might as well have one of these too.
He hasn't changed ANYTHING yet!
Oh, RV...
Oh, TEC... (http://www.stripcreator.com/comics/TtoEtoC/529255)
Once Chuck posts the data he used to determine Friedman did a better job than Epstein of drafting & developing players, this will all be settled.
Quote from: R-V on October 13, 2011, 09:50:05 AM
Once Chuck posts the data he used to determine Friedman did a better job than Epstein of drafting & developing players, this will all be settled.
Don't forget, Chuck thinks the cubs need 2 GMs to run the club... one down, Friedman is next.
Quote from: R-V on October 13, 2011, 09:50:05 AM
Once Chuck posts the data he used to determine Friedman did a better job than Epstein of drafting & developing players, this will all be settled.
Epstein developed Jon Lester and Clay Bucholz and signed Josh Beckett and John Lackey.
Friedman developed Carl Crawford.
Carl Crawford was not implicated in the fried chicken, beer and video game scandal that sunk New England, so Friedman wins.
Quote from: Brownie on October 13, 2011, 09:56:50 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 13, 2011, 09:50:05 AM
Once Chuck posts the data he used to determine Friedman did a better job than Epstein of drafting & developing players, this will all be settled.
Epstein developed Jon Lester and Clay Bucholz and signed Josh Beckett and John Lackey.
Friedman developed Carl Crawford.
Carl Crawford was not implicated in the fried chicken, beer and video game scandal that sunk New England, so Friedman wins.
If only you meant this literally.
Quote from: Brownie on October 13, 2011, 09:56:50 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 13, 2011, 09:50:05 AM
Once Chuck posts the data he used to determine Friedman did a better job than Epstein of drafting & developing players, this will all be settled.
Epstein developed Jon Lester and Clay Bucholz and signed Josh Beckett and John Lackey.
Friedman developed Carl Crawford.
Carl Crawford was not implicated in the fried chicken, beer and video game scandal that sunk New England, so Friedman wins.
The Wade Boggs Scandal?
Quote from: BBM on October 13, 2011, 10:22:16 AM
Quote from: Brownie on October 13, 2011, 09:56:50 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 13, 2011, 09:50:05 AM
Once Chuck posts the data he used to determine Friedman did a better job than Epstein of drafting & developing players, this will all be settled.
Epstein developed Jon Lester and Clay Bucholz and signed Josh Beckett and John Lackey.
Friedman developed Carl Crawford.
Carl Crawford was not implicated in the fried chicken, beer and video game scandal that sunk New England, so Friedman wins.
The Wade Boggs Scandal?
(http://i.cdn.turner.com/si/multimedia/photo_gallery/1002/this.day.sports.history.feb26/images/boggs-adams.jpg)
Quote from: Brownie on October 13, 2011, 09:56:50 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 13, 2011, 09:50:05 AM
Once Chuck posts the data he used to determine Friedman did a better job than Epstein of drafting & developing players, this will all be settled.
Epstein developed Jon Lester and Clay Bucholz and Jacoby Ellsbury and Dustin Pedroia and signed Josh Beckett and John Lackey.
Friedman developed Carl Crawford.
Carl Crawford was not implicated in the fried chicken, beer and video game scandal that sunk New England, so Friedman wins.
Grittygutty'd.
Quote from: PenPho on October 13, 2011, 11:24:19 AM
Quote from: Brownie on October 13, 2011, 09:56:50 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 13, 2011, 09:50:05 AM
Once Chuck posts the data he used to determine Friedman did a better job than Epstein of drafting & developing players, this will all be settled.
Epstein developed Jon Lester and Clay Bucholz and Jacoby Ellsbury and Dustin Pedroia and signed Josh Beckett and John Lackey.
Friedman developed Carl Crawford.
Carl Crawford was not implicated in the fried chicken, beer and video game scandal that sunk New England, so Friedman wins.
Grittygutty'd.
I realize he was drafted the year before Epstein got there, but does Epstein get any credit for "developing" Kevin Youkilis?
Quote from: SKO on October 13, 2011, 11:43:19 AM
Quote from: PenPho on October 13, 2011, 11:24:19 AM
Quote from: Brownie on October 13, 2011, 09:56:50 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 13, 2011, 09:50:05 AM
Once Chuck posts the data he used to determine Friedman did a better job than Epstein of drafting & developing players, this will all be settled.
Epstein developed Jon Lester and Clay Bucholz and Jacoby Ellsbury and Dustin Pedroia and signed Josh Beckett and John Lackey.
Friedman developed Carl Crawford.
Carl Crawford was not implicated in the fried chicken, beer and video game scandal that sunk New England, so Friedman wins.
Grittygutty'd.
I realize he was drafted the year before Epstein got there, but does Epstein get any credit for "developing" Kevin Youkilis?
I'm pretty sure that GMs don't ever
develop players.
They just acquire them.
Unless you're talking about Hendry and Scott Servais.
Fuck this guy, he hasn't re-signed E-Ramis yet.
