was President provides a good basis for predicting the way they are likely to operate with Theo Epstein.
-
I doubt the way things operated when Andy McPhail was President provides a good basis for predicting the way they are likely to operate with Theo Epstein.
Yeah this is likely to be a pretty different situation, but I think it's an open question how much Theo will be delegating to Hoyer. I guess we won't truly know until everyone is in place and we start seeing how Theo and Hoyer will operate together.
It seems hard to believe Theo will delegate as much to his GM as MacPhail did. Still, it also seems hard to believe Hoyer would come aboard if Theo wasn't delegating a significant amount of normal GM responsibilities to him.
-
My best guess, JR, is that ours will become a "collaborative" environment much as what Boston's has been described as...rich in information, analysis and opinion-sharing discussions before key decisions are made.
It seems likely that Hendry ran information and opinions by Hughes and others before decisions were made; however, it seems highly likely that the amount of information and depth of analysis will be far more substantial with the Epstein/Hoyer crew. They will likely observe a far more rigorous process for the sharing of information/analysis before major decisions.
Without question, Hoyer is familiar with such a process since it's hard to imagine Epstein/Hoyer would do things in a fundamentally different way this time around.
-
It seems likely that Hendry ran information and opinions by Hughes and others before decisions were made; however, it seems highly likely that the amount of information and depth of analysis will be far more substantial with the Epstein/Hoyer crew.
Actually it's not just the amount of information that's going to be a big difference but also the number of people who will be in the loop.
Especially after MacPhail left, Hendry acted very independently as GM. He didn't even have an Assistant GM until he had to go to the hospital due to stress, and that's when Randy Bush was promoted. I'm sure Hendry did talk to scouts and other personnel to get advice like most GM's do, but his circle for bouncing ideas off of seemed to be really small. I don't think he was bouncing ideas and searching for collaboration like it sounded like the Red Sox front office did with Epstein.
There has been a lot of talk lately about how the Cubs had one of the smallest front offices in baseball under Hendry and how that's going to be a big change under Epstein.
-
My guess is that Epstein will be involved in the process of discussing personnel strategy etc., and that Hoyer will make the final call based on those discussions. As long as Epstein doesn't micromanage, I would guess that Hoyer will consider his involvement a big plus.
-
Make no mistake. Epstein will be in charge as a hands-on president. Hoyer won't have the autonomy he had in San Diego, but he'll have lots more $$ to work with, and will be back with his Boston buds. Don't underestimate the value of that.
The potential of the Cubs job is orders of magnitude better than San Diego.
-
Make no mistake. Epstein will be in charge as a hands-on president. Hoyer won't have the autonomy he had in San Diego, but he'll have lots more $$ to work with, and will be back with his Boston buds. Don't underestimate the value of that.
The potential of the Cubs job is orders of magnitude better than San Diego.
Though we are all guessing, I suspect that Clark is guessing right here. It is always nice to work with people you like and respect, particularly when your history is one of generally having been on the same page. Hoyer also likely will get a bump in salary and feel more secure with Epstein above him, and believes Epstein will value his input because Hoyer will be more familiar with the teams in the NL.
-
In m opinion, MacPhail came to the Cubs as a stepingstone to eventually being Commissioner of MLB. That was his goal. His familty history was in baseball administration. So, MacPhail cronied up to Selig, sat on MLB bargaining committee among other things, and made sure that the Trib were not among the big player payroll spenders that woud draw the ire of Selig and the owners. MacPhail hired Lynch to deal with GM stuff and let Lynch do his damage. (I remember that MacPhail indicated he was basically out of the loop on the Karchner/Garland trade up until Lynch told him about it).
I don't think that will be Theo's modus operandi. Seems like he's putting a group of smart folks together to do baseball stuff and he will be the CEO of that group and he' s not going to out of the loop on anything.
Pinch me.
-
Trust me, Theo will make the final decision on all personnel matters. He listens, and his administrative style will be collaborative. But when it comes to trades, FA moves and such, every vote will be 1-0. And I'm sure Hoyer knows that going in.
The benefit of having guys like Hoyer and McLeod around is that Epstein will have time to focus on developing the "Way" he believes in so strongly across all levels of the organization, and on modernizing and improving the ballpark and finding ways to source more revenue from the neighborhood.
-
And, again, as someone mentioned up thread, Theo, Hoyer McLeod are good friends -- even think I read Theo and Jed are considered best friends. Seems like that is a desirable environment for those 3 to both do the high-level work they've done to establishe their careers and reputations, while also just plain having a lot of fun. What's not to like?
For the guys already there like Bush, Wilkin, Fleita and Ari Kaplan it does present some concerns about whether they weill be able to legitimately get into the mix. But, frankly, even though Ari's daughter goes to school with my son and he's a really nice guy, I just want the Theo Trio (tm pending) to do what they feel is best even if it means cleaning house.
-
In m opinion, MacPhail came to the Cubs as a stepingstone to eventually being Commissioner of MLB. That was his goal. His familty history was in baseball administration. So, MacPhail cronied up to Selig, sat on MLB bargaining committee among other things, and made sure that the Trib were not among the big player payroll spenders that woud draw the ire of Selig and the owners.
That's not all.
Laurel Prieb, the husband of Wendy Selig-Prieb, son-in-law of Major League Baseball commissioner Bud Selig, was until recently the Vice President of Corporate Affairs for the Milwaukee Brewers. Shortly after the 2005 sale of the Brewers to Los Angeles investor Mark Attanasio, Prieb became Vice President for Western Operations and Special Projects for Major League Baseball.[1][2] Prieb started his baseball career as the Traveling Secretary with the Minnesota Twins and remained in that position until working for the Brewers.
This isn't really anything to do with Andy MacPhail, but Bud Selig had a conflict of interest with the Twins as well as the Brewers.
-
The big Theo press conference at Wrigley will be Tuesday at 11:00 A.M central time.
CSN Chicago will carry it live as will CSNChicago.com.
-
Fairly interesting article about the changes Hoyer and McLeod introduced to the Padres.
Also an important point from this article is that the Cubs won't be able to hire any other Padres personnel besides Hoyer and McLeod.
http://www.nctimes.com/sports/baseball/professional/mlb/padres/article_4d8806eb-a9f8-5ffe-81af-fd4668b983ea.html
-
Trust me, Theo will make the final decision on all personnel matters. He listens, and his administrative style will be collaborative. But when it comes to trades, FA moves and such, every vote will be 1-0. And I'm sure Hoyer knows that going in...
That's interesting. I'd have very much wondered whether that would be the case. I certainly expect him to be the decider on "big picture" stuff. Pay the price for Yu Darvish? Pursue Pujols, Fielder, or neither? If neither, Pena, LaHair, or somebody more in between from outside? Prioritize a LIAB approach this year, including extending Aram and Dempster and resigning Pena? Or go radically rebuilt this year, such that Aram gets replaced by Lemahieu/Flaherty/Baker and if you can't find an outside buiding-block young 1B, you give LaHair a shot rather than overspending on Pena? Of Marshall, Cashner, and Samardz, should any or all be considered for rotation, and if so which? Keep castro at SS, or move him now? These are all very high-impact big-picture decisions, and I think Theo would certainly and necessarily be in the discussion for each of them.
But I'm not sure he's going to be making decisions on the "small-picture" decisions. Who are the last guys on the 40-man roster. Should we roster Kyler Burke this winter, and if so should we bump off Scott Maine or John Gaub, etc.. This summer they traded Fukudome for peanuts. Would Theo have been evaluating the marginal prospects that Cleveland was willing to give up?
Not sure he's going to want to be that in depth on all of the small-picture stuff. And if he was, such that Hoyer was really being reduced to 2nd-in-command without a pretty extensive baseball domain of his own control, I wonder whether he'd have really taken this job.
-
On MacP, he was never that much a true baseball guy. He didn't really come up through the scouting side. And his business model was very much non-invasive and very highly delagatory. Hire Lynch, don't get in his way, let him do his job. He's got his domain of authority. If he wants to consult, that's fine. Lynch hires Baylor, don't get in his way, let Baylor do what he wants to do, that's his domain of authority. I think MacP had plenty of administrative projects. He wanted to get invested in the international market, and they did. He greatly expanded the scouting staff. He wanted to get a Dominican academy and a Venezuelan academy going. I think he was involved in arbitration negotiations and the like. But I don't think he had any interest in going to look at Corey Patterson and Mark Mulder before the draft, or in providing his own scouting input into whether Todd Noel or Jon Garland were going to end up excellent pitchers; or whether Felix Heredia or Matt Karchner were being evaluated correctly by Lynch and his staff.
I recall two accounts relating to the Karchner/Heredia stuff. One was that MacP didn't really know about the trades or their details. But another was that Lynch did consult with MacP, and MacP who had been a long-standing advocate of building through the farm encouraged him that there are times when it's appropriate to go for it, so that in a contending season he shouldn't necessarily be afraid to make a prospect trade. (After acquiring Karchner and Heredia, Lynch was also very pointed about how both were young and were under years of club control.)
Theo is not MacP, for sure. But it wouldn't shock me if he's at a place in his life and career where he doesn't want to be hassling all of the details. Where he's fine to delegate most of that to Hoyer and his guys, to invest in "big picture" leadership decisions and "The way", but not to be flying out to watch candidates for our 1st pick, or poring over all the details with every prospect in the system, or every possible contender to be the 7th guy in the bullpen. We'll see.
-
Not sure if this has been posted or not
In the same article, two sources said Yu Darvish’s posting fee is not expected to approach the $51 million it cost to talk to Daisuke Matsuzaka, despite the fact that Darvish is the superior pitcher. Instead, the fee isn’t likely to clear $30 million (hey, that’s what I said). The Cubs are listed among some of the usual suspects (Yankees, Red Sox, Rangers, Nationals, Mariners) as a potential bidder.
-
Does Theo go to the Winter Meetings to talk trade or is that going to be Hoyer's domain? Who's the guy in charge in the hotel when Cubs are talking turkey with other clubs?
Seems like it would be Hoyer---he's the GM. But, I imagine that Theo will be in contact, at least through electronic means when necessary.
-
If we're going to pony up serious cash for a FA, I'd take a long look at Darvish, for sure.
-
(http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/photo/2011-10/130760680-24111543.jpg)
-
Nice.
-
Sure is nice to see a photo like that and know it's real and not some Photoshop fantasy.
-
We need to count the number of "obviously"s and "quality"s at tomorrow's press conference.
-
And what minor leaguers from the "inventory" will be chosen as compensation for Theo . . .
-
He doesn't look happy.
-
That's interesting. I'd have very much wondered whether that would be the case.
It would be interesting if it were anything more than one more poster's speculation. As it is, even though the speculation begins with, "Trust me..."
-
He doesn't look happy.
I think he just saw the trough at the Wrigley mens room.
-
I'm all for them posting up 30 million for Darvish....especially if the scouts say he's a 1/strong 2 type guy.
Garza, Darvish, Dempster, Wells, and the loser of a Sam or Marshall battle would be a decent rotation. Maybe Wilson can be had for a decent price after his playoff performance allowing both Sam and Marshall to return to the bullpen and with Cashner, Sam, Marshall, Russell, maybe Carpenter and a return to form Marmol, we have an above average pen.
Hey, a guy can dream, although not sure that would leave very much money for a bat, unfortunately.
-
So, not only are there pictures of Theo at Wrigley from earlier today, but the Tribune is giving him the full Lady Gaga Leaving The Club on TMZ by posting video of him, what, crossing the street? Ooooh:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/chi-epstein-arrives-at-wrigley-field-to-meet-staff-20111024,0,1355941.story
-
Well, we now know that he's capable of crossing the street without assistance. Otherwise, there are most certainly would have been posters on this board questioning that ability within six months.
-
This is the link that will let us watch Theo's press conference at 11:00 A.M. Tuesday morning.
http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?topic_id=6350584&partnerId=aw-6200547753842337800-1079 (http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?topic_id=6350584&partnerId=aw-6200547753842337800-1079)
If I remember, I'll post the link again in the morning.
-
I'm all for them posting up 30 million for Darvish....especially if the scouts say he's a 1/strong 2 type guy.
I would feel the same way... if the Cubs were in year three of a true rebuild.
But they are not. Whatever it takes to sign him, it would be wasted money by the Cubs.
As General Putnam famously ordered at the Battle of Bunker Hill when the revolutionaries are very little ammunition, "Don't shoot 'till you see the whites of their eyes."
That is good advice anytime you are short on ammunition.
Looking at the Cub roster and the W/L record in 2011, the Cubs are woefully short on ammunition, with money being the only thing in relatively abundant supply.... but even that is not limitless, particularly with debt burdens to address, and spending it now on players like Darvish will seriously reduce it's availability in later years, something which is not quite the same when money is spent on prospects.
At the moment I am hoping that Epstein, who grew up in a part of the country where the historic lessons of Bunker Hill would hopefully have been deeply ingrained in all schoolchildren, remembers Putnam's advice.
-
Stay away from Darvish.
Stay away from any contracts longer than two years. (I MIGHT be willing to make an exception for a six year contract for Pujols)
-
Stay away from Darvish.
Stay away from any contracts longer than two years. (I MIGHT be willing to make an exception for a six year contract for Pujols)
Just general principle, or you don't like Darvish as a prospect?
I have no idea whether he's any good, or if he'd cost a mint only to end up as limited as Fuku or Dice-K or Hideki Irabu.
But I do like good players, and good teams are built one good player at a time. If Darvish is good, I'd probably like to get him. He's also be 25, which is a different story for a buildican team than FA pitchers like CJ Wilson who will be 31. If you did sign Darvish and he worked out, you could have him for a while. Plus he wouldn't cost you any draft picks, unlike Class A guys over here.
I guess on team that doesn't have many really good young players or building blocks, if you think he's a really good player, I could see a lot of value in adding a good young building block.
-
Japanese pitchers have been colossal failures. Stay away.
-
I've never seen Darvish, but the estimated $30 buyout is a deal-breaker for me. Reportedly, Darvish has been rode hard and put up wet throughout his career (far too many pitches per outing by U.S. standards), which adds to his injury risk. He's good enough to demand big money ($15-$20 per season), and probably would want a four or five-year deal so he could get to arbitration and then free agency while still in his prime. Four years at $18 plus the buyout would cost the Cubs in excess of $25 per season.
I'd much rather give up a draft pick than $30 milion.
-
I've never seen Darvish, but the estimated $30 buyout is a deal-breaker for me. Reportedly, Darvish has been rode hard and put up wet throughout his career (far too many pitches per outing by U.S. standards), which adds to his injury risk. He's good enough to demand big money ($15-$20 per season), and probably would want a four or five-year deal so he could get to arbitration and then free agency while still in his prime. Four years at $18 plus the buyout would cost the Cubs in excess of $25 per season.
I'd much rather give up a draft pick than $30 milion.
Yes, there aren't a lot of pitchers worth $25 million per year. I don't know anything, so if as you and Jeff say he's likely to get injured and be a colossal failure, then of course that's a poor risk.
In terms of the "I'd rather give up a draft pick", I guess I'm wondering who it is you'd want to give up a draft pick for. Maybe Coleman and Lopez are just the guys to go with at this point. But if you don't want a 25-year-old pitcher because he might have some wear, I'm not sure that I'm real buzzed about megabucks on guys in their 30's, either. Who are the names I've seen the board throw around: CJ Wilson (he'll be 31), Buerhle (Curt's guy, he'll be 33), Oswalt, etc.. Not a lot of safe long-term guys around.
Seems like a lot of bad risks. May just be best to ride guys like Coleman for a few years and take your lumps.
-
I do like good players, and good teams are built one good player at a time. If Darvish is good, I'd probably like to get him. He's also be 25, which is a different story for a buildican team than FA pitchers like CJ Wilson who will be 31. If you did sign Darvish and he worked out, you could have him for a while.
Would the same rule for FA eligibility and arb eligibility apply for someone like Darvish signed from Japan? And if so is there any reason to believe he would sign for anything less than a premium on top of what you would generally consider reasonable for the performance you would expect, and then require a contract long enough to get him at least into the arbitration eligible years?
-
Players from Japan are a bit of a problem because the ones young enough to be good require insane posting fees PLUS big dollar free agent contracts and the free agents are usually in their mid-30s, where most guys have a predictable decline.
Add to that the hard to translate skill set and you really need to have all your ducks in a row if you plan on adding a player from Japan to your Major League roster.
The middle relievers seem to be the safest bets.
-
Seems like a lot of bad risks. May just be best to ride guys like Coleman for a few years and take your lumps.
Yes.
-
The middle relievers seem to be the safest bets.
Or extremely mediocre players. So Taguchi's stats in the U.S. were almost identical to what he put up in Japan. I don't know if anyone else can make that claim. As good as Ichiro and Hideki Matsui have been in the U.S., they lost a lot in the move to MLB.
-
"In terms of the "I'd rather give up a draft pick", I guess I'm wondering who it is you'd want to give up a draft pick for. Maybe Coleman and Lopez are just the guys to go with at this point. But if you don't want a 25-year-old pitcher because he might have some wear, I'm not sure that I'm real buzzed about megabucks on guys in their 30's, either. Who are the names I've seen the board throw around: CJ Wilson (he'll be 31), Buerhle (Curt's guy, he'll be 33), Oswalt, etc.. Not a lot of safe long-term guys around.
