Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Day one of compensation talks have not gone well as the Red Sox are demanding at least one player while the Cubs are only willing to give money.

The Cubs could end up giving up a top prospect if it expects the Red Sox to release Theo Epstein from his contract. Earlier this month, the Marlins gave up its #4 and #5 prospects to land a middle of the pack manager from the White Sox. Boston should probably land a better package than what the White Sox got.

What....GM's can be traded for players?

clenz wrote:What....GM's can be traded for players?

not technically a trade, but compensation to release him from his contract.

clenz wrote:What....GM's can be traded for players?

If HCs and managers can be "traded," so can GMs. (See Gruden, Jon; Guillen, Ozzie.)

Of course, as of the last report I saw, the Cubbies hadn't even decided on a title for Epstein.

SuperHornet wrote:

clenz wrote:What....GM's can be traded for players?

If HCs and managers can be "traded," so can GMs. (See Gruden, Jon; Guillen, Ozzie.)

Of course, as of the last report I saw, the Cubbies hadn't even decided on a title for Epstein.

President of baseball operations and General Manager

The Red Sox maybe asking for Brett Jackson or Matt Szczur as part of the compensation.

One novel idea put forward by a fan is to on top of the prospect(s) they ask the Cubs to take John Lackey and in return the Sox would take Alfonso Soriano. Not sure how I feel about that. Lackey sucks bad, but so does Soriano... though Soriano could be more useful to Boston and Lackey might be better in a new environment.

So what's the Red Sox's leverage?

Hey Cubs, if you don't give us a bunch of prospects, well, you see, we'll keep Theo Epstein. Yeah! And then we'll keep paying him, see, and we'll let his angry ass make baseball decisions for our tanking team. That's the ticket! We're sure he'll be motivated to make us good again, ya see. Yeah.

93henfan wrote:So what's the Red Sox's leverage?
.

Send 'em some Boston Fried chicken.

93henfan wrote:So what's the Red Sox's leverage?

Hey Cubs, if you don't give us a bunch of prospects, well, you see, we'll keep Theo Epstein. Yeah! And then we'll keep paying him, see, and we'll let his angry ass make baseball decisions for our tanking team. That's the ticket! We're sure he'll be motivated to make us good again, ya see. Yeah.

its the way the game is played. Boston has the right to be compensated and Chicago will compensate them.

If they don't, Theo will sit around for a year not running the Red Sox but still employed by them... Sure the Cubs can wait a year and get him for nothing, but its in their best interest to get him in now, to start building a team and also to get his scouting team in place ready for next June's amateur draft.

UNHWildCats wrote:

93henfan wrote:So what's the Red Sox's leverage?

Hey Cubs, if you don't give us a bunch of prospects, well, you see, we'll keep Theo Epstein. Yeah! And then we'll keep paying him, see, and we'll let his angry ass make baseball decisions for our tanking team. That's the ticket! We're sure he'll be motivated to make us good again, ya see. Yeah.

its the way the game is played. Boston has the right to be compensated and Chicago will compensate them.

If they don't, Theo will sit around for a year not running the Red Sox but still employed by them... Sure the Cubs can wait a year and get him for nothing, but its in their best interest to get him in now, to start building a team and also to get his scouting team in place ready for next June's amateur draft.

I can't see breaking the bank for a guy who, as a GM for 10 seasons, has won one division title and has finished in third two straight seasons.

JoltinJoe wrote:I can't see breaking the bank for a guy who, as a GM for 10 seasons, has won one division title and has finished in third two straight seasons.

He did get more WS rings than anyone else in his division during that time. Just saying.

GannonFan wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:I can't see breaking the bank for a guy who, as a GM for 10 seasons, has won one division title and has finished in third two straight seasons.

He did get more WS rings than anyone else in his division during that time. Just saying.

As of right now, and the Cardinals can change that, but in his time as GM has has more WS rings than any other team in all of baseball.

JoltinJoe wrote:I can't see breaking the bank for a guy who, as a GM for 10 seasons, has won one division title and has finished in third two straight seasons.

From 2004 to 2011 Ozzie Guillen had 2 playoff teams, 1 Pennant and 1 World Series win and finishes of 2,1,3,4,1,3,2,3 each season.

From the same 2004 to 2011 Theo GM'd a team with 5 playoff appearances, 2 Pennants and 2 World Series wins, and finishes of 2,2,3,1,2,2,3,3 in a much more competitive division than the White Sox...

So tell me, why shouldnt the Red Sox expect atleast comparable compensation to what the White Sox got for Guillen? Both had the same 1 year remaining on their contracts.

GannonFan wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:I can't see breaking the bank for a guy who, as a GM for 10 seasons, has won one division title and has finished in third two straight seasons.

He did get more WS rings than anyone else in his division during that time. Just saying.