Quote from: PenPho on October 13, 2011, 11:47:26 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 13, 2011, 11:43:19 AM
Quote from: PenPho on October 13, 2011, 11:24:19 AM
Quote from: Brownie on October 13, 2011, 09:56:50 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 13, 2011, 09:50:05 AM
Once Chuck posts the data he used to determine Friedman did a better job than Epstein of drafting & developing players, this will all be settled.
Epstein developed Jon Lester and Clay Bucholz and Jacoby Ellsbury and Dustin Pedroia and signed Josh Beckett and John Lackey.
Friedman developed Carl Crawford.
Carl Crawford was not implicated in the fried chicken, beer and video game scandal that sunk New England, so Friedman wins.
Grittygutty'd.
I realize he was drafted the year before Epstein got there, but does Epstein get any credit for "developing" Kevin Youkilis?
I'm pretty sure that GMs don't ever develop players.
They just acquire them.
Unless you're talking about Hendry and Scott Servais.
Well, they also acquire the people that do develop the players, so they play a role.
Quote from: BH on October 13, 2011, 11:57:13 AM
Quote from: PenPho on October 13, 2011, 11:47:26 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 13, 2011, 11:43:19 AM
Quote from: PenPho on October 13, 2011, 11:24:19 AM
Quote from: Brownie on October 13, 2011, 09:56:50 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 13, 2011, 09:50:05 AM
Once Chuck posts the data he used to determine Friedman did a better job than Epstein of drafting & developing players, this will all be settled.
Epstein developed Jon Lester and Clay Bucholz and Jacoby Ellsbury and Dustin Pedroia and signed Josh Beckett and John Lackey.
Friedman developed Carl Crawford.
Carl Crawford was not implicated in the fried chicken, beer and video game scandal that sunk New England, so Friedman wins.
Grittygutty'd.
I realize he was drafted the year before Epstein got there, but does Epstein get any credit for "developing" Kevin Youkilis?
I'm pretty sure that GMs don't ever develop players.
They just acquire them.
Unless you're talking about Hendry and Scott Servais.
Well, they also acquire the people that do develop the players, so they play a role.
Like Rudy Jaramillo?
Quote from: PenPho on October 13, 2011, 11:58:29 AM
Quote from: BH on October 13, 2011, 11:57:13 AM
Quote from: PenPho on October 13, 2011, 11:47:26 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 13, 2011, 11:43:19 AM
Quote from: PenPho on October 13, 2011, 11:24:19 AM
Quote from: Brownie on October 13, 2011, 09:56:50 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 13, 2011, 09:50:05 AM
Once Chuck posts the data he used to determine Friedman did a better job than Epstein of drafting & developing players, this will all be settled.
Epstein developed Jon Lester and Clay Bucholz and Jacoby Ellsbury and Dustin Pedroia and signed Josh Beckett and John Lackey.
Friedman developed Carl Crawford.
Carl Crawford was not implicated in the fried chicken, beer and video game scandal that sunk New England, so Friedman wins.
Grittygutty'd.
I realize he was drafted the year before Epstein got there, but does Epstein get any credit for "developing" Kevin Youkilis?
I'm pretty sure that GMs don't ever develop players.
They just acquire them.
Unless you're talking about Hendry and Scott Servais.
Well, they also acquire the people that do develop the players, so they play a role.
Like Rudy Jaramillo?
Rudy's also a minor league coach/instructor? The guy can do it all.
Quote from: BH on October 13, 2011, 12:01:59 PM
Quote from: PenPho on October 13, 2011, 11:58:29 AM
Quote from: BH on October 13, 2011, 11:57:13 AM
Quote from: PenPho on October 13, 2011, 11:47:26 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 13, 2011, 11:43:19 AM
Quote from: PenPho on October 13, 2011, 11:24:19 AM
Quote from: Brownie on October 13, 2011, 09:56:50 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 13, 2011, 09:50:05 AM
Once Chuck posts the data he used to determine Friedman did a better job than Epstein of drafting & developing players, this will all be settled.
Epstein developed Jon Lester and Clay Bucholz and Jacoby Ellsbury and Dustin Pedroia and signed Josh Beckett and John Lackey.
Friedman developed Carl Crawford.
Carl Crawford was not implicated in the fried chicken, beer and video game scandal that sunk New England, so Friedman wins.
Grittygutty'd.
I realize he was drafted the year before Epstein got there, but does Epstein get any credit for "developing" Kevin Youkilis?
I'm pretty sure that GMs don't ever develop players.
They just acquire them.
Unless you're talking about Hendry and Scott Servais.
Well, they also acquire the people that do develop the players, so they play a role.
Like Rudy Jaramillo?
Rudy's also a minor league coach/instructor? The guy can do it all.
The minor leagues is just a bunch of players playing pickup ball all summer. There aren't any coaches or routines or anything like that.
Quote from: BH on October 13, 2011, 12:01:59 PM
Quote from: PenPho on October 13, 2011, 11:58:29 AM
Quote from: BH on October 13, 2011, 11:57:13 AM
Quote from: PenPho on October 13, 2011, 11:47:26 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 13, 2011, 11:43:19 AM
Quote from: PenPho on October 13, 2011, 11:24:19 AM
Quote from: Brownie on October 13, 2011, 09:56:50 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 13, 2011, 09:50:05 AM
Once Chuck posts the data he used to determine Friedman did a better job than Epstein of drafting & developing players, this will all be settled.