Seems like a lot of bad risks. May just be best to ride guys like Coleman for a few years and take your lumps."
After his postseason performance, I've lost interest in C.J. Wilson. I'd have some interest in Edwin Jackson or Roy Oswalt (for one year) if they were Class B free agents. There are no Class A players that I like well enough to give up the dollars, long-term contract and draft pick for, with the possible exception of Prince Fielder. But Jed and Theo will decide, not me.
-
After his postseason performance, I've lost interest in C.J. Wilson.
Really? 26 2/3 IP postseason innings this year are more important 24 1/3 good IP last year in the postseason, and 427 1/3 ace-level regular season innings over the last two years? His postseason is a small sample fluke. Overall, he's been one of the top 10 or so pitchers in baseball over the last two years. In fact, if you go by Fangraphs' WAR, he's the 9th most valuable pitcher in baseball the last two years, behind only Halladay, Lee, Verlander, Sabathia, Hernandez, Kershaw, Weaver, and Haren.
Despite all the attention he's getting as the best free agent pitcher on the market, Wilson is still underrated.
-
And since there are 8 guys who Fangraphs says have been better than Wilson, here are the first 8 who have provided less value than Wilson: Jimenez, Lester, Lincecum, Greinke, Cain, Price, Carpenter, Hamels.
-
I don't think Darvish will get $15-20M. With the posting fee I don't think that's realistic - but I also don't think $30M would win the bidding, either.
Darvish is younger than Daisuke was, and has better stuff. I'm guessing $40 for the posting fee and a 4-year, $48M contract. $22M per is a lot for a guy who's never pitched in the Majors, but someone will pay it.
-
After the Dice-K experience, it probably won't be Theo.
-
Both the Red Sox and Yankees perceive their pitching woes to be dire: let them fight it out.
-
Would the same rule for FA eligibility and arb eligibility apply for someone like Darvish signed from Japan? And if so is there any reason to believe he would sign for anything less than a premium on top of what you would generally consider reasonable for the performance you would expect, and then require a contract long enough to get him at least into the arbitration eligible years?
The same rules for FA eligibility and arb eligibility would apply, yes.
But I believe sometimes the Japanese FA's have some option written in where they'll become FA's after their signing deal expires prior to the normal 6-year FA, unless the club picks up some option or other, or reaches a mutual agreement. Such that after a shorter-term deal is done, the club can't control the player and force them through arbitration, but instead either needs to come to a player-acceptable agreement or else needs to let them become a free agent.
-
Both the Red Sox and Yankees perceive their pitching woes to be dire: let them fight it out.
Perhaps. They both have some pretty hefty payrolls, though. And they've each had their disappointments with Japanese FA's. And neither needs to be in a buildican mode. Either might perhaps end up having trouble fitting Darvish, and/or might prefer to spread their money around, or might prefer to spend on known American baseball pitchers. Given their win-now situations, they might opt for older safer cheaper win-now guys, rather than the less predictable and presumably more expensive Darvish. But given that Darvish is 6 or more years younger than the other guys, he might be a longer-term asset if he works out.
I know it's ridiculously unlikely. But it's not just about money, it's also about scouting. If a guy is going to be that expensive, you better love his stuff and his projection. Two scouts like a guy but don't love him, a third scout loves him. There is often no consensus between scouts, and no way to predict which teams scouts will love a guy when other teams don't.
-
I regret that i won't get to watch or listen to the press conference tomorrow...I believe it will be a landmark day for the Cubs.
As one who has long been highly critical of Cub ownership/leadership, HATS OFF to Tom Ricketts!
He's showing his passion and intention to do everything in his power to bring a WS to Cub fans everywhere by spending very considerable amounts of his own money.
By bringing in a smart, talented group led by Theo, Ricketts is also showing that he - and the Cubs - aren't screwing around any more.
While his plan may or may not work as hoped, cheers to Tom Ricketts for taking the best steps Cub owners have EVER taken! Go Cubs!
-
Kudos to TR for putting his money where his mouth was. I really hope he and Theo are on the same page, and decide not to go hog wild in the free agent market. Both seem to value prospect acquisition and development as I do, and Theo will develop and implement a solid organizational plan. If we can avoid big, long-term contract mistakes in the next year or two, we should become a perennial contender by 2014 (and perhaps sooner).
-
If we can avoid big, long-term contract mistakes in the next year or two, we should become a perennial contender by 2014 (and perhaps sooner).
About the same timetable I would hope for, and with the financial advantage, and a well run front office, particularly if they make a Schuerholz-style deliberate effort to handle FA eligible players in such a way as to maximize draft picks, the Cubs could become a dominant team for the next 20 years.
Of course if they give in the the win-now, the-Cubs-should-be-able-to-rebuild-and-compete-at-the-same-time-nonsense we normally see from Cub fans and from the Chicago media, then we won't see much of a real change at all.
-
Perhaps. They both have some pretty hefty payrolls, though. And they've each had their disappointments with Japanese FA's. And neither needs to be in a buildican mode.
Haven't the Yankees and Red Sox also had their disappointments with American FA?
-
I think 2014 is probably too early, but we'll see.
-
Well today's the big day!
-
But I do like good players, and good teams are built one good player at a time. If Darvish is good, I'd probably like to get him. He's also be 25, which is a different story for a buildican team than FA pitchers like CJ Wilson who will be 31. If you did sign Darvish and he worked out, you could have him for a while. Plus he wouldn't cost you any draft picks, unlike Class A guys over here.
I guess on team that doesn't have many really good young players or building blocks, if you think he's a really good player, I could see a lot of value in adding a good young building block.
one good player(preferably young) added at a time...you can't put it any better than that and that's my thoughts exactly, and was behind my Gordon preference this summer at a scarce position if at all possible. Yeah, I realize no chance of that.
Matsuzaka signed a 6 year 52 million contract. Add in the 51 million posting fee and it comes in at 100 million.
I think Darvish needs to be evaluated on his own merit. We've heard he has the best stuff of all the japanese imports, but is it true? If it is, I'd be all for 100 million over 6 years after adding in the supposedly cheaper posting fee. It just depends on what our scouts say, and what the reports of the red sox scouts say too, as I would imagine the sox have scouted him and theo is privy to that. I would doubt the padres have however, so not sure jed would be helpful in this scenario.
I understand building for the future, but if Darvish is a number 1/2 type guy, what's the difference in getting him now when he's 25 versus some fa pitcher in 3 years that's 28-31 when we're supposedly ready to compete.
Hopefully the yankees and red sox may be a little gun shy after past imports having failed.
-
Theo's press conference - 11:00 Central time
http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?topic_id=6350584&partnerId=aw-6200547753842337800-1079
-
Do we know if Hoyer and McLeod are also going to be introduced today too? Rotoworld said yesterday they would, but I don't think they had a source for it.
-
There have been numerous published reports that Hoyer & McLeod won't be introduced until after the World Series. Not sure when they will actually begin work for the Cubs though.
-
Theo has a farewell op-ed in the Boston Globe today.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2011/10/25/farewell_red_sox_nation/
-
BTW that farewell op-ed is a must read. Really classy, and it just makes me more excited that this guy will be leading the Cubs.
-
Thanks for the link, JR.
Theo is a very articulate fellow. Interesting read.
There was this nugget that says something about what he'll likely try to do with the Cubs:
Beyond the results on the field, I believe the Red Sox came to stand for certain things over the last decade. Pride in the uniform. Appreciation of our history. Controlling the strike zone. Grinding at-bats. Having each other’s backs. Rising to the moment. Never backing down. Connection to the fans. Hard work. Playing with passion and urgency. These concepts were taught in the minor leagues and reinforced at the big-league level by our homegrown players and by Tito, a selfless leader who always put the Red Sox first. These principles united the organization and came to define us.
Sounds good to me.
-
Great op-ed piece Theo...got CSN on right now...Holly has shaved his head,gots to mean a glorious transition for the Cubs...
-
here we go
-
Thanks for the link, JR.
Theo is a very articulate fellow. Interesting read.
There was this nugget that says something about what he'll likely try to do with the Cubs:
Beyond the results on the field, I believe the Red Sox came to stand for certain things over the last decade. Pride in the uniform. Appreciation of our history. Controlling the strike zone. Grinding at-bats. Having each other’s backs. Rising to the moment. Never backing down. Connection to the fans. Hard work. Playing with passion and urgency. These concepts were taught in the minor leagues and reinforced at the big-league level by our homegrown players and by Tito, a selfless leader who always put the Red Sox first. These principles united the organization and came to define us.
Sounds good to me.
When I read stuff like that, it makes me think more and more Ryno might be a serious candidate to be the new manager. Ryno was always about pride in the Cub uniform, and if Theo is looking to establish a "Cubs Way", Ryno might be a great guy to embody that.
-
"It feels great to be a Cub today."
- Theo Epstein
-
Theo thanked Jim Hendry for his 17 years and for staying on to sign the draft class. He said Hendry had his upmost respect as a GM.
-
Wow. Wow. Don't wake me up.
-
Theo will sit down with Quade within a week....
-
Glad to hear Theo come out and say they plan to creatively try to win while building a foundation for sustained success. Maybe that will end the ridiculous talk of a complete tear down, rebuild, and 2-3 throwaway seasons.
-
Can't wait for Ignored to hear that.
-
Theo said the last draft demonstrated a fundamental shift in philosophy for the Cubs, one he noticed as the draft took place.
-
compensation,nothing announced as yet....
-
Theo will take a walk out back with Quade and a shotgun within a week....
Fixed that for you, Steve.
-
LOL...ok Deeg...
-
Damn, this guy as a Cub just does not compute. Very surreal.
-
This guy is amazing. He recognizes that a baseball organization is just like any other business and the same management principles apply.
-
Theo has a decidedly new philosophy/direction for a "Cubs Way" as opposed to what has occured since...forever
-
Feels so very good to listen to this. Love that Theo is saying "we," so naturally already.
Also feels very good to feel in sync with my ol' bud Deeg, and possibly even Jeff again.
-
"Stay inconspicuous at Starbucks. Maybe not so much, in hindsight..."
-
I take that last comment as an admission from Theo that he really was at Starbucks that day.
I really like what I am hearing. I have faith in Theo.
-
Key is to pay for future performance, not past performance.
Oh, and it sounds like that was him in the Starbucks.
-
Now hire Ryno and win 4 or 5 World Series and my sports fan life will be complete
-
Did he do the water into wine trick yet?
-
"Office Space " reference for the past few weeks of waiting for this day...great
-
Now - don't hire Sandberg.
-
How long till Jeff starts bashing Theo?
-
Theo will be on CTL today....
-
Bruce Levine has an ESPN chat scheduled for 3:00 eastern time (2:00 for most of you) this afternoon. Don't know if he'll have any more information than what we just heard in the press conference, but just in case you want to follow it:
http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/chicago/chat/_/id/40892
-
Very impressive press conference
-
Now we really should start lowering expectations. Payroll will be less than we hope, things are very broken and will take a good while to fix, and Theo will make mistakes. He'll get bashed here, occasionally by me. But the difference is, I now feel like there's an adult in charge with some sort of vision for the long-term.
-
Epstein has a vision and a plan. He's not looking for band aids and short term fixes.
The (new) Cubs way. That has a nice ring to it.
-
I'm seeing the "Cubs Way" as a challenge to each member of the Cubs organization t,o take ownership of their daily performance whether it was good or bad,...
-
Didn't get to watch the conference, so thanks for the updates here.
I will, as I always have, approach anything to do with the Cubs organization with a guarded optimism.
Way too early to tell anything, but things really sound promising.
-
Now we really should start lowering expectations. Payroll will be less than we hope, things are very broken and will take a good while to fix, and Theo will make mistakes. He'll get bashed here, occasionally by me. But the difference is, I now feel like there's an adult in charge with some sort of vision for the long-term.
Agree. It's really true that there is no "savior" for the Cubs. Theo described very well what needs to be done and that it will take a while to establish and implement a new "Cubs way." Maybe he'll pull some rabbits out of a hat while that's happening, but maybe he won't.
I do have one short term expectation - that he's going to be very careful in selecting personnel, front office guys, manager, coaches, players, in terms of their compatibility with and potential contribution toward the vision that he has for the team and the organization. It won't just be the guy who has had the best year (or career) of the FA crop, or something like that. There'll be a far deeper assessment of how the player will contribute. He clearly really does believe in a team approach, from the top on down.
By the way, does anybody think there is any chance of Zambrano staying? Are there any other current players that are obvious misfits? It seems like Dempster may well fit his description of a veteran who does fit, even though his most productive years are behind him.
-
It's amazing to me that there hasn't been a "Cubs Way" in place for years. There needs to be consistency in the way players approach the game throughout the organization.
-
It's amazing to me that there hasn't been a "Cubs Way" in place for years. There needs to be consistency in the way players approach the game throughout the organization.
I agree. How'd this happen and when did it start? It's gone on far too long. Sounds like Theo is planning on changing that, but let's hope it's not so ingrained in the organization that it takes forever to shed.
-
This really is the first time I've been excited about being a Cubs fan for ... years, not sure how many. Maybe since 1984.
I used to run long distance, so perhaps it's in my nature to be comfortable focusing on the long term, and it's the long term that I find exciting with Theo. While I do want changes to be made to make the team more competitive for next year, it's the transition toward something much better that has me looking forward to the 2012 season.
-
Unless Theo's vision of the Cubs Way is much different than I think, I can'rt see Zambrano staying.
-
One thing I thought was interesting was how much respect he seemed to have for the people remaining in the Cubs organization. He didn't sound like someone who was going to be making a lot of wholesale changes with current front office personnel, at least at first. Someone a while back mentioned how ironic it was that Randy Bush was helping to determine the compensation for the guy who would probably eventually fire him. It doesn't sound to me like that's going to be the case at all. Theo was highly complimentary of Bush's performance as interim GM, and it sounds like he'll probably stay in the front office. He also mentioned how much respect he had for people already in the Cub organization and how he was looking forward to learning from them.
It's going to be interesting to see how Theo puts all of this together and assimilates his new front office staff with the Hendry leftovers, which for now it seems like he'll be retaining many of them. I have to admit I'll be fairly surprised if this turns out to be an easy, seamless transition. For starters, the Theo-Hoyer-McLeod braintrust will have to clearly establish what their roles are going to be. I imagine that's going to be different from the Red Sox when Theo was clearly the GM, Hoyer as clearly the assistant GM, and McLeod was clearly heading the amatuer scouting department. It's not likely Hoyer will have the same power as GM as Theo had as GM of the Red Sox, and that might take some time to clearly establish what their roles will be and how decisions will be made.
Then, guys like Fleita, Bush, Wilken, and other Hendry leftovers will have to buy into Theo's leadership and make adjustments too. Will Wilken and Fleita work well with McLeod, for example? Will all of those guys buy into the Cub Way?
Theo seems like a great leader, and I think he probably will get an effective front office operation established eventually. Still, it seems like there is a lot of potential for things to be messy at first. The new Red Sox guys will need to figure out how they are going to operate, and the old Cub leftovers may have trouble adjusting to the changes Theo wants to make.
-
I wonder what, if any role Greg Maddux will play in the new organization. It seems he was there primarily because of Hendry, and didn't really want to get his hands dirty with day to day affairs.
He would make a great pitching coach.
-
It's amazing to me that there hasn't been a "Cubs Way" in place for years.
There has, but it's been synonymous with "clown car."
Thanks for the conference updates. Very, very exciting. It's Morning in Wrigleyville!
-
I'm not surprised that Theo was so complimentary of the current Cubs staff. But I wouldn't read too much into that. While I expect that he will give current staff the opportunity to demonstrate that they are both motivated and capable of making the contributions he needs from them, it will be up to them to prove that is the case.
Randy Bush may or may not last over the long term, but it makes sense that Theo would want to utilize his knowledge of the organization (he's presumably got more of that specific knowledge than anyone else right now) at least during the tranistion. I expect whether Bush stays on as a long-term member of the leadership team is yet to be determined.
-
I wonder what, if any role Greg Maddux will play in the new organization. It seems he was there primarily because of Hendry, and didn't really want to get his hands dirty with day to day affairs.
He would make a great pitching coach.
There have been a couple of articles on the fact that Maddux doesn't want to think about baseball right now, because of his daughter's serious health condition. He said he would not think about that until spring at the earliest, I believe. It's real clear that he doesn't want to be away from home as much as a pitching coach would be however.
-
Don't you think, though that Theo's not going to immediately "rock the boat," and that he's more or less just saying what people want to hear at this point? It may not sound like he's going to make wholesale changes because of what he's said, but that doesn't necessarily mean he won't.
-
What's wrong with Maddux's daughter?
-
Theo on pursuing free agents: "The key is to pay for future performance, not past performance."
Exactly.
-
Re Maddux' daughter:
http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20111005/sports/710059583/
-
Asking to register for a subscription, P2.
-
Theo on pursuing free agents: "The key is to pay for future performance, not past performance."
He clearly doesn't understand the dynamics of baseball.
-
She's 17 years old and has had severe headaches off and on for 10 years. Recently it has gotten worse.
-
Asking to register for a subscription, P2.
Use the same method as viewing Bruce Miles' column and blog.
