Steve Buckley,
Herald:
Two baseball sources have confirmed that Theo Epstein is on the cusp of leaving his job as general manager of the Red Sox 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.
If true, this will be one hell of a winter.
Peter Abraham,
Globe:
Major league sources said tonight that no deal is in place for Theo Epstein to join the Chicago Cubs in an upper management capacity. But a resolution is expected in the coming days. ...
But his interest in the Cubs has progressed to a point where the expectation is that he will leave. ...
There also is at least some chance that Epstein could come to an agreement with Henry to stay. But the Cubs represent an opportunity for him to move into a higher echelon within the game and affect more than just the roster. As team president of the Cubs, Epstein would have far-ranging power within that organization. ...
The Red Sox have put their search for a new manager on hold while waiting Epstein to make his decision.
29 comments:
Has anyone heard of trading the right to hire your GM for a player?
compensation ... "something real"
Starlin Castro, come on down!
Wait, even better.
John Lackey, get on out!
Aw shit. Right now I feel like I'd give up the whole team to have Tito back and get Theo to stay.
Coming soon... an announcement that the Red Sox have decided to build a dome over Fenway Park.
A source with knowledge of the talks told ESPN's Karl Ravech that the compensation would involve prospects and/or cash, but no major league players would be part of the deal, following traditional precedent.
That's from the Buster Olney piece on ESPN Boston. It would suck if the deal didn't include Castro.
ESPN Boston
laura k said...
Aw shit. Right now I feel like I'd give up the whole team to have Tito back and get Theo to stay.
You usually are not that sentimental.
Even LBJ, Laura? :)
I am feeling pretty down on the team also, especially after reading the latest piece by Bob Hohler in today's Globe. Not that it says anything new really, but it makes it clear that this team really lacked the chemistry and drive needed to make them winners. Say all you want about statistics---in the end, that 90+% chance of securing the wild card even in the last week of the season meant nothing, given the attitude of the players.
Frankly, I'd dump the whole team except for Pedroia and maybe Ellsbury after reading that article. The rest of them sound like assholes of the first degree.
It's times like this that makes me realize how irrational fan loyalty to a team is. If the players are assholes and ownership is also, then am I just rooting for them because they play in Boston?
I was waiting for someone to ask about LBJ :)
9C, I think it's the opposite of sentimental. I think Tito and Theo are the winningest people we have.
But maybe... it is sentimental, too. The end of an era.
Say all you want about statistics---in the end, that 90+% chance of securing the wild card even in the last week of the season meant nothing, given the attitude of the players.
Amy, you know better than that. Statistics aren't predictors of the future. The 10% (or the .0001%) can still happen. It still means what it means, no more, no less.
It's times like this that makes me realize how irrational fan loyalty to a team is. If the players are assholes and ownership is also, then am I just rooting for them because they play in Boston?
It's called "I root for the uniform". That's why we keep rooting for them as the names and faces change.
If it's irrational, then all loyalty is irrational. (Maybe it is?)
It seems like a joke to say it, but if there are a few of these players that are really, really a consequence of Theo's work, I don't see any reason for the Sox to not demand that the Cubs take Lackey or Crawford or both. Otherwise it allows Theo to just jump ship on his damage.
I disagree that all loyalty is irrational. I am loyal to my friends because they are good people who treat me well; if they didn't, I would not be their friend. I am loyal to my husband for the same reason. I am loyal to my employer because it is a good institution with good people.
Team loyalty seems entirely irrational. If it was based on reason, would anyone stay with one team for very long? Some of us did change our allegiances to our orignal team for any number of reasons, so it is not immutable, but it is hard to change. Not that I think I can change my loyalty to the Sox, but right now I am not feeling the love.
I am sure by April I will be rooting for the uniform, as you say.
My point about statistics was that people place too much weight on them, thinking that if statistics say the Sox have a 90% chance of winning, that means it is a solid bet that they will win. But luck, chemistry and drive can tend to reduce those odds to 50/50 in any given game, any given season. Statistics don't lie, but they also don't necessarily tell the truth. Or at least they cannot predict what the truth will be.