Yes, but that's only because of the tournament nature of the MLB playoffs these days. I still refuse to call a second-place team 'World Champions." The 2004 Sox were the World Series Tournament winners. And I'd say the same thing about a Yankee wild card "championship" team.

Epstein's track record is decent, but nothing to get excited about, if you focus on the number of times he put together a team which proved to be the best in its division over a full season. And he's been in third place two years in a row. He's been out "moneyballed" by a team with a much smaller budget within his own division -- the Rays.

Cash, yes. Players for Epstein? No.

JoltinJoe wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
He did get more WS rings than anyone else in his division during that time. Just saying.

Yes, but that's only because of the tournament nature of the MLB playoffs these days. I still refuse to call a second-place team 'World Champions." The 2004 Sox were the World Series Tournament winners. And I'd say the same thing about a Yankee wild card "championship" team.

Epstein's track record is decent, but nothing to get excited about, if you focus on the number of times he put together a team which proved to be the best in its division over a full season. And he's been in third place two years in a row. He's been out "moneyballed" by a team with a much smaller budget within his own division -- the Rays.

Cash, yes. Players for Epstein? No.

Super - did you let MLB know that they should now vacate the titles won by teams that didn't finish first in their division? Heck, if you take it further, why do we call teams that, since divisional play has been used, finish first in their own division but with less wins than another division winner in the same league? Clearly WS titles should only be allowed to be given to teams that finished the regular season with the best record in their league, just like they did in the old days. Phooey on these expanded playoffs, phooey I say.

UNHWildCats wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:I can't see breaking the bank for a guy who, as a GM for 10 seasons, has won one division title and has finished in third two straight seasons.

From 2004 to 2011 Ozzie Guillen had 2 playoff teams, 1 Pennant and 1 World Series win and finishes of 2,1,3,4,1,3,2,3 each season.

From the same 2004 to 2011 Theo GM'd a team with 5 playoff appearances, 2 Pennants and 2 World Series wins, and finishes of 2,2,3,1,2,2,3,3 in a much more competitive division than the White Sox...

So tell me, why shouldnt the Red Sox expect atleast comparable compensation to what the White Sox got for Guillen? Both had the same 1 year remaining on their contracts.

They can expect whatever they want to expect. But since this doesn't involve the White Sox nor the Marlins, then the precedent is just that, precendent. Doesn't mean it's binding or even a jumping off point for this particular discussion. Just depends on the parties involved here and they're all different here than in the last case.

GannonFan wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:
Yes, but that's only because of the tournament nature of the MLB playoffs these days. I still refuse to call a second-place team 'World Champions." The 2004 Sox were the World Series Tournament winners. And I'd say the same thing about a Yankee wild card "championship" team.

Epstein's track record is decent, but nothing to get excited about, if you focus on the number of times he put together a team which proved to be the best in its division over a full season. And he's been in third place two years in a row. He's been out "moneyballed" by a team with a much smaller budget within his own division -- the Rays.

Cash, yes. Players for Epstein? No.

Super - did you let MLB know that they should now vacate the titles won by teams that didn't finish first in their division? Heck, if you take it further, why do we call teams that, since divisional play has been used, finish first in their own division but with less wins than another division winner in the same league? Clearly WS titles should only be allowed to be given to teams that finished the regular season with the best record in their league, just like they did in the old days. Phooey on these expanded playoffs, phooey I say.

So the Yankees 2000 WS doesn't count, because of the 8 playoff teams, the Yanks had the worst record by 4 games.
96 Title is void as well.

GannonFan wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:
Yes, but that's only because of the tournament nature of the MLB playoffs these days. I still refuse to call a second-place team 'World Champions." The 2004 Sox were the World Series Tournament winners. And I'd say the same thing about a Yankee wild card "championship" team.

Epstein's track record is decent, but nothing to get excited about, if you focus on the number of times he put together a team which proved to be the best in its division over a full season. And he's been in third place two years in a row. He's been out "moneyballed" by a team with a much smaller budget within his own division -- the Rays.

Cash, yes. Players for Epstein? No.

Super - did you let MLB know that they should now vacate the titles won by teams that didn't finish first in their division? Heck, if you take it further, why do we call teams that, since divisional play has been used, finish first in their own division but with less wins than another division winner in the same league? Clearly WS titles should only be allowed to be given to teams that finished the regular season with the best record in their league, just like they did in the old days. Phooey on these expanded playoffs, phooey I say.

You really can't compare records between division winners because of the unbalanced schedule.

But when a team finishes in second place, it's a second-place team. If you want to call them 'World Champions" or say they "won it all," even though they didn't win "it all," it's a free country. In my mind, the worst teams to ever win the World Series are, by definition, the second-place teams which simply managed to win the MLB playoff tournament.