-
Got it, thanks.
-
Today was Theo's introduction to the media and fans with an emphasis on previewing,if you will,his core approach to rebuilding a moribund organization,giving thanks to those in place for their past service without placing them on notice,in public, as to their collective futures going forward. A moment of great change came to pass in a collegial atmosphere. A nice day for all concerned with the inevitable changes playing out over the next several weeks.
-
I think we all should propose principles to be included in the Cubs Manual and send them to Theo as a welcome gift. Can we all agree on this one?
1. All Cubs fielders will watch pitches as they approach and pass through the hitting zone.
-
Why such a hardass, ECF?
-
I think we all should propose principles to be included in the Cubs Manual and send them to Theo as a welcome gift. Can we all agree on this one?
1. All Cubs fielders will watch pitches as they approach and pass through the hitting zone.
I'd actually prefer that, now and then, some of those pitches entering the hitting zone got turned around before passing through all the way. Would that be OK?
-
Unless I was just hearing what I wanted to hear, Theo talked like building the entire organization was his top priority, with the rebuilding of the 2012 big league club an important but secondary goal.
I expect Theo will give all of the current front office employees a real chance to buy into his philosophy, find out what they know about current players and prospects, and then decide who to keep, promote, demote or replace. On the other hand, I expect Quade and most of his coaches will be replaced by the end of 2011.
-
i always thought "the Cubs way" was the college of coaches
-
Unless I was just hearing what I wanted to hear, Theo talked like building the entire organization was his top priority, with the rebuilding of the 2012 big league club an important but secondary goal.
I expect Theo will give all of the current front office employees a real chance to buy into his philosophy, find out what they know about current players and prospects, and then decide who to keep, promote, demote or replace. On the other hand, I expect Quade and most of his coaches will be replaced by the end of 2011.
Me too, to all of the above.
The priority is building an integrated system that serves the vision. But there is an obligation to do what you can reasonably do to put the most competitive team on the field in the meantime (so long as it doesn't interfere with the priority). And if you can get into the playoffs in the process, anything can happen.
-
But there is an obligation to do what you can reasonably do to put the most competitive team on the field in the meantime (so long as it doesn't interfere with the priority).
Cue Jes.
-
Now - don't hire Sandberg.
Deeg - I'm curious why you are as sure as you are that Sandberg is the wrong guy. Hiring him because he's a Cub icon would clearly be a lousy idea. But he's been very successful as a minor league manager, was pursued by the Red Sox for their AAA team, and got a rave review from Gillick. I'd be concerned about him being a bit too much of a traditionalist, but I had the same concerns about Girardi. It appears that Hendry was not a fan, but I'm sure that doesn't factor into your thinking.
-
Theo Epstein will be on Chicago Tribune Live on Comcast Chicago and also on Pardon The Interruption on ESPN tonight.
-
JeffH's post about Theo being "amazing" in that he recognizes the "same management Principles" apply to running a baseball franchise as any other business is insightful, even if tongue-in-cheek.
For decades, Cub owners simply didn't get that...perhaps they foolishly assumed baseball wasn't really a business, perhaps their lack of understanding related to why they had some difficulty running their own businesses. Probably, they just really didn't care all that much...Cubs were a nice toy.
While there are certainly other franchises that are very well run, at least we won't any longer suffer the significant competitive DISadvantage of being in the lower half from a leadership perspective...and that's just HUGE! The new guys will take advantage of Cubs being a big-market team and better leverage other potential competitive advantages.
This is the beginning of a very different and - over time what I believe will be - a MUCH better era for Cub fans.
It's a beautiful day! Let's play two!
-
My sense was that Hendry's approach was pretty much what had been the approach of most baseball GMs for a long time - namely that you get scouts and coaches that have good baseball knowledge and players with strong tools and/or skills and let the coaches provide leadership to help the players develop. And that there was no specific set of requirements for doing that in a consistent way. There may have been some franchises that had more of a specific philosophy are set of principles that applied throughout the system, but I imagine they were in a small minority. It was more about baseball eyes and intuition than about "objective" standards.
I think that began to change as to some things, such as pitching and hitting mechanics, decades ago, and you can see the difference in the stance and approach of most hitters now, compared to the "old days" when a lot of hitters had fairly idiosyncratic approaches. That happened, I think, because some people figured out that there was a science to hitting (and pitching) and that just about everybody was more likely to be successful if they applied what science had learned.
But the application of science is being taken to new levels by the new generation of baseball leaders. It's nice to have one of the best in charge of the Cubs' future now.
-
Everyone is so wowed that no one has chimed in with the obligatory "Has Theo been fired yet?"
Or the BEER version: "Has Theeo been fired yet?"
-
Ryno was always about pride in the Cub uniform, and if Theo is looking to establish a "Cubs Way", Ryno might be a great guy to embody that.
But did Ryno ever buy into the importance of OBP, "grinding out at bats," and sabermetrics?
-
For years, we've all been amazed - and frustrated - at how other teams (I've noticed this in particular with the Cardinals) bring players up from the minor leagues who are well-prepared and ready to contribute. Not "top" prospects, but apparent ham-n-eggers.
David Freese, John Jay, and Allen Craig are recent examples.
That can't be dumb luck. It has to be the result of some sort of structured, disciplined procurement and development strategy.
-
This link has a video of Epstein's opening remarks during his press conference.
http://www.csnchicago.com/baseball-chicago-cubs/news/Theo-Epstein-announced-as-Cubs-president?blockID=582742&feedID=619#
-
Glad to hear Theo come out and say they plan to creatively try to win while building a foundation for sustained success. Maybe that will end the ridiculous talk of a complete tear down, rebuild, and 2-3 throwaway seasons.
There never has been any ridiculous talk of it. What is ridiculous is thinking that trying to do both at once does not seriously compromise both the rebuilding, and the competing.
-
(http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2011/1025/chi_a_theoets_288v.jpg)
-
Bruce Levine chat that br was talking about.
http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/chicago/chat/_/id/40892/
One thing I think is interesting is Levine seems to think McLeod will be the guy when it comes to amateur scouting.
The Cubs spent $12.5 million in amateur players in the draft which was far and away the most they have ever spent. I think Epstein will want to do something similar next year in order to give McLeod and his new group a base of good young players to try and develop.
Wilken has one year left on his contract. He is highly thought of by Ricketts. However, Theo's scouting guy is McLeod. It's going to be interesting to watch that dynamic at work.
But getting his group back together like GM Jed Hoyer and scouting specialist Jason McLeod should help push the process in a quicker manner than if Epstein came in here by himself.
-
Jes, signing expensive free agents to long-term deals could easily compromise rebuilding. If Theo doesn't think LaHair is the answer at 1B, bringing Pena back for one more year would help the 2012 Cubs compete, but wouldn't do much damage to the rebuilding effort.
I'm not at all opposed to starting LaHair or bringing in a cheaper alternative through free agency or a trade.
-
On MLB Network, former baseball exec Dan Duquette referred to Epstein/Hoyer/McLeod as a "dream team" and lavished praise on them for how disciplined and analytical their approach is.
He also noted that they are inheriting one heckuva challenge given the current state of the organization.
-
I do have one short term expectation - that he's going to be very careful in selecting personnel, front office guys, manager, coaches, players, in terms of their compatibility with and potential contribution toward the vision that he has for the team and the organization. It won't just be the guy who has had the best year (or career) of the FA crop, or something like that. There'll be a far deeper assessment of how the player will contribute.
Really?
So how did Crawford fit?
And if there is really going to be a serious effort to compete while seriously rebuilding, there are simply not enough folks out ther
e who are going to be available to remake the team overnight to compete while also assuring that all of the new players fit into the longterm plan.
-
It's amazing to me that there hasn't been a "Cubs Way" in place for years. There needs to be consistency in the way players approach the game throughout the organization.
Very few teams ever have.
-
One thing I thought was interesting was how much respect he seemed to have for the people remaining in the Cubs organization. He didn't sound like someone who was going to be making a lot of wholesale changes with current front office personnel, at least at first.
Standard approach for new management... even when they intend to pinkslip everyone within a month.
-
Deeg - I'm curious why you are as sure as you are that Sandberg is the wrong guy. Hiring him because he's a Cub icon would clearly be a lousy idea. But he's been very successful as a minor league manager, was pursued by the Red Sox for their AAA team, and got a rave review from Gillick. I'd be concerned about him being a bit too much of a traditionalist, but I had the same concerns about Girardi. It appears that Hendry was not a fan, but I'm sure that doesn't factor into your thinking.
I have an abiding belief that Sandberg is the wrong guy, that's all. I think there's a reason star players very, very rarely make good managers. Sandberg is incredibly egotistical, has anger issues and in my view, will always try to make everything about him. That might work in the minor leagues when guys are making minor league money and there aren't many TV cameras. I think it's a recipe for disaster in the majors, all the more so in Chicago and with Theo trying to ingrain a new philosophy on the organization.
I would be thrilled with Francona as manager. If that means letting Quade work the last year of his deal, when we're not likely to be competitive anyway, I have no problem with that.
-
Listening to Theo, if he means what he says, and taking into account that there all always exceptions to a rule:
If you pay for future performance and not past performance and you don't pay for athletes past prime:
Aramis is gone.
Of Fielder and Pujols only Fielder would be pursued.
Pena is a toss-up, depending on price.
They will look for the next David Ortiz, an undervalued star.
I do disagree with the concept that there hasn't been a Cubs Way in the past. It just sucked in the past.
He will fire Quade face to face.
-
I think there's a reason star players very, very rarely make good managers.
Yes, there is. It is because very, very few of them try. Since 1950, the only true star players I can think of who went on to manage are Ted Williams (who actually did reasonably well, but had crap to work with), Joe Torre (who seemed to have an acceptable career), Pete Rose (who did reasonably well and almost certainly would have produced a championship if he had not ****d himself out of the game), Larry Doby (who only managed for half a season), Frank Robinson (who did not do well, but also had terrible teams) and Lou Boudreau (who won a WS as a manager). And I don't believe that ANY of those guys spent any time learning how to manage in the minors.
Sandberg is incredibly egotistical....
Really? Did you see or hear his HOF acceptance speech? Did you ever hear the guy say he thought he deserved the same treatment given the other former stars I listed above who went on to manage? He went to the minors. The low minors. I don't see the egotism.
has anger issues....
As the star player on the Cubs, he learns that a couple of rookies (or near rookies) are shagging his wife, and none of the three get shot.... and he has anger issues?
I am not sold on the idea that the Cubs should hire him to manage, but for me that is more about the pressure which would come with the job, both on him, on the players and on management and not thinking he has some "anger issues."
I hope he gets his chance to manage in the majors, and after he does, and does reasonably well for a couple of years, I would love to see him come to manage the Cubs. But not as his first job in the majors. I simply think that a franchise which has a poor history of dealing with pressure does not need that added to the mix.
-
Randy Bush may or may not last over the long term, but it makes sense that Theo would want to utilize his knowledge of the organization (he's presumably got more of that specific knowledge than anyone else right now) at least during the tranistion.
While there may be not "formal" consulting arrangement, I would not be surprised if Theo and company have a fair amount of contact with Hendry for his input and opinions regarding many of those in the organization.
-
Listening to Theo, if he means what he says, and taking into account that there all always exceptions to a rule:
If you pay for future performance and not past performance and you don't pay for athletes past prime:
Aramis is gone.
Of Fielder and Pujols only Fielder would be pursued.
Pena is a toss-up, depending on price.
They will look for the next David Ortiz, an undervalued star.
I do disagree with the concept that there hasn't been a Cubs Way in the past. It just sucked in the past.
He will fire Quade face to face.
That all makes sense.
-
...He will fire Quade face to face.
In the op-ed piece, he said he was planning to leave after next year. And that if anything the disastrous September was a reason to want to stay, to try to get things back in shape and rectify whatever. But the reason he had to go now was because:
1. Francona had to be replaced,
2. The GM needs a strong bond with the manager, and therefore
3. It wouldn't make sense for Theo to hire a manger now when Cherington was GM a year later.
I thought that spoke to how significant he thinks the manager is, and the ability of the GM and manager to connect. Theo is a nice and friendly guy, so perhaps he'll hit it off with Quade and make a comfortable connection right away. But given how important Theo seems to think the manager is (contrary to DaveP's view), it's probably unlikely that Quade will just happen to look like he's as good as it can get.
To some degree, I think Theo's selection of next manager could be one of the more interesting stories. Somebody who seems like Theo, young, smart, articulate, analytical, educated, professional? Or an older, experienced guy? Maybe somebody who seems very different. Will be interesting, I think.
I've mentioned I'm a Wisconsin boy who follows the Green Bay Packers. Their GM and coach, while fairly different in personality, really work together and talk all the time and both have tremendous respect for the opinions and evaluations of the other. I think it would be nice if we could get a manager who could sit in the same room with Theo and Hoyer and not sound like an idiot. Who might listen to some lineup advice or whatever and be able to talk on the same level, as an equal. And who might have some insights on strategy and player evaluation that they would respect. One of other Packers features is that all of the coaches are hired to be teachers, and they are mostly pretty good at that. I'd think getting manager and coaches, big league as well as minors, who can teach and persuade, would be a very good thing.
-
I think we all should propose principles to be included in the Cubs Manual and send them to Theo as a welcome gift. Can we all agree on this one?
1. All Cubs fielders will watch pitches as they approach and pass through the hitting zone.
How about a anytime a manager fails to immediately remove a player failing to do that, the manager gets a 3 game suspension without pay, a ten game vacation for a second offense, and is fired for cause with no severance check for a 3rd time.
While it is unacceptable for a player to space out, even if he is gifted and only 21, for a manager to tolerate it is even worse. I don't care that Quade "talked to him" after the game. He did nothing at the time.
-
I will be fine if they do not hire Sandberg to be manager. Managers often are hired to be fired, and when it happens it can be traumatic. When Yogi Berra was fired from the Yankees, it created a divide between him and the team that lasted nearly 25 years.
On the other hand, when you name a new manager, if you are so incredibly insensitive that you alienate one of your icons, that's lousy too. Tradition is important to establishing the Cub Way. As a matter of fact, what Ryno has established in his minor league experience where he obviously held his enormous ego in check to ride buses and work in pathetic facilities, is exactly what Theo was describing today and is exactly the traits he listed as Tito Francona's assets with the Red Sox in his final salute to the Red Sox fans. It was spooky; you could almost drop Ryno's name in. What Ryno has done in his minor league stints is emphasize exactly what Theo was talking about; wonder if that's why Theo pursued him last winter to manage in the Red Sox system.
So there's the problem and I have every expectation that Theo will solve it: if you don't hire the man, do it in such a way that he continues to feel that he is a respected part of Cub Way past and present.
-
I have an abiding belief that Sandberg is the wrong guy, that's all. I think there's a reason star players very, very rarely make good managers. Sandberg is incredibly egotistical, has anger issues and in my view, will always try to make everything about him. That might work in the minor leagues when guys are making minor league money and there aren't many TV cameras. I think it's a recipe for disaster in the majors, all the more so in Chicago and with Theo trying to ingrain a new philosophy on the organization.
Thanks for the explanation. Interesting observations. It's true that stars rarely make good managers, but stars rarely try. And I'm not sure any has ever proven himself in the minors first. I wasn't aware that Sandberg has anger issues and making everything about him. Because I respect your opinion, I'd be genuinely interested in why you've concluded those things. I'm not disagreeing, because I don't have enough personal knowledge, but both assessments surprise me a bit. If you are right, then I totally agree that he'd be a bad choice.
-
Jes, signing expensive free agents to long-term deals could easily compromise rebuilding. If Theo doesn't think LaHair is the answer at 1B, bringing Pena back for one more year would help the 2012 Cubs compete, but wouldn't do much damage to the rebuilding effort.
Actually, it could do a fair amount of harm to the rebuilding effort. If LaHair can put together a season in 2012 in which he hits .280 with 25 HR and a good OBP, he will be a very attractive short term option for some team trying to be seriously competitive on the cheap and needing a decent firstbaseman. He would be attractive enough to bring a couple of nice prospects who might well contribute for several years, not not right away. And if Pena returns we will never find that out.
Trying to seriously compete will either get in the way of seriously trying to rebuild, or vice versa. At least one will always compromise the other, and generally they will each compromise the other.
-
They will look for the next David Ortiz, an undervalued star.
Now there is a concept no one else has thought of....
-
Thanks for the explanation. Interesting observations. It's true that stars rarely make good managers, but stars rarely try. And I'm not sure any has ever proven himself in the minors first. I wasn't aware that Sandberg has anger issues and making everything about him. Because I respect your opinion, I'd be genuinely interested in why you've concluded those things. I'm not disagreeing, because I don't have enough personal knowledge, but both assessments surprise me a bit. If you are right, then I totally agree that he'd be a bad choice.
Well, for starters he ran two guys out of town as a player because he suspected they were too friendly with his wife. He also set ejection records as a minor-league manager. He may be making all the right noises now, but based on his history and my own opinions based on interviews he's given over the years, I think he's a drama queen and a me-first guy. Big egos often help guys become star players, but they usually prove their downfall as managers.