Lots of loyalty is irrational. Loyalty to teams that mostly lose, loyalty to abusive partners, children's loyalty to abusive parents, patriotism (loyalty to a piece of ground on which one was born), party loyalty in voting, to name a few examples.
Not that it says anything new really, but it makes it clear that this team really lacked the chemistry and drive needed to make them winners.
And pitching.
But luck, chemistry and drive can tend to reduce those odds to 50/50 in any given game, any given season.
And when your starters have an era over 7 for the last month, no chemistry is going to help, and you need a hell of a lot of luck.
I still don't get it. Obviously things inside the clubhouse need to change. But pointing to chemistry or luck when our starting staff the last month was horrific seems to be missing the forrest for the trees.
But pointing to chemistry or luck when our starting staff the last month was horrific seems to be missing the forrest for the trees.
Amen to that.
Winning creates chemistry, not the other way around.
It seems our pitching sucked because our starters were eating crap and drinking beer instead of exercising. They were pissing off the manager and their teammates. I call that lack of drive and chemistry. The talent is there, but not the desire to use it. I am seeing the forest quite clearly. Several times in September I commented on the fact that something was wrong with the conditioning of our pitchers. I blamed Curt Young, but I guess it was not his fault that our overindulged staff thought video games and beer mattered more than exercise and diet.
Someone pointed out that if the starters began letting themselves go late in 2010, as the Globe says, that may have been when it became known that John Farrell, who apparently ruled with an iron-fist, would be leaving the club.
The pitchers are to blame, but Curt Young is totally at fault for not correcting this. The team always has the upper-hand and could easily embarrass any asshole insubordinate pitchers.
Also, I know he'll likely be axed soon, BUT WHY IN THE FUCK IS TIM BOGAR STILL EMPLOYED????????????????
Lots of loyalty is irrational. Loyalty to teams that mostly lose, loyalty to abusive partners, children's loyalty to abusive parents, patriotism (loyalty to a piece of ground on which one was born), party loyalty in voting, to name a few examples.
Loyalty to a blog that banned you several years ago, but to one which you read religiously, and still attempt to post multiple comments a day even after your own team tripped on its solid-gold shoelaces and choked its way out of the ALDS (again).
"But the Cubs represent an opportunity for him to move into a higher echelon within the game and affect more than just the roster..."
I fail to see how the Cubs job is a higher echelon to the Sox.
Pete Abe has lost all creditability with me in 2011.
Loyalty to a blog that banned you several years ago, but to one which you read religiously...
Sounds like you must mean the notorious Jos-o-Mag!
Tito's problems: Splitting with your wife, under any circumstances, is a nightmare. One cannot concentrate completely; it's impossible; a part of you is broken or gone. Months and months pass before one even hopes to feel anything like previous-normal or whole and complete.
So, that couldn't have helped.
I fail to see how the Cubs job is a higher echelon to the Sox.
I assume that means simply having more responsibility. Being a team president, perhaps, rather than "only" the GM.
All of this just plain sucks.
Oh, and by the way, I hate Lackey!
John Lackey, get on out!
YES!!!!! ^^^THIS!!!!!^^^
Tim Bogar is still employed? What the fuck?
Screw truck day, I'm much rather looking forward to Tim Bogar Shitcan Day.
Farrell coming in now would've been perfect.
And re: Theo and the Cubs - guess they are viewing him as the WS-drought stoppah?
Beckett did same thing in Florida
McKeon told the Palm Beach Post yesterday that he locked the clubhouse door in 2003 to keep Beckett and fellow pitcher Brad Penny from escaping the dugout during games. He even resorted to issuing bathroom passes.
“In between innings, they’d go to the clubhouse to get a drink or hang out,’’ McKeon recalled. “I said, ‘Hey, I got no rule against going up if you have to go to the bathroom or something, but get back.’
“A couple of times I looked down the bench to talk to somebody and they weren’t there. They were in the clubhouse. So I went up and got them out and said, ‘OK, boys, that’s it. We’ll lock the door.’ ’’
McKeon said he literally had to chase Beckett out of the clubhouse with a bat.
Post a Comment