JoltinJoe wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Super - did you let MLB know that they should now vacate the titles won by teams that didn't finish first in their division? Heck, if you take it further, why do we call teams that, since divisional play has been used, finish first in their own division but with less wins than another division winner in the same league? Clearly WS titles should only be allowed to be given to teams that finished the regular season with the best record in their league, just like they did in the old days. Phooey on these expanded playoffs, phooey I say.

You really can't compare records between division winners because of the unbalanced schedule.

Then how can you even compare records of teams within the same division since, with interleague play, every schedule is essentially unbalanced?

JoltinJoe wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
He did get more WS rings than anyone else in his division during that time. Just saying.

Yes, but that's only because of the tournament nature of the MLB playoffs these days. I still refuse to call a second-place team 'World Champions." The 2004 Sox were the World Series Tournament winners. And I'd say the same thing about a Yankee wild card "championship" team.

Epstein's track record is decent, but nothing to get excited about, if you focus on the number of times he put together a team which proved to be the best in its division over a full season. And he's been in third place two years in a row. He's been out "moneyballed" by a team with a much smaller budget within his own division -- the Rays.

Cash, yes. Players for Epstein? No.

Awesome, so when can the Patriots expect the Giants to ship us our 2007 Lombardi trophy, since the Giants arent Super Bowl Champions?

GannonFan wrote:

UNHWildCats wrote: From 2004 to 2011 Ozzie Guillen had 2 playoff teams, 1 Pennant and 1 World Series win and finishes of 2,1,3,4,1,3,2,3 each season.

From the same 2004 to 2011 Theo GM'd a team with 5 playoff appearances, 2 Pennants and 2 World Series wins, and finishes of 2,2,3,1,2,2,3,3 in a much more competitive division than the White Sox...

So tell me, why shouldnt the Red Sox expect atleast comparable compensation to what the White Sox got for Guillen? Both had the same 1 year remaining on their contracts.

They can expect whatever they want to expect. But since this doesn't involve the White Sox nor the Marlins, then the precedent is just that, precendent. Doesn't mean it's binding or even a jumping off point for this particular discussion. Just depends on the parties involved here and they're all different here than in the last case.

Fine, but the point is, the Red Sox can expect what they want, and if the Cubs dont want to meet the price, the Red Sox can just keep Theo around for a year as an errand boy, or he can quit and sit at home for a year until he is free to take a new job at the end of the 2012 season.

The Red Sox lose nothing by caving and accepting a Cubs token offer of cash... as if the Red Sox really need cash.

The Cubs have everything to lose here and nothing to win by refusing to trade a player or two.

JoltinJoe wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Super - did you let MLB know that they should now vacate the titles won by teams that didn't finish first in their division? Heck, if you take it further, why do we call teams that, since divisional play has been used, finish first in their own division but with less wins than another division winner in the same league? Clearly WS titles should only be allowed to be given to teams that finished the regular season with the best record in their league, just like they did in the old days. Phooey on these expanded playoffs, phooey I say.

You really can't compare records between division winners because of the unbalanced schedule.

But when a team finishes in second place, it's a second-place team. If you want to call them 'World Champions" or say they "won it all," even though they didn't win "it all," it's a free country. In my mind, the worst teams to ever win the World Series are, by definition, the second-place teams which simply managed to win the MLB playoff tournament.

Cant wait for your ranting when the first third place team wins a title under the soon to come playoff expansion.

UNHWildCats wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:
Yes, but that's only because of the tournament nature of the MLB playoffs these days. I still refuse to call a second-place team 'World Champions." The 2004 Sox were the World Series Tournament winners. And I'd say the same thing about a Yankee wild card "championship" team.

Epstein's track record is decent, but nothing to get excited about, if you focus on the number of times he put together a team which proved to be the best in its division over a full season. And he's been in third place two years in a row. He's been out "moneyballed" by a team with a much smaller budget within his own division -- the Rays.

Cash, yes. Players for Epstein? No.

Awesome, so when can the Patriots expect the Giants to ship us our 2007 Lombardi trophy, since the Giants arent Super Bowl Champions?

The Giants are the Super Bowl Champions and the winner of the '07 Lombardi Trophy. I wouldn't call them World Champions. But they did win the Super Bowl tournament.

On the other hand, there is a huge difference between a 16-game schedule in the NFL and the 162-game baseball schedule, too. With so many teams and so few games, the NFL regular season has been, certainly since the merger, really just an entry competition to the post-season tournament. It's not like the NFL of the olden era.

UNHWildCats wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:
You really can't compare records between division winners because of the unbalanced schedule.

But when a team finishes in second place, it's a second-place team. If you want to call them 'World Champions" or say they "won it all," even though they didn't win "it all," it's a free country. In my mind, the worst teams to ever win the World Series are, by definition, the second-place teams which simply managed to win the MLB playoff tournament.

Cant wait for your ranting when the first third place team wins a title under the soon to come playoff expansion.

Don't get me started, T.