I don't think being a franchise icon is a good reason to consider someone as a field manager - in fact, I consider it a detriment. I generally believe that field managers are important but considerably less so than GMs, and often their impact can be more negative than positive. You can call it a kind of Hippocratic oath for managers - and I could see a bad marriage with Sandberg doing a lot of harm to the team on the field and to Theo's standing off the field.
-
Good post Curt.
-
Thanks for the explanation, Deeg.
-
I'd actually prefer that, now and then, some of those pitches entering the hitting zone got turned around before passing through all the way. Would that be OK?
Given the Cubs starting rotation, I think that there is little need for concern about that. My rule was for Cubs' fielders (not hitters), Ron. :)
By the way, it totally rules to be me in my house right now. Everyone but me is a Red Sox fan. Last summer, we got a second dog. His name? Theo! (There was very little enthusiasm for my suggestion -- Crane Kenney).
-
Saw Theo on CTL and he pretty much reiterated what he said at his presser. He will have conversation with Zambrano at some point...probably like the conversation he'll have with Quade...right Deeg?
-
Interesting post-press conference comments from Theo regarding free agents, via Gordon Wittenmyer and Toni Gianetti.
On his first day addressing the media as Cubs president of baseball operations, Epstein wouldn’t talk specifically about the two biggest-name, big-ticket impact hitters on the market.
``But I’ll say this,’’ he said. ``The free agent that requires a long-term, substantial commitment -- there’s a time and a place for that type of investment. And I think it’s important to understand when that right time is.’’
Like, maybe not when the starting rotation is thinner than it’s been in recent memory.
Epstein stressed the importance of getting the complete package in any multi-year, megabucks free agent deal, including ``in an ideal world you’d love for him to be an up-the-middle player.’’
He also stressed the value of buying as many of the player’s prime years as possible, which would seem to preclude at least Pujols – 32 next season – from the discussion.
``There will be a time and a place for that. I’m not going to say whether it’s now or down the road,’’ Epstein said. ``But even if we don’t sign a particular free agent, we’re going to be active in free agency, because it’s an opportunity. It’s supply-and-demand dynamic. Understanding the supply-and-demand dynamics means discovering small opportunities to make the organization better. It might mean signing a released player to a one-year, $1.25-million deal, and that works well if his name happens to be David Ortiz [nine years ago]. It’s probably not going to happen again.
``But there’s a time and a place for the big impact players, and also a time and a place – always – for the smaller, more nuanced move.’’
http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/cubs/8417353-573/cubs-might-be-players-in-free-agent-market.html (http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/cubs/8417353-573/cubs-might-be-players-in-free-agent-market.html)
-
Saw Theo on CTL and he pretty much reiterated what he said at his presser. He will have conversation with Zambrano at some point...probably like the conversation he'll have with Quade...right Deeg?
Would that it was as simple with Z as it will be with Mike "The Yearling" Quade.
-
``But I’ll say this,’’ he said. ``The free agent that requires a long-term, substantial commitment -- there’s a time and a place for that type of investment. And I think it’s important to understand when that right time is.’’
Encouraging. That and rest of his comments indicates he is not likely to make any effort at a big splash this off season but is instead looking to rebuild.
-
Would that it was as simple with Z as it will be with Mike "The Yearling" Quade.
That's his new nickname. For the next week or so.
-
Great conversation from today with Theo on Dave Kaplan's CSN show, where he discusses various things, including what he wants to see in hitters' approaches at the plate, the balance between short term and long term, use of free agency in building a team, day baseball, unlocking the riddle of Wrigley Field. He also, responds very briefly to questions about Ramirez, Zambrano.
On Brian LaHair: "I have a soft spot for guys who hit wherever they play" and he scoffs at the "myth" of the AAAA hitter. He is clearly very interested in LaHair. He was asked whether he'll have the flexibility to cut the cord with a player with a large contract if it makes sense to do so (Zambrano and Soriano were mentioned in the question). He said he absolutely would, that good baseball organizations recognize the need to cut their losses. His reference to Office Space, the Starbucks siting and more.
Neat stuff. Click on the full interview.
http://www.csnchicago.com/cubs# (http://www.csnchicago.com/cubs#)
-
Wonderful reading and listening today.
Theo said his front-office team will be "obsessed with building" the minors system and player development, and that will be the "first thing" they will address each day. They will work on "re-defining the organizational philosophy" and there will be a "Cub way" everyone will understand and be accountable for. Good thing those dudes are ready to roll up their sleeves!
The odds started tilting a bit upward today (tho' they couldn't have gone down much).
Truly amazing.
-
Another good interview on Pardon the Interruption:
* asked his view "from afar" re Cub teams in recent years: "...talented players who were overly aggressive at the plate and didn't grind out at bats. Defensively, they lacked sound, fundamental play."
* emphasized that Cubs will build the "best scouting and best player development system in the game."
Another bullseye.
* confidently stated, "When we do win and we will win..."
Very well done, Tom Ricketts!
-
I am extremely pleased with the selection of Epstein to repair all the problems that the Cubs have had over the past years. it is obvious from what he has been saying that he is going to move the team in the right direction, and there is little doubt in my mind that he will bring us the success that we so much deserve. His background and experience, combined with his stated philosophies, just about ensure that our hopes and dreams will finally be realized. I haven't felt this way since we brought in McPhail.
I was extremely pleased with the selection of McPhail to repair all the problems that the Cubs had had over the past years. it was obvious from what he had been saying that he was going to move the team in the right direction, and there was little doubt in my mind that he would bring us the success that we so much deserved. His background and experience, combined with his stated philosophies, just about ensured that our hopes and dreams would finally be realized. I hadn't felt that way since we brought in Dallas Green.
I was extremely pleased with the selection of Dallas Green to repair all the problems that the Cubs had had over the past years. it was obvious from what he had been saying that he was going to move the team in the right direction, and there was little doubt in my mind that he would bring us the success that we so much deserved. His background and experience, combined with his stated philosophies, just about ensured that our hopes and dreams would finally be realized. I hadn't felt that way since we brought in John Holland.
I was extremely pleased with the selection of John Holland to repair all the problems that the Cubs had had over the past years. it was obvious from what he had been saying that he was going to move the team in the right direction, and there was little doubt in my mind that he would bring us the success that we so much deserved. His background and experience, combined with his stated philosophies, just about ensured that our hopes and dreams would finally be realized. I hadn't felt that way since we brought in Pants Rowland.
-
davep, you appear to be an incurable optimist.
-
davep, you appear to be an incurable optimist.
-
davep, you appear to be an incurable optimist.
-
Except that in those examples that Dave gave, we all hope one is not like the others. Many have come in with good ideas and intentions only to find themselves hampered by stingy or meddlesome ownership. The hope is higher this time because I think that's different. More time will tell.
-
Well, incurable, anyway. ;)
-
I notice that Dave omitted Hendry.
-
From today's Trib article, especially for Jes:
""Rebuilding," however, is not a word in Epstein's vernacular.
"That's just a buzzword in baseball that leads people down the wrong path," he said."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/ct-spt-1026-epstein-cubs-chicago--20111026,0,87160.story
-
Another interesting tidbit in Rogers' article:
"Epstein first had thought Ricketts might be a good guy to work for in June, when he saw how the previously conservative Cubs suddenly were drafting players such as Javier Baez, Dan Vogelbach, Dillon Maples, Trevor Gretzky, Taiwan Easterling and Shawon Dunston Jr.
These were expensive, high-risk players in whom only a club with deep pockets and serious aspirations would invest. Toss in a high share of big-ticket signings in Latin America, and Ricketts invested about $20 million in amateur talent last summer.
"As the Cubs' draft went on, we were sitting around in our draft room, and we could tell what they were doing,'' Epstein said. "We said, 'Hey, they get it, they're finally getting it.' … That got my attention, the attention of a lot of other people in the game. … I would say it was a significant moment.''"
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/columnists/ct-spt-1026-rogers-cubs-chicago--20111026,0,7561787.column
-
* emphasized that Cubs will build the "best scouting and best player development system in the game."
* confidently stated, "When we do win and we will win..."
I hate to have to remind folks that Hendry also said the same kind of things when he took over.
-
It's accurate to say that Hendry did not accomplish his goal in the scouting/player development area.
-
Jes, you don't really mean to say that stating a goal is not the same as achieving it, do you?
-
I'm sure this was a "What the hell have I gotten into?" moment for Epstein.
(http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/photo/2011-10/65654451.jpg)
-
I remember a game where a gal in the bleachers asked Ronnie if he got a new uniform. When he replied he had she asked him where his old one was. He replied that it was spread across her bedroom floor. Nice guy.
-
""Rebuilding," however, is not a word in Epstein's vernacular.
Remarkable claptrap.
Like saying "failure" is not a word in someone's vernacular.
As I have said, there is always a window of opportunity for anyone. For some the window may be the size of a thimble which a team has to throw a marble through from 100 yards.... while standing backwards. It's there, but threading that needle is virtually impossible. For other teams the window is 10'x10' and the team is five feet away with a baseball to throw thru it.
The question is how to expand the window as large as possible, while getting as close as possible to the window, and to keep the window open as long as possible.
A complete rebuild creates a very large window which will be open for a very long time.
The approach of trying to remain competitive every year reduces the size of the window and shortens the length of time it will be open.... and it sort of presumes that the team was "competitive" to begin with.
This team s*cks. Improving it will require rebuilding it, whether the word is in his "vernacular" or not.
I don't care if the Cubs decide to take on a $500M salary budget each year for the next ten years and Epstein acquires everyone he can with it.... that will STILL be rebuilding, even if rebuilding thru free agency.
-
Jes, you don't really mean to say that stating a goal is not the same as achieving it, do you?
And there was nothing in the post to suggest that I did.
-
Jes, you don't really mean to say that stating a goal is not the same as achieving it, do you?
And there was nothing in the post to suggest that I did.
-
"As the Cubs' draft went on, we were sitting around in our draft room, and we could tell what they were doing,'' Epstein said. "We said, 'Hey, they get it, they're finally getting it.' … That got my attention, the attention of a lot of other people in the game. … I would say it was a significant moment.''"
So they got "it" under Hendry.... which would seem to support my theory that the weak drafts of several prior years were related more to budget constraints imposed by ownership than on anything else. Ricketts lifted those constraints, and suddenly Hendry "got it." Some how that does not seem coincidental.
-
. . . the weak drafts of several prior years were related more to budget constraints imposed by ownership than on anything else. Ricketts lifted those constraints, and suddenly Hendry "got it."
Here might be another reason why we've had some issues in the draft. According to the last Ask BA, the Cubs have had the fewest number of picks in the Top 5 rounds of the draft over the past six seasons. Theo's Red Sox tied for having the fourth highest number of Top 5 round draft picks over the last six seasons.
It'll be interesting to see if our philosophy on offering arbitration to free agents changes as well under Theo.
In the last six drafts, there have been a total of 1,049 selections in the first five rounds, an average of 35 per team. Because of free-agent compensation, the total choices for the clubs run the gamut from the Blue Jays (46), Padres (46), Rays (43), Diamondbacks (42) and Red Sox (42) at the top to the Cubs (28), Orioles (28), Athletics (30), Royals (30) and Yankees (30) at the bottom.
-
I listened to the press conference, and the discussion with Kaplan etc.. I was very impressed.
Epstein spoke well, he came across as very intelligent, and he seemed very balanced. To use the word that he used repeatedly, "nuanced". Didn't seem too simplistic, or excessively patronizingly dumbed down either. Seemed to be able to acknowledge both sides of issues. (I don't believe in AAAA stereotypes, if a guy has always hit in minors but doesn't in majors, it may be a function of short opportunity. But, the opportunity might be limited because he's weak defensively. zambrano, sometimes good team can get good work from guys where it's harder to do that; but sometimes it's time to let a guy go. Winning now and building for later can sometimes have some conflict of interests. etc..)
I was impressed with his graciousness and humility. He was very self-confident, but at the same time he seemed more matter of fact about Carmine, for example. We're in a computer age, everything has come a long way since ten years ago, and what they did wasn't that amazing, it was just going with the technology flow, just like every professional does, whether dentist or hospital or college professor or whatever. Lots of us began doing things in our work in the 2000-2005 window that we didn't in the 1990-1995 window, and a lot of us do things now that we didn't ten years ago.
I was pleased that building, procurement, and farm seemed foremost on his agenda. There was confident talk, but there wasn't much talk about building a champion and soon. When there was talk about building and scouting, he almost always seemed to go first toward draft/international scouting and building, rather than big-league trading and free agency. So it seems pretty obvious that he isn't rushing for a quick fix and looking to pinch the draft in order to fix the big-league team. There were also references to developing minor leaguers. And while Fleita has been very firm about certain aspects of professionalism, I'm not sure the actual baseball instruction and development has been optimal.
In a sense, what impressed me best was the lack of any "red flag" comments. Always when a new sheriff comes in, you expect a lot of good comments. But I often listen to see if there are a few things said that seem out of balance; or articulated poorly; or an answer that doesn't actually address a question asked; or an answer that seems to ramble on, etc.. Or just some content that seems potentially problematic. But I didn't hear anything like that.
Just a very impressive first impression.
I was also pleased in that he seemed very oriented to the baseball, and to hard work. Being smart is nice, but there are lots of smart baseball guys, it's a competitive game. He seemed to recognize that everybody needs to work really hard, and not just rely on being smarter than the rest. But I'd wondered whether he was going to go somewhat MacPhail: I've done my GM bit, I've won, I'm ready for a new and different challenge, I'm going to broaden and be more "president" and administrator. But he sounded like he's still very interested in being highly involved in the baseball minutia.
Stating a goal and achieving it are radically different things, of course. But I am hopeful and encouraged by the goal, and by the procurement/developmental strategy that seems central to both Theo and the owner. I'm very hopeful that we'll be on the way up.
-
Jes, you don't really mean to say that stating a goal is not the same as achieving it, do you?
"And there was nothing in the post to suggest that I did."
Priceless.
-
Here might be another reason why we've had some issues in the draft. According to the last Ask BA, the Cubs have had the fewest number of picks in the Top 5 rounds of the draft over the past six seasons. Theo's Red Sox tied for having the fourth highest number of Top 5 round draft picks over the last six seasons.
It'll be interesting to see if our philosophy on offering arbitration to free agents changes as well under Theo.
Interesting, JR. I agree it's a factor. You can overpay a Dunston late, but I think for the same $1.275, you can get a significantly better prospect in the sandwich round than what costs the same dollars in the 11th.
Still, I'm not sure how much it's "philosophy", although some is.
*To get comp picks, you've got to have guys who are good enough for other teams to want. The Cubs have at times, but not often.
*Second, you may need to have an ownership that buys in, and that might be willing to absorb the consequences if you do offer, and the guys ends up accepting and causing some budget pressure. Under a fixed budget, that might be harder.
*Third and perhaps most important, if you have guys who are good enough for other teams to want, but you're willing to let them go, that kind of necessitates that you have a way to replace them. Hendry let Matt Clement go, and got a free pick from Theo, but that was in part because Hendry had signed Maddux, he already had a deep staff, and he thought the farm was deep in pitching prospects. But when ARam and Derek Lee were ready to hit the market, the system had Brandon Sing, Michael Restovich, Scott Moore, and Freddy Bynum as the replacements.
So to some degree the failure of the farm system is a vicious cycle in that it makes it harder to expose good players to free agency.
-
Jes, you don't really mean to say that stating a goal is not the same as achieving it, do you?
"And there was nothing in the post to suggest that I did."
Priceless.
Hilarious...
-
Jes, you don't really mean to say that stating a goal is not the same as achieving it, do you?
"And there was nothing in the post to suggest that I did."
Priceless.
Hilarious...
-
Wow, Dave can quote himself before he says something. Either real Power or Time Travel. :)
-
Except that in those examples that Dave gave, we all hope one is not like the others. Many have come in with good ideas and intentions only to find themselves hampered by stingy or meddlesome ownership. The hope is higher this time because I think that's different. More time will tell.
In my opinion, the only reason to be optimistic is because of Ricketts. Just about any competent GM (and I believe Hendry was one) can build a good team if the owner issues the proper directives and sticks to them. There is nothing new in what Epstein said, that hasn't been said by Holland, Green, McPhail, etc. The difference has to be an owner that keeps them on the right track.
-
In my opinion, the only reason to be optimistic is because of Ricketts. Just about any competent GM (and I believe Hendry was one) can build a good team if the owner issues the proper directives and sticks to them. There is nothing new in what Epstein said, that hasn't been said by Holland, Green, McPhail, etc. The difference has to be an owner that keeps them on the right track.
So, you don't see any significant difference in the way in which Epstein & Co will plan, make and implement decisions (aside from resources) from prior Cub GMs? And those guys emphasized in word and deed things like going deep into pitch counts, using advanced statistical measurements (along with scouting) to evaluate performance, etc. Seriously?
-
Also, it's one thing to say the right things, it's another to be able to execute the plan. The latter requires vision on the part of management, tactical skills, and resources. There is potentially a confluence of these qualities in our system the likes of which we Cub fans have not seen in our lifetime.
-
There is potentially a confluence of these qualities in our system the likes of which we Cub fans have not seen in our lifetime.
Well said.
-
Here might be another reason why we've had some issues in the draft. According to the last Ask BA, the Cubs have had the fewest number of picks in the Top 5 rounds of the draft over the past six seasons. Theo's Red Sox tied for having the fourth highest number of Top 5 round draft picks over the last six seasons.
I pointed this out several months ago. And looking back further you will see that the Braves were leading the way by a large margin during the Schuerholz years. The cause and effect links in this are pretty clear.
-
I was pleased that building, procurement, and farm seemed foremost on his agenda. There was confident talk, but there wasn't much talk about building a champion and soon. When there was talk about building and scouting, he almost always seemed to go first toward draft/international scouting and building, rather than big-league trading and free agency. So it seems pretty obvious that he isn't rushing for a quick fix and looking to pinch the draft in order to fix the big-league team. There were also references to developing minor leaguers. And while Fleita has been very firm about certain aspects of professionalism, I'm not sure the actual baseball instruction and development has been optimal.
In a sense, what impressed me best was the lack of any "red flag" comments. Always when a new sheriff comes in, you expect a lot of good comments. But I often listen to see if there are a few things said that seem out of balance; or articulated poorly; or an answer that doesn't actually address a question asked; or an answer that seems to ramble on, etc.. Or just some content that seems potentially problematic. But I didn't hear anything like that....
Stating a goal and achieving it are radically different things, of course. But I am hopeful and encouraged by the goal, and by the procurement/developmental strategy that seems central to both Theo and the owner. I'm very hopeful that we'll be on the way up.
While I agree with every word above here, and am also quite encouraged, I believe that by changing names, you could also apply every word of it to our reaction and sentiment to Hendry's take over of the team.
Epstein is taking over a vastly different organization in very different shape from what he did in Boston.
-
Regarding the subject of offering arbitration and acquiring draft picks----this is a hot subject in the current bargaining agreement talks and there may be a final agreement very soon. Have no idea what will happen in the end, but there's a chance the system will change and the subject of having to arb may be moot. We'll see how it plays out.
-
So, you don't see any significant difference in the way in which Epstein & Co will plan, make and implement decisions (aside from resources) from prior Cub GMs? And those guys emphasized in word and deed things like going deep into pitch counts, using advanced statistical measurements (along with scouting) to evaluate performance, etc. Seriously?
My point was that I don't see any significance between what Epstein SAYS he will do, and what McPhail, Hendry, Green, Holland, et al SAID they would do when they took over. If Epstein DOES what he SAYS, great. But I have heard it before, and will believe it when I SEE it, not when I HEAR it.
-
Of course, Epstein HAS done it somewhere before.
Some naive folks might suggest that makes a difference.
-
Also, it's one thing to say the right things, it's another to be able to execute the plan. The latter requires vision on the part of management, tactical skills, and resources. There is potentially a confluence of these qualities in our system the likes of which we Cub fans have not seen in our lifetime.
yes. AGree with Dave, that Ricketts is a different factor here. Hendry had a ton or procurement money for a while (Prior-Brownlie period...), but Ricketts seems committed to sustaining that. And Theo and his guys likewise seem smarter than Hendry and his picks (Stockstill, Fleita), so there is a good chance to better implement.
With Dave, I thought that MacP sounded really good when he came in, and he added a bunch of resources which helped for sure. I was optimistic. When Hendry came in, I was very optimistic, the fruits of the MacP plan/Hendry procurement era seemed ready to bear fruit, and when Hendry struck gold on Aram and Lee, I was pretty optimistic.
So Dave's point that being hopeful and optimistic guarantees nothing, absolutely true.
But this time the confluence really might be better, Ricketts might be better, Theo's boys might be a lot smarter and better, there is good reason to hope again.
-
Can we all agree that, if it doesn't work under Theo, it's time to blow up the franchise and find other interests?
-
Can we all agree that, if it doesn't work under Theo, it's time to blow up the franchise and find other interests?
Actually it's well past time to do both already, but I guess since we have Theo, we may as well give him a shot, right?
-
Hiring Theo was a mistake....should've hired Jes.
-
Actually it's well past time to do both already, but I guess since we have Theo, we may as well give him a shot, right?
I haven't seen anyone suggesting we should not give him a shot. I think everyone is hopeful and encouraged. Some of us, however, think it is wise to temper exuberance with reality, and to see how the comments people are pointing to now to justify that exuberance might compare with prior comments from similar incoming GMs at similar times in their tenure.
-
http://twitter.com/#!/CarrieMuskat
#Cubs and #Padres reach agreement so Jed Hoyer will be new GM and be joined by Jason McLeod. Theo works fast
Hoyer will be new #Cubs GM, McLeod head of scouting and player development. Wilken & Fleita will report to McLeod
-
So this is a demotion for Wilken?
-
http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/news/press_releases/press_release.jsp?ymd=20111026&content_id=25802172&vkey=pr_chc&fext=.jsp&c_id=chc
-
Joint statement from the Chicago Cubs and San Diego Padres
CHICAGO -- The Chicago Cubs and San Diego Padres jointly announce today that Jed Hoyer and Jason McLeod will leave the Padres, effective immediately, to accept positions with the Cubs. The Cubs have agreed to send the Padres a player to be named later as compensation.
Both the Cubs and the Padres intend to hold press conferences after the World Series. The Cubs intend to announce Hoyer as Executive Vice President/General Manager and McLeod as Senior Vice President/Scouting and Player Development, while the Padres intend to announce Josh Byrnes as Hoyer's successor.
Out of respect for the World Series, both clubs have agreed to forego further comment until holding their respective news conferences after the World Series is complete.
http://www.mlb.com/news/press_releases/press_release.jsp?ymd=20111026&content_id=25802172&vkey=pr_chc&fext=.jsp&c_id=chc (http://www.mlb.com/news/press_releases/press_release.jsp?ymd=20111026&content_id=25802172&vkey=pr_chc&fext=.jsp&c_id=chc)
-
So this is a demotion for Wilken?
No Wilken was never a VP to begin with. Actually Fleita was already ahead of Wilken in the organizational hierarchy.
-
I think it's 100% legit to be not only optimistic and hopeful, but also flat-out confident that things are going to get better. It's probable; to be expected, not just hoped.
Only once before and briefly has ownership and GM shared a commitment to procurement, during the 2000-2002 window (Montanez/Hill; Prior/Sisco/Ryu; Brownlie/Hagerty/Blasko/Dopirak). It didn't sustain for whatever reason. And through some confluence of bad luck/bad injuries/bad scouting/bad development, that brief commitment ended up bearing little lasting fruit.
But this past year Ricketts kicked in a ton towards procurement. Theo has a long-standing commitment of spending heavily on procurement. It's not just talk or wishing or hope to EXPECT that Ricketts/Theo will sustain a philosophical/financial commitment to aggressive procurement.
Thus it is not just hope or optimism that the system will bear fruit. It should be naturally EXPECTED.
And having some smart guys in charge should help.
-
Owing the Padres a PTBNL and the Red Sox a prospect (or two or three) should simplify protecting all of the prospects who are left in the organization from the Rule 5 draft.
If Theo clears all of the deadwood off the 25-man roster, they should be able to protect everybody who has even a 1% chance of ever playing in the big leagues, with plenty of space left over for some free agents and Rule 5 picks.
-
Of course, Epstein HAS done it somewhere before.
Some naive folks might suggest that makes a difference.
Probably the same naive people that thought that McPhail's prior success would make a difference.
-
I think it's 100% legit to be not only optimistic and hopeful, but also flat-out confident that things are going to get better. It's probable; to be expected, not just hoped.
Only once before and briefly has ownership and GM shared a commitment to procurement, during the 2000-2002 window (Montanez/Hill; Prior/Sisco/Ryu; Brownlie/Hagerty/Blasko/Dopirak). It didn't sustain for whatever reason. And through some confluence of bad luck/bad injuries/bad scouting/bad development, that brief commitment ended up bearing little lasting fruit.
But this past year Ricketts kicked in a ton towards procurement. Theo has a long-standing commitment of spending heavily on procurement. It's not just talk or wishing or hope to EXPECT that Ricketts/Theo will sustain a philosophical/financial commitment to aggressive procurement.
Thus it is not just hope or optimism that the system will bear fruit. It should be naturally EXPECTED.
And having some smart guys in charge should help.
I agree with this post.
-
Thus it is not just hope or optimism that the system will bear fruit. It should be naturally EXPECTED.
Plus Jason McLeod was hired specifically to oversee amateur scouting and development. Whether Fleita and Wilken buy into McLeod's leadership remains to be seen, but the good thing is Theo obviously isn't settling for the status quo with how the farm has operated the last few years either.
-
Theo was very complimentary about the prospects Wilken drafted this summer. I'm sure McLeod will be involved in the 2012 and future drafts, and may or may not want to retain Wilken and his current scouts. Theo's already talked about upgrading the minor league coaches, and that's where I think McLeod needs to be more heavily involved.
I think Fleita can be a valuable asset in the international scouting area and the development of the DR complex, but I have been long dissatisfied with the quality of our minor league coaches and managers.
-
I agree with Craig' post, too. This front office is VERY different from those of MacPhail or Dallas Green or any others.
It won't get done overnight, but major organizational improvements are coming...and they will be for the better!
-
I expect the Cubs to be better next season and then either win the NL Central or a wild card in 2013 and be a fixture in October after that.
They play in the National League Central, not the American League East.
The Cubs, I believe, now have a significant front office advantage over the other four teams that play in their division (the Astros are being shuttled to the AL and won't be a factor before then).
I hope that the Cubs finally become the dominant team they should have been all along.
-
Owing the Padres a PTBNL and the Red Sox a prospect (or two or three) should simplify protecting all of the prospects who are left in the organization from the Rule 5 draft. If Theo clears all of the deadwood off the 25-man roster, they should be able to protect everybody who has even a 1% chance of ever playing in the big leagues, with plenty of space left over for some free agents and Rule 5 picks.
Saw a blurb on mlbtraderumors site from a beat writer that the PTNL to the Padres will come after the Rule 5 draft in December. We'll see.
-
Theo was very complimentary about the prospects Wilken drafted this summer. I'm sure McLeod will be involved in the 2012 and future drafts, and may or may not want to retain Wilken and his current scouts. Theo's already talked about upgrading the minor league coaches, and that's where I think McLeod needs to be more heavily involved.
I think Fleita can be a valuable asset in the international scouting area and the development of the DR complex, but I have been long dissatisfied with the quality of our minor league coaches and managers.
I wonder how Wilken will fit with McLeod. Seems to me that Wilken didn't work with Depodesta or whomever at Toronto, and he didn't stay/last very long in Tampa either. (Was Friedman already GM then?) It may be that he's an independent cuss and just doesn't want some younger numbers guy bugging him.
On the other hand, I wonder if he might not greatly benefit from working with somebody else who's strong and smart and whom he respects. I have no doubt but that Wilken is a pretty insightful evaluator. But I wonder if even as good as he may be, whether he might not greatly benefit from bouncing or exchanging ideas with another smart evaluator. "Yes, Tim, I see all those things you like in Colvin. But he really has trouble with breaking balls and making contact, and he's really a hacker. How far do you think he can improve in those areas?" "Yes, Tim, I understand that Simpson looked really good, but in the games I saw him and scout X saw him, he was only 90-94 and straight at that. HOw confident are we that he'll be able to reproduce what you saw consistently?" It might be that having another guy would help to get the most out of Wilken's good insights and perhaps protect against some of the crazier overboard decisions?
I think really good scouting staffs have a volume of really good scouts who can argue and dissect and question each others evals in a productive way.
-
Having a bigger budget and more (and probably better) scouts will help, too. I don't know how many scouts the Cubs have now or how that compares to other teams, but Theo has talked about expanding the scouting staff.
-
I wonder how Wilken will fit with McLeod. Seems to me that Wilken didn't work with Depodesta or whomever at Toronto, and he didn't stay/last very long in Tampa either. (Was Friedman already GM then?) It may be that he's an independent cuss and just doesn't want some younger numbers guy bugging him.
I agree with your whole post, Craig. I think it will be a matter of recognizing Wilkens excellent scouting skills, but having someone in place with an ounce of sense to challenge some of his judgements here and there and vetoing the hairbrained super-reaches.
-
On other boards there is serious speculation on whether Fleita or Wilkens will stay. They are pointing out that both used to report directly to Hendry. Now they will report to McLeod who reports to Hoyer who reports to Theo. On paper that's a serious demotion for both men in terms of having the head man's ear.
-
On other boards there is serious speculation on whether Fleita or Wilkens will stay. They are pointing out that both used to report directly to Hendry. Now they will report to McLeod who reports to Hoyer who reports to Theo. On paper that's a serious demotion for both men in terms of having the head man's ear.
For some reason I suspect that Wilken is more likely to have a problem with the new structure than Fleita. Wilken has been around a long time, running scouting operations for three teams. Not sure how he'll take to having a 37 year old with his own strong philosophy about player evaluation as a supervisor.
-
For some reason I suspect that Wilken is more likely to have a problem with the new structure than Fleita. Wilken has been around a long time, running scouting operations for three teams. Not sure how he'll take to having a 37 year old with his own strong philosophy about player evaluation as a supervisor.
So do Wilken and Fleita swallow their pride and take this as an opportunity to (finally) be instrumental pieces in a top-notch organization that will potentially win some World Series, or do they stomp their feet and go running off to another team where they retain their titles?
-
Theo's session on PTI
http://espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/story/_/id/7153902/chicago-cubs-hire-san-diego-padres-jed-hoyer-jason-mcleod?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter (http://espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/story/_/id/7153902/chicago-cubs-hire-san-diego-padres-jed-hoyer-jason-mcleod?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter)
It may take a couple seconds to load.
-
For some reason I suspect that Wilken is more likely to have a problem with the new structure than Fleita. Wilken has been around a long time, running scouting operations for three teams. Not sure how he'll take to having a 37 year old with his own strong philosophy about player evaluation as a supervisor.
You may be right.
Wilken has a big reputation, so I suspect he could switch to another organization as scouting director. So if he feels like his authority is pinched or his decision-making disrespected, he could easily make a lateral jump. On the other hand, I'm not sure McLeod is really looking to take over as draft boss. (What he'll do is completely undefined at present.) I think there is a good chance that Wilken would retain his current position and general responsibilities/authority. And it might be a dream to have Ricketts and management support the ability to draft and sign good but costly players. May also be that McLeod would relieve some administrative burdens from Ricketts and give him more space to do what he does and loves best, which is the scouting rather than the record-keeping.
Fleita seems like a personality that might be more accepting of new structure. And perhaps he'd have a harder time than Wilken making a lateral move to a different organization as farm boss. But whereas Wilken is likely to keep his current position with the Cubs, I think it's much more likely that Fleita will get demoted (farm boss to Latin scouting coordinator...). He may be interested in a move elsewhere rather than stick with a demotion.
-
While I'm extremely pleased with our new front office, i don't think it's realistic to expect that we will be "fixtures in October," even in a few years.
We play in a tough, competitive division. Cards and Brewers fought it out to win the right to play in the Fall Classic.
We should assume that the Cardinals will continue to be, well, the Cardinals. Brewers are very well run and always seem to have an amazing pipeline of talent. Reds are loaded with young talent and may get significantly better and stay good for awhile. Pirates are certainly on the way up. IF Houston gets Friedman (heaven forbid), look out for them, too.
We are well behind the top teams in our division right now. Hopefully, we will continue to have a significant payroll advantage. Even with one of the very top front offices in baseball doing things far better than ANY Cub front office ever (by a WIDE margin), we're gonna need that payroll advantage.
It's gonna take awhile. We likely won't be playing October baseball every year, yet down the road I expect Cubs to FAR more competitive on a regular basis than in the past and my best guess is that the new leadership will get it done at some point in the next 10 years.
-
So do Wilken and Fleita swallow their pride and take this as an opportunity to (finally) be instrumental pieces in a top-notch organization that will potentially win some World Series, or do they stomp their feet and go running off to another team where they retain their titles?
I would bet that both are excited to remain. Neither has ever seemed to be particularly ego-driven, and this should pretty clearly improve their chances of being with an organization much more likely to win a WS, and much more likely to make better use of their talents. Unless some personality conflict emerges, I would expect both of them to not only remain, but flourish, with narrower responsibilities. While on an organizational chart it may seems as if the added people reduce access to the top level or increase bureaucratic layers in the front office, that really is not the impression you get in looking at the reports of the relationship of Theo, Hoyer, McLeod and those they have worked with so far.
-
As i recall, Fleita was signed for four years, so he's going to be around for a while, in some capacity.
-
One of the articles says Fleita has an opt out clause after next season. If he doesn't like the way things are going for him, he can opt out and go somewhere else.
-
Don't kid yourself that Wilken and McLeod will be separate but equal. McLeod is Epstein and Hoyer's guy, and he'll outrank Wilken whether the titles say so or not. I suspect Wilken will chafe at that notion and walk, but he might survive another season.
As for Fleita, I don't see his turf as directly usurped here, and with a four-year deal and a questionable reputation in baseball circles, I think he'll be smart enough to stay and cash the checks.
-
Because folks have a contract does not mean they are prevented from mutually agreeing to amend or terminate the contract. That remains my hope with Soriano, and something I think there would be a realistic prospect of happening if the Cubs merely use him as his performance would suggest is appropriate -- 5th OF and pinch-hitter. And if on top of that the Cubs had him sitting behind a prospect who was not setting the world on fire, it might well amplify the shame and get him to retire.
Playing him regularly really is not the best thing for the team, not on any level. So simply play him as his performance warrants and hope he hangs up the spikes in shame. Even if he does NOT retire, his salary is a sunk cost and should not increase his playing time or influence the decision on playing time. He's earned more than $100M so far playing baseball. He likely is not hurting for money.
-
We play in a tough, competitive division.
Since when? Prince Fielder and possibly Albert Pujols will be leaving the division. One of those two may land in Chicago.
We should assume that the Cardinals will continue to be, well, the Cardinals. Brewers are very well run and always seem to have an amazing pipeline of talent. Reds are loaded with young talent and may get significantly better and stay good for awhile. Pirates are certainly on the way up. IF Houston gets Friedman (heaven forbid), look out for them, too.
Never assume anything. Without Pujols the Cardinals would lose a Hall of Fame hitter and replace him with whom exactly?
The Brewers farm system is depleted after trading for both Zack Greinke and Shaun Marcum. They went for it this year and won't be as strong in the next few years.
The Reds are managed by a buffoon and have players that are wildly inconsistent. Drew Stubbs is very similar to Corey Patterson and Jay Bruce is much like Alfonso Soriano in his prime (without the stolen bases but much better defense). Stubbs has good tools but struggles to make contact and Bruce can carry a team for ten days at a time but then goes into a funk for a month and looks totally lost. They also don't have anyone to play third. The Reds are a .500 team at best.
The Pirates have a couple of good players but are still years away from any real threat. Their second half was abysmal and probably more in line with what can be expected from them in the future.
The Astros are leaving and Andrew Friedman was only considering Houston if his father was buying the team, which is no longer a possibility. Their farm system is dry, their Major League team is awful. They are no threat. Did I mention that they're leaving?
We are well behind the top teams in our division right now. Hopefully, we will continue to have a significant payroll advantage. Even with one of the very top front offices in baseball doing things far better than ANY Cub front office ever (by a WIDE margin), we're gonna need that payroll advantage.
It's gonna take awhile. We likely won't be playing October baseball every year, yet down the road I expect Cubs to FAR more competitive on a regular basis than in the past and my best guess is that the new leadership will get it done at some point in the next 10 years.
It won't take as long as a lot of people think it will.
Major League Baseball will be adding one and maybe as many as two wild card teams per league to the playoffs next season. That increases the odds of making the postseason and once you get in, anything can happen.
I agree that the Cubs will have a payroll advantage and in the next few years, they will have more money available to exploit that advantage.
This is going to happen, folks and it's going to happen soon.
Don't let the talking heads fool you into thinking that the Cubs have a bunch of bloated contracts and that they're a decade away. The cupboard is far from bare. The Cubs have assets and they now have a front office capable of using those assets in order to improve the team.
They also have an owner that's going to allow that front office to make the necessary moves to make those improvements.
I know that we, as fans, have been beaten down by the previous regime. I understand that the playoff sweeps took a lot out of us. No one hates losing more than me, believe me.
There's finally light at the end of the tunnel and it's not an oncoming train this time.
-
I don't see why Soriano should feel any shame. He was given a huge contract as a FA after an outstanding season and his skills eroded and/or were never at a level to justify the contract. I would have no problem telling Soriano that he is going to be used as a spot starter and pinch hitter. If he wants out of his contract, it won't be because of shame, it will be because he would rather play everyday for less money.
-
Muzzle flash?
-
Strikezone, I really like your optimism about the Cubs and the rest of the division and I'll certainly hope your scenario plays out.
However, I don't see Albert leaving the Cards and I think it's at least as appropriate to assume they will be good down the road as it is to assume we will be.
What's nice is that now, given the new front office, there is reason to assume the Cubs ARE going to get good and be competitive on a regular basis, particularly with the big-market money Cubs should have to invest.
We also now have reason to believe the organization has the expertise, orientation and tools to build a player development machine, proactively (rather than relying mostly on FAs, reactively), which we virtually all agree is about the only way to sustain success.
-
As to Wilken, as I understand it, he decides who gets drafted, period. He gets input of course, but he picks. I suppose that theoretically Hendry could have overruled a pick but I doubt that ever happened.
If the new guy is going to tell Wilken who to pick, then Wilken isn't going to stay. Pretty sure about that.
Wilken might leave anyway--it's just natural when a new "team" comes on board to run things and there's a "generational" component to the new team also. Wilken might not be comfortable. Will be interesting to see how things work out but my guess is that Wilken's future tenure is going to be short.
-
Wilken might leave anyway--it's just natural when a new "team" comes on board to run things and there's a "generational" component to the new team also. Wilken might not be comfortable. Will be interesting to see how things work out but my guess is that Wilken's future tenure is going to be short.
Certainly he might. And generational issues, a failure to connect with the new guys, or a loss of authority all could be reasons that would bring that about.
But Theo and company supposedly are great to work with, the Cubs now will have the resources to allow Wilken's talent to make a huge difference, the organization is going to give greater emphasis to the area Wilken heads up, he just this year got to have the kind of draft he has likely always dreamed of, and now has a realistic prospect of being a central part of a transformation of the Cubs into a dominant team for several years.
I would bet he stays.
-
I don't see why Soriano should feel any shame. He was given a huge contract as a FA after an outstanding season and his skills eroded and/or were never at a level to justify the contract. I would have no problem telling Soriano that he is going to be used as a spot starter and pinch hitter. If he wants out of his contract, it won't be because of shame, it will be because he would rather play everyday for less money.
Soriano has always seemed to be a player with some degree of pride, and if he is getting paid $18M a year for perhaps 5 AB a week, and not even doing well in those, I can imagine him feeling some degree of shame about it. I don't believe there is any way the MLBPA would allow him and the Cubs to simply end his contract so he could find a team where he could play every day for the $500K a year his skills and performance are now worth, but he could retire. And, after earning more than $103M playing the game, I can see him possibly doing that, though probably not simply on being TOLD he was going to be used strictly as a 5th OFer and PHer.
I suspect that he would need to see it, and feel the splinters in his backside for a couple of months before he would pack it in. It could easily take that long before he would give up hope on getting another chance or getting hot and showing that he can still perform, something many players still think they can do long after their day has passed.
-
Don't let the talking heads fool you into thinking that the Cubs have a bunch of bloated contracts and that they're a decade away. The cupboard is far from bare. The Cubs have assets and they now have a front office capable of using those assets in order to improve the team.
They also have an owner that's going to allow that front office to make the necessary moves to make those improvements.
We also now have a front office which understands you do not buy entire teams in one big dip into the FA market (as the Cubs did after the 2006 season) without serious problems from those contracts later on.
As to the Cubs cupboard not being bare.... what cupboard are you looking at? The prospect cupboard? Trade any prospect with any potential for vets ready to put this pennant contending team over the top?
Ricketts' and Theo have both emphasized their commitment to building the team from within, with prospects and player development, and THEN making serious FA moves to fill in remaining needs when the team is close.
Forgive me for taking them at their word, but doing so causes me to dismiss some of your projections of the Cubs' chances in 2012.
-
I think one big (and sensible) part of the realignment is placing domestic scouting and overseas scouting under the same umbrella. Previously, Wilken was responsible for domestic scouting (draft) while the international scouting and signing was split between several people, including Fleita, who was in charge of player development, as well, at least unofficially, Latin American scouting. It makes sense to have all scouts ultimately report to someone below the level of GM.
-
Tim Wilken is no longer in charge of the draft.
If he leaves, he leaves.
-
Tim Wilken is no longer in charge of the draft.
Has that been established?
-
Has that been established?
Considering that someone else has been brought into the organization and has been given his title, I think it's a pretty safe bet.
-
Maybe Theo or Hoyer will address the question of the draft and who's in charge. I'm guessing they would say Wilken.
Wilken is still Director of Scouting and I think it's pretty much a given around MLB that the scouting director runs the draft.
McLeod is Senior VP of Scouting and Player Development---1/2 is overseeing Wilken's domain and 1/2 is over Fleita's domain.
My guess is that nominally (at least) Wilken is still in charge of the entire draft, but McLeod, as Wilken's boss, will be breathing heavily on his neck regarding at least the top picks to an extent greater than Hendry did previously. If Wilken feels that this oversight is greater than what the scouting director of a MLB team should have to endure, he will almost certaintly leave sooner rather than later.
He might leave anyway if he's not comfortable about how he fits into the new Cubs culture.
-
Also, it's conceivable (and maybe likely) that McLeod will be focusing more, in the short term, on overseeing Fleita and the Player Development end than overseeing Wilken and the scouting end. As Craig noted, it's possible that Fleita effectively is assigned more to the Latin America component than overseeing the whole farm system. Seems like the latter needs more work than does Wilken's operation. So, maybe McLeod simply won't have the time or focus--if he's dealing with the player development end mostly--to cramp Wilken and the draft.
-
As Reb says, the new title includes both scouting and development. And he has a person in charge of each section reporting to him. I think it is a leap to say that Wilken will no longer be in charge of the draft.
-
I think the titles may not mean a great deal. Folks will either work closely together with the Theo and his new boys, or they will go. If they work well with them, I suspect the titles will be close to meaningless. The description of the way things operated in the past when they were all with the Red Sox did not seem to be overly hierarchical and did seem to been very collegial with collective decision-making. And if they do not work well with Theo and his new boys, they will not last.
-
Everything you would ever want to know and a lot, lot more about Jed Hoyer
http://espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/story/_/id/7156063/jed-hoyer-path-chicago-cubs-general-manager-swift-unconventional (http://espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/story/_/id/7156063/jed-hoyer-path-chicago-cubs-general-manager-swift-unconventional)
-
Thanks for the link, Cactus.
-
My guess is that McLeod will have plenty to do. It's not just Wilken (draft) and Fleita (farm) to oversee. it's also Fleita (international). It has always struck me as curious that Hendry had Fleita doing both of those seemingly distinct domains. Is farm boss such a low-activity job that there's time for international boss as well?
I'd expect a system to eventually emerge in which there are three guys for those three domains, under one overseer.
I imagine McLeod will start with a lot of procedural stuff. Is the process by which scouts evaluate and report efficient? Are there aspects that the Cubs scouting rubric is ignoring, or overemphasizing? Is the filing, review, and cross-checking system efficient? Is there an adequate degree of cross-checking? HOw about the process for prospect evaluation and development and progress assessment? Etc.. I assume he'll be assessing both the instructional priorities and the instructional capabilities of the coaches.
I can only guess how it will go with Wilken. With reb, I question whether Wilken will stay for a long time. He might. But I could imagine that he might not really be on the same page as McLeod or Theo. Not so much because he isn't a saber guy, but perhaps because he just doesn't value some of the same things they might to the same degree. Plate discipline, pitch recognition, native intelligence, and self-motivation might be valued differently by McLeod than by Wilken, which might perhaps lead to a recurring difference of player valution. If McLeod ends up thinking that Wilken has a recurring tendency to overvalue certain qualities and undervalue others, he might see Wilken as underperforming. But perhaps not, and perhaps Wilken will come to greatly appreciate an improved developmental system that brings the best out of the prospects he drafts and at the same time does a better job of polishing their flaws and reducing their weaknesses. A lot of the guys he drafts, he knows they're going to need to dramatically mature and adjust their games. A good develomental team could be just what he needs.
-
Is farm boss such a low-activity job that there's time for international boss as well?
In the Cubs organization, yes.
-
JeffH, that's "in the Cub organization" as it USED to exist! It's a new day, folks.
Thanks for the great article, Cactus...the Cub's new President isn't going to bring incompetents over...Hoyer is really good, too.
Amazing!
-
Strike, we probably should assume the Cards ARE going to be around for awhile.
Great game tonight...tho' I felt bad for Texas...one strike away on TWO occasions.
-
If Texas were the home team, they probably would have won last night. Last at bats was going to win.
I hate the Cardinals; I want them to lose, but, man, I dream of the day when we have a Cub team that can come back from the brink like the Rangers and Cardinals have in games in this series. I think of 2003 and the Diamondback playoffs...it's a missing element yet. Hope the new philosophies change that.
-
I'm already feeling sorry for Theo. I don't expect wholesale changes for next year, but some of the posters elsewhere are posting rosters that just make me wonder where the money and trade personnel are going to come from. He's going to disappoint a lot of people:
Sample:
1B: Fielder
2B: Castro
3B: Wright
SS: Hanley Ramirez
LF: Sizemore
CF: B Jackson
RF: Swisher
P: Dempster, Garza, Buehrle, Oswalt, Sabathia
Closer: Marshall
Some are suggesting Freese, especially after last night. And they will trade him to us, why?
To get the non FA, they trade Zambrano, Soriano, and Marmol. Yeah, Hanley for Z. That works.
-
I've noticed that at some boards too Curt...in one sentence, a poster will talk about how Zambrano is a huge drag on the team, hurts more than he helps, and how he has to be gone. In the next sentence, they suggest Zambrano and Colvin or LeMaheiu for Hanley Ramirez or Shields or whoever with no money changing hands. It makes no sense...if the Cubs should want Zambrano gone at all costs, why do they think another team should give up value for him?
I'd be interested to hear what people here think the offseason is going to look like. A few things I think we'll see, based on Theo's comments and history:
- There will be very little action involving the Cubs at the top of the free agent market. They'll have semi-serious interest in CJ Wilson and will probably make him an offer, but I don't think they'll end up making the highest bid. If they show any interest in other top free agents, the purpose will really be to make the Cardinals or Brewers pay more.
- The biggest holes will be filled through opportunistic trades that involve either taking on a fairly big contract to avoid giving up top prospects or buying low on someone with some upside. I'm thinking taking on Nolasco's or Wandy Rodriguez's contract to fill one of the rotation holes, and buying low on Andre Ethier (expensive, a year from free agency, coming off his worst/injury-filled year) to fill one of the spots in the lineup.
- The third baseman will be somewhat under the radar, and will probably be the most expensive trade. He won't replace Ramirez's offense, but will be pretty close in total value because he gives better defense. I mentioned Headley as a possibility the other day, and I still think Prado could be interesting.
- A RH hitter with some power will be targeted for LF or 1B to make up some of the offense lost from Ramirez (Willingham? Cuddyer?).
Marmol will be shopped aggressively, and probably will be traded (possibly as part of one of the buy low/overpaid contract trades mentioned above).
- Zambrano is gone, and Soriano probably is too. Both are sunk costs at this point, and I think Theo/Hoyer will realize that.
In the end, I think the roster will look something like:
1B: Cuddyer
2B: Barney
3B: Headley
SS: Castro
LF: Byrd
CF: Jackson
RF: Ethier
C: Soto
P: Garza, Dempster, Nolasco, Wells, Harang
C: Marshall; Bullpen: Wood, Samardzija, Cashner, Russell, Lopez (or similar swing guy)
Looking at it a little more, it would be nice to squeeze one more good LH hitter in on that team somewhere...maybe Kelly Johnson's market will be soft enough for the Cubs to get involved? Anyway, that's not a very exciting team on paper, but one that they can sell as potentially competitive in a weak division. And nothing on that team prevents them from focusing primarily on building for long term competitiveness.
-
I'd be interested to hear what people here think the offseason is going to look like. A few things I think we'll see, based on Theo's comments and history:
- There will be very little action involving the Cubs at the top of the free agent market. They'll have semi-serious interest in CJ Wilson and will probably make him an offer, but I don't think they'll end up making the highest bid. If they show any interest in other top free agents, the purpose will really be to make the Cardinals or Brewers pay more.
In the end, I think the roster will look something like:
1B: Cuddyer
2B: Barney
3B: Headley
SS: Castro
LF: Byrd
CF: Jackson
RF: Ethier
C: Soto
P: Garza, Dempster, Nolasco, Wells, Harang
C: Marshall; Bullpen: Wood, Samardzija, Cashner, Russell, Lopez (or similar swing guy)
It is always hard when we are dealing with unknowns to separate informed prediction from personal projection, not so much predicting what is likely as wishing for what we would like.
I look at Theo's history and his comments and expect to see LaHair in the lineup next year.... of course that is also who I would personally like to be in the lineup.
-
From some of the comments Epstein made about getting the best out of players, I now believe that Zambrano will still be with the team next season. And it looks like, against my hopes, that he Cubs will have Ramirez also next year.
I suspect that the line up will look somewhat similar to this.
SS Castro
2B Barney
3B Ramirez
1b LaHair
CF Jackson
C Soto
LF Soriano
RF Byrd
P Garza
P Dempster
P Zambrano
P Free Agent
P Coleman
The most likely change to the above is a mid-level free agent or trade to replace Byrd in RF.
Also, I suspect that they will look at Soriano at first base this spring.
-
I'd rather have just about anybody in the 5th starter spot than Coleman...
-
What happened to Randy Wells, Dave?
-
What happened to Randy Wells, Dave?
Dave was just using his pseudonym.... Free Agent.
-
Randy Wells or Coleman will be a starter. The other will be in relief.
-
Casey Coleman shouldn't be anywhere near the starting rotation.
-
Casey Coleman shouldn't be anywhere near the starting rotation.
Randy Wells or Coleman will be a starter. The other will be in relief.
It would be pretty shocking if Coleman were considered on equal terms with Wells. I don't think the past administration would see things that way, and I certainly don't think the new one will.
I'll be very surprised if Zambrano is back. Manny Ramirez was one hell of a lot more valuable than Carlos Zambrano and under Theo, the Red Sox were determined to get rid of him. Theo wants players who are team oriented, and I doubt he'll see Zambrano in those terms.
-
Bringing Z back would also require TR to swallow some crow.
-
I also think the Cubs will at least consider Cashner and or Samardzija for the rotation in the spring. Those were reportedly the plans before Theo was hired, and I don't see any reason, off hand, why he'd have a different view.
-
Manny Ramirez stayed in Boston for quite a while, and then they got a pretty good player for him. I think that Zambrano will stay with the team as long as he can win games, as he has done over the past several years.
-
I think Cashner in the rotation isn't even going to be considered for 2011. He was hurt all year, and he has never pitched a full season as a starter. Maybe in 2013...but it's probably just too risky for next year.
-
Zambrano's trade value right now is near zero. I see him in the rotation at the start of the year, and traded at the deadline if (1) he waives his no trade clause, (2) the Cubs are out of the race which is likely, and (3) he pitches decently to raise his trade value, which is also likely.
So the start of the year rotation will be Garza, Dempster, Wells, Zambrano, and a free agent.
-
I can't imagine Zambrano ever pitching another game for the Cubs. There's no reason for it. His trade value is not rebounding. He's worn out his welcome with his teammates. He's not going to be re-signed after 2012. He wasn't even any good in 2011...by far his worst year, and it wasn't any kind of fluke. His peripherals and PitchFX data show that he just didn't have anything this year. I don't think you can even say he's likely to eat innings anymore...he's been under 200 innings for 4 straight years, and under 150 for the last two years.
He's a sunk cost, and the Cubs gain nothing by keeping him around another few months. Hopefully they can find someone to take him and a few million of his salary...but if not, he'll be released before spring training.
-
I know that talking about the prospect of failure under Theo is blasphemy, but.....
The old rule of thumb was that a GM got to fire two consecutive unsuccessful managers before his own job was in jeopardy.
Now, with Hoyer as GM, would that mean Theo could have two unsuccessful GM's, each firing two loser managers, before Theo's own job would be at risk?
-
I haven't seen it talked about, but I hope that Epstein signes Kerry Wood for next season, assuming Wood gives the Cubs a break on the salary once again.
-
The most merciful course of action would be to let poor Kerry Wood retire and not have to wear the Cub uniform even one more day.
-
Team Theo better be VERY good, if we are ever going to match the freaking Cardinals...unbelievable!
-
The Cards used up about ten years' worth of good luck this season, between their miracle comeback in September and being with one strike of losing not once, but twice, Thusday night. Meanwhile, the Cubs haven't had a year's worth of good luck in the last century. Maybe things will even out.
-
I'll sure hope you are right, Cubsin. Of course, i thought the same thing 10 years ago and 10 years before that and...
-
The other problem, of course, is that they just won the WS without, arguably, their best pitcher (who they WILL have back next season).
Their system is virtually never highly rated, yet all is does is just continue to produce guys who can really play at the MLB level.
They do a great job of development, obviously.
On the other hand, we have very little worth keeping at the MLB level and only a couple guys who appear really near ready.
Team Theo really has its work cut out! Thank goodness our front office is now inhabited by the guys who are there...finally!
-
the Cubs haven't had a year's worth of good luck in the last century.
Getting a HOF starting pitcher out of a throw in relief pitcher in a 1966 trade which was primarily for a promising young CFer, involved no luck. Nor did getting a HOF 2B out of a mediocre young thirdbaseman again from the Phils a little more than 15 years later. Nor was there any luck in Sutcliffe becoming nearly unbeatable in coming to the Cubs in 1984.
As much good luck as bad luck? Probably not. As much good luck as the Cardinals? Probably not.
But good luck generally truly is when preparation meets opportunity.... and the Cubs have done some pretty crappy preparation over the years.
-
Nor did getting a HOF 2B out of a mediocre young thirdbaseman again from the Phils
That brings up a point that I don't think I have ever seen debated.
When the Cubs traded for Sandberg, he had been a shortstop (not third baseman) in the minors, and was seen as such by just about all scouts at the time. But since the Cubs also got Bowa in the trade, they put him at third base for the first year, and then moved him to second base to allow room ultimately for Shawon Dunston.
Would Sandberg have been more valuable if he had played shortstop all of his career?
-
I thought every scout that ever saw Ryne Sandberg play shortstop said that he couldn't play short at the Major League level.
I may be misremembering.
-
At the time Sandberg was acquired, he was to be the shortstop of the future, at least in the view of the newspaper accounts, and according to the scout that I talked to at the time.
-
Sandberg would have been a disaster at SS. Average arm and not enough range.
-
Phillies agreed to include Sandberg in the trade because they had Julio Franco in their farm system and the Phils liked Franco over Sandberg at SS at that time. In his autobiography, Sandberg says that he was better defensively than Franco at SS and that when he was traded to the Cubs, he was not told what position they wanted him to play until Cubs dumped Ken Reitz and told Sandberg that he'd be the starting 3B. Four months after the trade, Cubs drafted Dunston #1 overall and Dunston was put on a fast track to be the SS. So, I guess we'll never know if Cubs might have played Sandberg at SS for a few years but for Dunston. I think Sandberg would have been okay at SS for the Cubs for a time early in his career but not in the long term.
-
Surely, Sandberg would have at least been better than Theriot? I was too young to remember the first 6 years or so of his career.
-
Sandberg would not have been better at SS than Theriot, IMO. Great hands obviously, but even less SS range than Theriot.
-
Bruce Miles is finally back from his vacation and chimes in on the new regime.
http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20111029/sports/710299871/ (http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20111029/sports/710299871/)
-
He's probably just now coming down.
-
The length of Miles' absence is strange. I've wondered if Miles is looking for a new job. He'd certainly be a big improvement over what they have at the bigger newspapers, and the Daily Herald kind of screwed him by putting all his stuff behind a pay wall (even if it is very easy to get around the wall). He had a very active blog, and they pretty much killed that.
-
The length of Miles' absence is strange. I've wondered if Miles is looking for a new job. He'd certainly be a big improvement over what they have at the bigger newspapers, and the Daily Herald kind of screwed him by putting all his stuff behind a pay wall (even if it is very easy to get around the wall). He had a very active blog, and they pretty much killed that.
He also had a lot of stuff on the Twitter but after the pay wall not so much.
-
The length of Miles' absence is strange. I've wondered if Miles is looking for a new job. He'd certainly be a big improvement over what they have at the bigger newspapers, and the Daily Herald kind of screwed him by putting all his stuff behind a pay wall (even if it is very easy to get around the wall). He had a very active blog, and they pretty much killed that.
I emailed him about a week ago or thereabouts asking about his absence. He replied promptly and said he and his wife were on a long-planned vacation.
-
Sandberg would have been a better defensive shortstop than Cal Ripken.
-
Sandberg would have beaten Ditka driving a bus named Ditka
-
Sandberg would have been a better defensive shortstop than Cal Ripken.
People b!tched about Sandberg's range at second base for much of his career I can't imagine how bad it would have been if he played short.
-
People bitched about Ripken's range also. Knowing the people on the board, they would **** about God's range.
-
By "people" I meant "baseball people" -- writers, color commentators, play-by-play announcers, scouts (at least according to media reports I heard/read), executives, AND fans of other teams.
Personally, I never met another Cubs fan prior to the worldwide net-web, so I don't know how Cubs fans felt about his range.
I felt it was really good at second and never saw a game he played at third base or short.
-
MLB told vendors to stop selling "Epstein 12" jerseys.
No doubt they'll be available again as soon as MLB figures out a way to get a cut of the proceeds.
-
Or maybe the MLBPA complained about them cutting into sales of players jerseys.
-
I don't recall Sandberg's range at 2B ever being criticized by "baseball people." He was criticized for not diving for balls (I don't recall ever seeing him dive). But I think many believed that he got to balls without diving that other 2B could not. He was criticized for his ability to go back for balls hit into short right field, but I think he improved on that.
-
Sandberg won nine gold gloves.
Anything else is nitpicking.
-
Ryno's accurate arm offset his lack of range.
-
MLB told vendors to stop selling "Epstein 12" jerseys.
No doubt they'll be available again as soon as MLB figures out a way to get a cut of the proceeds.
What's the deal with Epstein and 12?
-
Ryno's accurate arm offset his lack of range.
Other than Chuck Knoblauch, how many Secondbasemen have had problems making the 90 foot and less throws they make?
No one has questioned whether Sandberg fielded 2B well, the question was whether his skill set was well suited to SS. Talking about how many GG he won at 2B, or how he didn't put the ball into the grandstands on the typical 70 foot throw to firstbase, misses the point, as does defending his range as a secondbaseman.
-
My recollection is that Ryno had average range at best. But he seemed to make the play on just a about every ball he got to.
-
Re compensation for Theo, from MLB TradeRumors:
With Bud Selig looking more likely to intervene in discussions between the Red Sox and Cubs on Theo Epstein compensation, ESPN.com's Buster Olney (Insider link) predicts that the Sox won't get much for their former GM. Olney writes that the league has attempted to "tamp down the perceived value of executives," and that a huge return for Epstein wouldn't be consistent with those efforts.
-
"tamp down the perceived value of executives..."
Yea, the collection of players on the field is utter coincidence.
Nothing more than pick up baseball games out there.
-
What's the deal with Epstein and 12?
My guess would be 2012
-
My guess would be 2012
Oh. I think you might be right. My first guess was Davep's IQ.
-
Gonna be some disappointed people out there if they expect the Cubs to be transformed in 2012 and win the WS.
-
Oh. I think you might be right. My first guess was Davep's IQ.
That says more about your IQ than it does about mine.
-
'
That says more about your IQ than it does about mine.
Oh, my. I quit. With snappy comebacks like that...what am I to do? Next you'll be hitting me with "Rubber and glue, bounces off me and sticks to you," and then I'd be humiliated. I surrender. Moran.
-
I should know better than to talk to a Lutheran on Sunday. They are always so testy.
-
This is Sunday?
-
Other than Chuck Knoblauch, how many Secondbasemen have had problems making the 90 foot and less throws they make?
Well, for one, the guy playing LF for the Cubs currently was moved out of 2B because of throwing if memory serves me right.
-
Well, for one, the guy playing LF for the Cubs currently was moved out of 2B because of throwing if memory serves me right.
I think it had more to do with no range, an inability to field a ground ball, and never turning the DP very well... but I was not following him closely at the time. In looking at his stats, he had 19 or more errors each of the 5 full seasons he played 2B, low of 19 and high of 23. Not that he was good throwing from second, but he was simply bad all the way around fielding the position. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/29/sports/baseball-heavy-hitting-soriano-puts-focus-on-fielding.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
-
Other than Chuck Knoblauch, how many Secondbasemen have had problems making the 90 foot and less throws they make?
Steve Sax.
-
per a crawl on CSN yesterday Cubs hold an intro news conference today for Hoyer/McLeod 3p.m. on CSN(665-DirecTV)
-
I wonder if we'll find out today what all we'll be giving up in compensation to Boston and San Diego. The deadline to agree with the Red Sox is today.
-
wondering the same thing JR...
-
Steve Sax.
A catcher named Macky Sasser ended his career because he could not throw the ball back to the pitcher without it going into CF.
-
I wonder if we'll find out today what all we'll be giving up in compensation to Boston and San Diego. The deadline to agree with the Red Sox is today.
It seems like all of the published reports suggest that both teams are resigned to the decision going to Selig. Maybe once that happens there will be a quick resolution?
-
He'll call it a tie.
-
I wonder if we'll find out today what all we'll be giving up in compensation to Boston and San Diego. The deadline to agree with the Red Sox is today.
Cherington said that if Tuesday passes and no agreement is reached, a date would be set for both sides to argue their case and Selig and his staff would make their decision based on that.
In other words, we might not know for a while.
-
While i certainly hope we will know the Theo comp today, there's almost no upside for Cherington/Red Sox to agree on the comp.
If they do and the picks don't pan out and the Red Sox don't pretty quickly return to their glory of the past decade, the hyper-critical Boston fan base and media will chide Cherington and the others for not negotiating harder.
My best guess is that Selig will speak to the parties and a decision will come down from MLB down the road. I'll hope I'm wrong and that the deal gets done today so that everyone (including us) can move on.
-
He'll call it a tie.
Well-played.
Was Dale Murphy also one of those guys who started as a catcher but had the mental block about throwing the ball back to the pitcher?
-
Watch the Jed Hoyer/Jason McLeod press conference at 3:00 Central Time.
http://www.csnchicago.com/pages/live_cubs?awid=8880880037413712528-914
-
Very positive assessment of Hoyer/McLeod from San Diego.
http://www.csnchicago.com/pages/v11_videolightbox?PID=6cLLTB-ZX6cJMsqno_9HUoz4P4S0sRYd4oCjR1s (http://www.csnchicago.com/pages/v11_videolightbox?PID=6cLLTB-ZX6cJMsqno_9HUoz4P4S0sRYd4oCjR1s)
-
Theo says Jed Hoyer will have a "traditional GM role".
-
Jason McLeod has been brought on to oversee both scouting and player development and to unify them under a single player development philosophy. He challenges people but still inspires loyalty. It'll be interesting to see how well that works with Wilken and Fleita.
-
Theo says we are within a week of having resolution with the managerial position.
-
When asked if Wilken will be leading the draft and making all the calls on draft picks, McLeod said he has not made a determination on the structure of who will be making draft picks. He has great admiration for Wilken and has said he's been an influence on his career.
-
Theo says we are within a week of having resolution with the managerial position.
What exactly does that mean? Quade remains? Quade goes and they get on with the search for a new manager? Quade goes and they've already chosen the new manager?
Hard to believe there weren't any rumors floating around about the new manager if it's the latter.
-
No resolution on compensation to the Red Sox and Padres.
-
What exactly does that mean? Quade remains? Quade goes and they get on with the search for a new manager? Quade goes and they've already chosen the new manager?
Hard to believe there weren't any rumors floating around about the new manager if it's the latter.
It means they really really hate Quade and want him to dangle longer.
-
Sounds like Aramis is gone. Theo is talking about him in the past tense and said reading the tea leaves, he think he will be playing elsewhere.
-
yep...Aramis is gone...Quade is gone...Zambrano gone...
-
Close to (but not exactly) direct quote of Theo on Ramirez:
Had a terrific career with Cubs while he was here. Wish him well in the future, wouldn’t rule anything out, but likelihood that another team will offer a contract that he will prefer, and we’ll be looking for new solution at 3B.
-
If another team offers ARam more than a one-year contract, he's gone, and the Cubs get a supplemental round pick.
-
Bruce Levine, in today's chat, said it's his understanding that both sides have agreed that it's time for Aramis to move on.
-
Bruce Levine, in today's chat, said it's his understanding that both sides have agreed that it's time for Aramis to move on.
That really is for the best. The Cubs will miss him in 2012, but we don't need to be giving 3-4 year deals to players entering their late mid to late 30's and already showing at least some subtle signs of decline (his strong 2011 finish after a slow start notwithstanding).
Hopefully we can be creative and come up with some ways to make up for the loss of his bat.
-
Patrick Mooney: Good chance MLB will give Cubs and RedSox an extension to settle Epstein compensation before matter is turned over to Selig
-
I think it is imperative that Cubs settle the Theo compensation issue rather than have Selig decide. As I understand it, the parties already have agreed to "significant" compensation---and I would be scared as heck as to what Selig might decide is significant. There is very litttle precedent as to top-end front office personnel and I worry that Selig might not be persuaded that Hector Trinidad types are "significant." From my perspective, Cubs should not let Selig decide and must cut a deal. Probablywon't be pretty, but too many unknowns at work here to let an outsider pick off your organization guys.
-
And what happens if Ricketts simply says, "No. That's too much."
Ricketts may not have the gonads to be hardline in this, but if he does, do the Red Sox take Theo back?
I'm sure Theo would be one happy camper and an extremely productive employee for the Red Sox after that.
At this point, Ricketts could simply say he is happy with Hoyer and McLeod and will talk with Theo about a position with the Cubs once his contract has expired.
-
LOL
-
That is what he should have said right from the start. If Ricketts thinks the asking price is to high, he should have just waited for Epstein after the next season.
-
Everything I've read says Selig wants to avoid setting a precedent for executive compensation, and the Cubs will come out ahead if they don't come to an agreement. This will probably end well for the Cubs, regardless of how the compensation is decided.
-
I think it is imperative that Cubs settle the Theo compensation issue rather than have Selig decide. As I understand it, the parties already have agreed to "significant" compensation---and I would be scared as heck as to what Selig might decide is significant. There is very litttle precedent as to top-end front office personnel and I worry that Selig might not be persuaded that Hector Trinidad types are "significant." From my perspective, Cubs should not let Selig decide and must cut a deal. Probablywon't be pretty, but too many unknowns at work here to let an outsider pick off your organization guys.
I'm pretty sure I remember reading somewhere that Selig has been trying to tamp down the "value" of executives in terms of compensation, and that as a result the Cubs were the mostly likely to benefit from a Selig intervention. I've no idea if this is right or not. Here's what Bruce Levine said in today's chat.
AmPhotog (Chicago)
What's your prediction on the final compensation to the Red Sox for Epstein and Pads for Hoyer? I suspect it would be 2 AA players to the Red Sox and 2 A players to the Padres.
Bruce Levine (1:03 PM)
I don't think it will necessarily be that much. At one point, the Cubs and Red Sox had decided on Chris Carpenter, before Boston backed out. Might be up to Selig to get it done.
-
Tuesday’s deadline to resolve player compensation with the Boston Red Sox over Epstein was extended to the end of next week — a reflection of the parties’ heavy recent schedules during front-office transitions than any hitches in the process.
-
I almost never recommend anything from Barry Rozner, but, hey, it's a new day. Here are some Theo quotes clarifying the division of responsibilities between himself and Hoyer.
“I’ll still be very involved in the daily baseball operations, but I won’t be involved in a lot of the day-to-day obligations a general manager has, like responsibilities with the media, the manager, coaching staff and training staff,” Epstein said. “We will still work together on all major decisions and the construction of the baseball team.
“But this will allow me more time to work on player development at all levels and building the organization, and that’s most important right now.”
http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20111101/sports/711019595// (http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20111101/sports/711019595//)
-
Sounds great, Ron...thanks for that link, too. These very smart, young guys are thinking the right way!
Cubs will greatly benefit over time!
-
Sounds great, Ron...thanks for that link, too. These very smart, young guys are thinking the right way!
Cubs will greatly benefit over time!
Watching the press conference yesterday, I was struck by how young all three of the new team is. Two are 37, the other is 39, and they didn’t just look young, they sounded young – in a good way.
I don’t think these guys are ivy league school so much as they are new school, as compared with prior regimes that were old school. They really are reflective of a new era, not just symbolically, but literally. Jim Hendry, as much as I liked and appreciated him, like his predecessors, was a product of an earlier time. He couldn’t help it, even if he tried.
Even though Jim Hendry is younger than I am, somehow he seemed older. I think that was because he is still grounded in the world in which he grew up. That’s always been true of the people I’ve associated with the Cubs, until now. I think one reason I was so defensive on his behalf was that I just accepted his approach as inherent in the game, because that was all I had ever seen, as a Cub fan. Mea culpa.
Actually the first sign of change for me was Bob Brenly and Len Kasper. They were the first Cub announcers who didn’t seem from an earlier time. Unlike Harry and Jack, their reference points weren’t Sinatra types, but rather Pearl Jam types.
Some members of my generation have aged in ways that are fundamentally different from our predecessors. We wear jeans and tee shirts, not slacks and shirts with ties. We are still very physically active (within whatever physical restraints that age has forced upon us). We are more open to new music, new technology … and most importantly, new ideas. I don't think that was true of Hendry though - I think he was tethered to the past from which he came.
-
One piece of new technology Hendry embraced was the cell phone. I sat very near to him at several spring training games and he was on his a lot more than he was off.
-
Thoughtful post Ron...
-
What's Pearl Jam? Do you put it on toast?
-
One piece of new technology Hendry embraced was the cell phone. I sat very near to him at several spring training games and he was on his a lot more than he was off.
yeah but,these new guys have I-Phones/Pads,cell phones are so 10 minutes ago
-
Totally agree, AZ...Ron, that was a fabulous post I totally agree with and could personally relate to a great deal.
I'm now 60 (somehow) and also felt Hendry "seemed older" and "tethered to the past," just as his predecessors in the Cub front office were, too. Hendry is a very good guy who worked his ass off for the Cubs, which we all appreciated greatly, but he was limited tremendously as he was, indeed, "grounded in the world he grew up in." You hit the nail on the head!
The world has changed SO dramatically! And cutting-edge thinking has changed dramatically, too!
The tools to gather, analyze and utilize data in decision-making are VERY advanced today! There is much more than needs to be considered in order to make the best decisions that can be made. There has been a great deal of new thinking about the importance of "philosophy" and "culture" and "accountability" that has made its way from the business world to the world of baseball...at least in the best front offices, now including ours.
Since I have no important meetings today, I'm sitting at my desk in jeans. I too am trying to stay physically active and remain open to new ideas. And, yet, there is no doubt in my mind that the smart, young "new school" guys like the Theo Trio are WAY downfield from where i am in so many ways...perhaps including the amount of energy they have to meet new challenges.
What I'm most appreciating about Theo and group so far is their seeming openness to LISTENING and utilizing all information available, whether it's from guys my age or their computer analysis or from guys who may not stay with the organization...or from other sources. NO stone unturned! Now, that's smart thinking.
I believe these guys will get it done! Over time, we shall see.
-
yeah but,these new guys have I-Phones/Pads,cell phones are so 10 minutes ago
One thing I thought was interesting when I went to see the Peoria game last year was it looked like the Cub farm pitcher charting pitches was using an iPad to do it. The guy charting pitches for the Rays farm team was still using pencil and paper.
Even with things like that, it looks like Ricketts is sparing no expense to improve what's going on with the farm.
-
One piece of new technology Hendry embraced was the cell phone. I sat very near to him at several spring training games and he was on his a lot more than he was off.
Yes! One spring training I overheard him talking to the agent of a player (I think it was Mark Pisciotta) telling him that his contract was not going to be carried on the 40 man roster, but that the Cubs had not given up on him --- something like that. He was always on that phone.
-
That's great, JR...not surprised...i think Ricketts has turned the ship around and really has it heading the right direction!
Illustrating the partly generational differences, I was a coach and scorekeeper for my kid's travel team for some of last season and tried using my son's iPad with the iScore App to document the game (and maintain/sort key stats). I threw in the towel by the 3rd inning...fortunately, there's a younger Dad who uses an iPad all the time and for whom the app is more intuitive...he has since been the team's scorekeeper and can slice/dice the data any which way (and provide beautiful score cards after every game).
There is so much to know and learn. Of course, that's part of what makes the future exciting for most all of us.
-
Yes! One spring training I overheard him talking to the agent of a player (I think it was Mark Pisciotta) telling him that his contract wasn't being renewed. He was always on that phone.
One call I remember overhearing: Julio Zuleta was in left field that day and had just fallen down trying to make a catch. His phone rang and it was Andy MacPhail. Jim said "Zoo just tripped over his own two feet".
-
What I'm most appreciating about Theo and group so far is their seeming openness to LISTENING and utilizing all information available, whether it's from guys my age or their computer analysis or from guys who may not stay with the organization...or from other sources. NO stone unturned! Now, that's smart thinking.
Ben - that's an excellent point, something I've noticed and been really pleased about as well. These guys all exude an unusual combination of deep confidence with a hunger to grow and become even better than they are. There seems to be an eagerness for different information and ideas. Their passion to excel appears to drive them to input from any source that could broaden their knowledge.
-
I was by the Banks statue one day and some guy walked past talking on his cell. I don't recall what was said, but it got my attention, and when I turned around, it was Hendry. He went around the barricade/wall and headed to the office section. I got a quick picture.
-
The future of the Cubs will now be moving at the speed technologically and analytically that the new front office team has been working at for several years.I'm so ready for Theo's "Cubs Way" to begin.
-
Ben - that's an excellent point, something I've noticed and been really pleased about as well. These guys all exude an unusual combination of deep confidence with a hunger to grow and become even better than they are. There seems to be an eagerness for different information and ideas. Their passion to excel appears to drive them to input from any source that could broaden their knowledge.
Here's something I heard Theo say I thought was interesting that I think really goes along with that. On WSCR, Theo was asked your standard question about how Wrigley and playing day games will affect what players he goes after. Instead of giving some usual standard answer to that like we've heard plenty of times over the years, Theo said this was something that he thought really needed to be studied and how he really needs to do a lot of deep digging to understand how Wrigley plays to turn it into a real homefield advantage. He mentioned how Fenway was a pretty easy ballpark to understand, since it usually plays the same every day and with a short left field, it's pretty easy to figure out you need left hand hitters who hit the ball with power the other way, etc. He said Wrigley was a much tougher ballpark to understand, since it plays differently depending on the wind, plays differently when it's a day game vs. a night game, etc. He thought doing research into Wrigley Field and more research into things like how day games affect players, how the wind affects Wrigley throughout the season, etc. would be important to determining what kind of players he needs to acquire so he can turn Wrigley into the big kind of homefield advantage that he thought he had in Boston.
Normally it seems like Cub management answers that question with something along the lines of it not mattering that much to major league players whether they play in the day or at night, trying to focus on good character guys who don't party at night and are ready to play during the day, trying to focus on getting players who have played well during day games in their careers, etc. Granted when our new guys do their research into it, it might validate a lot of the old things that people say a lot about what kinds of players you need to succeed at Wrigley.
But I think it's really interesting that he wasn't willing to settle for the usual easy answers into what kind of players he needs to attract to get the most out of playing at Wrigley and that our new guys are really going to want to dig into something like this.
-
Good point re Theo/Wrigley, JR...these guys are going to dig and analyze WAY deeper than in the past to uncover potential competitive advantage.
-
JR - I remember having the same reaction to Theo's comments on Wrigley.
I found it interesting that he also mentioned that the decision to acquire Bill Mueller was based, in part, on the fact that he pulled the ball to LF when batting RH, but hit to the opposite field batting LH, something that would benefit him in Fenway.
"At Fenway we had the (Green Monster) … and the ultimate was a guy like (switch-hitter) Bill Mueller, who from the left side was an opposite-field guy and was a pull guy from the right side. All of a sudden he gets to Fenway and hits .325."
-
As JR points out so well, Theo and his folks seem to know what they don't know. They seem to look at an issue by asking questions.
If you look at the early Bill James Abstracts from the late 1970s into the 1980s, he always wrote about questions and how to approach getting data to answer those questions. Of course, this is the kind of stuff that has gone on in many disciplines for a heck of a long time and it was a bit startling to see that in baseball.
Epstein and his team are grounded in that way at looking at the world. So, are a bunch of other teams now and Cubs are now competitive on that front. This all goes back to Ricketts having this priority. Rickets said all the right things from the beginning but it was hard to know if he was serious. He was serious.
-
Ben - that's an excellent point, something I've noticed and been really pleased about as well. These guys all exude an unusual combination of deep confidence with a hunger to grow and become even better than they are. There seems to be an eagerness for different information and ideas. Their passion to excel appears to drive them to input from any source that could broaden their knowledge.
I always like to try to match up "appearances," which are often phoney, with testable, known reality.
These three guys who "exude.... eagerness for different information and ideas.... (and) appear... drive(n) to input from any source that could broaden their knowledge," just put off the team's organizational meetings until days before spring training starts.
Perhaps it is a result of my intellectual limitations, but at least on this front, what they "exude" does not seem to match up with what they are in fact doing.
-
Someone should archive this thread, and make it available to read in 5 years.
Unless, of course, the world ends next October.
-
Jim Hendry on Theo and his pals
http://espn.go.com/blog/chicago/cubs
-
Hendry wasn't a good GM, but he certainly seems like a nice guy. Where do they finish, again?
-
He thought doing research into Wrigley Field and more research into things like how day games affect players, how the wind affects Wrigley throughout the season, etc. would be important to determining what kind of players he needs to acquire so he can turn Wrigley into the big kind of homefield advantage that he thought he had in Boston.
The saddest part of that is that we won't know the results of the research. It would be fascinating, but Theo is smart enough to keep that stuff internal. One of the reasons I wasn't interested in Beane is the fact that he let them write Moneyball to begin with. I remember reading somewhere that Theo couldn't believe Beane was letting the whole world in on their competetive advantage.
-
Agreed re Beene, DelMar...I think that agreeing to (and his role as advisor to) "Moneyball" is another indication that he's not presently 100% engaged in his baseball leadership position...Team Theo seems much better for the Cub job, which is a HUGE one and will require lots of listening, lots of analysis and lots of energy!
Love McLeod's comments reflecting on a failed #1 pick: "What was the process? Why did this happen?"
These guys are asking questions of EVERYONE, including themselves. That sure seems like the right approach to me.
DaveP, as one who has beaten the drum for years for exactly the kind of leadership we now have, I'll agree that we should bear in mind where we've been, where we are now and review both several years from now...history is instructive.
-
Bill Center of the San Diego Union Tribune rates Jed Hoyer's best and worst moves as GM.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/oct/26/rating-hoyers-moves-padres-gm/
-
Billy Beane didn't write Moneyball.
-
I't's certainly true, Strike, that Billy Beane didn't write Moneyball (or appear onscreen in the movie), but he had to put in one heckuva lot of time in the process, let alone providing the author personal access and access to other key folks in the organization.
I may be wrong, but that suggests to me that Billy enjoyed having a different kind of project than MLB.
Of course, I suspect it's been less than fun much of the time over the years for Billy, having to deal with a really small budget, in a small market, and having his plan for a new ballpark (and more money) dashed time and time again (whereas the team just across the Bay has a great new ballpark and much success in recent years).
-
He let the author look behind the curtain.
-
I thought it was interesting to see a report from San Diego looking at Hoyer's best and worst moves while GM there, and seeing the following:
Brad Hawpe: With Adrian Gonzalez traded to the Red Sox, the Padres signed Hawpe to play first until Anthony Rizzo was ready. Not only was Hawpe a terrible first baseman, he hit .231 with four homers and 19 RBI with 68 strikeouts in 195 at-bats. Hawpe will cost the Padres $3 million, including a $1 million buyout.
Orlando Hudson: After Hairston rejected the Padres’ offer and the club decided not to re-sign David Eckstein, the Padres committed $11.25 million to Hudson for two years plus a $2 million buyout against an $8 million option. Hudson hit .246 with seven homers and 43 RBI and didn’t provide the expected leadership. http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/oct/26/rating-hoyers-moves-padres-gm/
The reason I thought it was interesting is that there seem to have been several people here who urged that the Cubs get both of those guys.
Also thought it was interesting/promising to see two of his better moves being relatively low priced FA signings (Yorvitt Torreabla and Aaron Harang) who either have been or will be converted into draft picks by allowing them to leave as FA the season after they were signed. THAT is the kind of roster management I would love to see from the Cubs, and which we saw virtually none of from the Cubs under Hendry.
-
Buster Olney was on Waddle & Silvy today. He was asked whether Theo is being overhyped. Olney said about a year ago he polled about 15 GMs and asked them to identify the best GM in baseball. He said 12 of the 15 said Theo. Said he's not the most popular GM (mentioned Hendry as someone who was extremely well liked in contrast), but that even GMs who don't like Theo think he's "phenomenal at what he does." Smart, quick study, and said Theo is far more competitive than the public realizes.
http://espn.go.com/espnradio/chicago/play?id=7190388 (http://espn.go.com/espnradio/chicago/play?id=7190388)
-
Thanks for that info, Ron...I'll sure hope those GMs are right!
It certainly seems to me that Team Theo is focusing on the right things, doing the right things and saying the right things. They seem very organized and proactive. It also seems that they always take the higher ground, which is both very smart and prudent long term.
-
Buster Olney was on Waddle & Silvy today. He was asked whether Theo is being overhyped. Olney said about a year ago he polled about 15 GMs and asked them to identify the best GM in baseball. He said 12 of the 15 said Theo. Said he's not the most popular GM (mentioned Hendry as someone who was extremely well liked in contrast), but that even GMs who don't like Theo think he's "phenomenal at what he does." Smart, quick study, and said Theo is far more competitive than the public realizes.
http://espn.go.com/espnradio/chicago/play?id=7190388 (http://espn.go.com/espnradio/chicago/play?id=7190388)
I want Theo to become the most hated man in baseball.
Everybody hates a winner.
-
If only our team were as good as our new front office.
-
Someone should post a review of this:
http://www.amazon.com/When-Theo-Met-Tom-ebook/dp/B00624EXIS/ref=sr_1_2?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1320268324&sr=1-2
-
Someone should post a review of this:
http://www.amazon.com/When-Theo-Met-Tom-ebook/dp/B00624EXIS/ref=sr_1_2?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1320268324&sr=1-2 (http://www.amazon.com/When-Theo-Met-Tom-ebook/dp/B00624EXIS/ref=sr_1_2?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1320268324&sr=1-2)
I just ordered it, and while I haven't spent much time looking through it, all it appears to be is just a collection of the Tribune's articles on Epstein from Oct. 5 through when the Cubs hired him. I imagine there's nothing in here that we don't know already.
Just based on what I've looked through, people here would probably be throwing their 99 cents away if they ordered it.
-
Thanks, JR. That's what I was afraid it is.
-
Too bad. With Rogers as a co-author, I was expecting keen insights.
-
Isn't it about time to merge this thread with the Cubs in 12 thread?
-
With the General Managers Meetings set to begin Monday in Milwaukee, Cherington said he and Epstein were hopeful they can strike a deal in person next week.
"The Commissioner's Office is giving us some leeway on it if we feel like there's progress being made," Cherington said. "I think we'll give ourselves until next week. We'll see each other in person next week, at least give ourselves until then to see if there's something we can't figure out."
If the Commissioner's Office has to handle the issue, Cherington said a date would be set where both sides present their case.
http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20111109&content_id=25947338&vkey=news_chc&c_id=chc&tcid=tw_article_25947338 (http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20111109&content_id=25947338&vkey=news_chc&c_id=chc&tcid=tw_article_25947338)