Epstein developed Jon Lester and Clay Bucholz and Jacoby Ellsbury and Dustin Pedroia and signed Josh Beckett and John Lackey.
Friedman developed Carl Crawford.
Carl Crawford was not implicated in the fried chicken, beer and video game scandal that sunk New England, so Friedman wins.
Grittygutty'd.
I realize he was drafted the year before Epstein got there, but does Epstein get any credit for "developing" Kevin Youkilis?
I'm pretty sure that GMs don't ever develop players.
They just acquire them.
Unless you're talking about Hendry and Scott Servais.
Well, they also acquire the people that do develop the players, so they play a role.
Like Rudy Jaramillo?
Rudy's also a minor league coach/instructor? The guy can do it all.
Development stops once players get to the pros?
Maybe that's why the organization has been so shitty.
Quote from: PenPho on October 13, 2011, 01:24:10 PM
Quote from: BH on October 13, 2011, 12:01:59 PM
Quote from: PenPho on October 13, 2011, 11:58:29 AM
Quote from: BH on October 13, 2011, 11:57:13 AM
Quote from: PenPho on October 13, 2011, 11:47:26 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 13, 2011, 11:43:19 AM
Quote from: PenPho on October 13, 2011, 11:24:19 AM
Quote from: Brownie on October 13, 2011, 09:56:50 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 13, 2011, 09:50:05 AM
Once Chuck posts the data he used to determine Friedman did a better job than Epstein of drafting & developing players, this will all be settled.
Epstein developed Jon Lester and Clay Bucholz and Jacoby Ellsbury and Dustin Pedroia and signed Josh Beckett and John Lackey.
Friedman developed Carl Crawford.
Carl Crawford was not implicated in the fried chicken, beer and video game scandal that sunk New England, so Friedman wins.
Grittygutty'd.
I realize he was drafted the year before Epstein got there, but does Epstein get any credit for "developing" Kevin Youkilis?
I'm pretty sure that GMs don't ever develop players.
They just acquire them.
Unless you're talking about Hendry and Scott Servais.
Well, they also acquire the people that do develop the players, so they play a role.
Like Rudy Jaramillo?
Rudy's also a minor league coach/instructor? The guy can do it all.
Development stops once players get to the pros?
Maybe that's why the organization has been so shitty.
I'll be honest, I have no idea what point you're trying to make.
Having a GM with a philosophy that he has his guys implement throughout the minors is far more important that giving a player to a major league hitting coach and asking that hitting coach to straighten out years of bad habits. The part in bold is how a GM "develops" a player.
Quote from: BH on October 13, 2011, 01:39:52 PM
Quote from: PenPho on October 13, 2011, 01:24:10 PM
Quote from: BH on October 13, 2011, 12:01:59 PM
Quote from: PenPho on October 13, 2011, 11:58:29 AM
Quote from: BH on October 13, 2011, 11:57:13 AM
Quote from: PenPho on October 13, 2011, 11:47:26 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 13, 2011, 11:43:19 AM
Quote from: PenPho on October 13, 2011, 11:24:19 AM
Quote from: Brownie on October 13, 2011, 09:56:50 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 13, 2011, 09:50:05 AM
Once Chuck posts the data he used to determine Friedman did a better job than Epstein of drafting & developing players, this will all be settled.
Epstein developed Jon Lester and Clay Bucholz and Jacoby Ellsbury and Dustin Pedroia and signed Josh Beckett and John Lackey.
Friedman developed Carl Crawford.
Carl Crawford was not implicated in the fried chicken, beer and video game scandal that sunk New England, so Friedman wins.
Grittygutty'd.
I realize he was drafted the year before Epstein got there, but does Epstein get any credit for "developing" Kevin Youkilis?
I'm pretty sure that GMs don't ever develop players.
They just acquire them.
Unless you're talking about Hendry and Scott Servais.
Well, they also acquire the people that do develop the players, so they play a role.
Like Rudy Jaramillo?
Rudy's also a minor league coach/instructor? The guy can do it all.
Development stops once players get to the pros?
Maybe that's why the organization has been so shitty.
I'll be honest, I have no idea what point you're trying to make.
Having a GM with a philosophy that he has his guys implement throughout the minors is far more important that giving a player to a major league hitting coach and asking that hitting coach to straighten out years of bad habits. The part in bold is how a GM "develops" a player.
Something along the lines of this? (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1190632/7/index.htm)
QuoteBack 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."
Quote from: BH on October 13, 2011, 01:39:52 PM
Quote from: PenPho on October 13, 2011, 01:24:10 PM
Quote from: BH on October 13, 2011, 12:01:59 PM
Quote from: PenPho on October 13, 2011, 11:58:29 AM
Quote from: BH on October 13, 2011, 11:57:13 AM
Quote from: PenPho on October 13, 2011, 11:47:26 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 13, 2011, 11:43:19 AM
Quote from: PenPho on October 13, 2011, 11:24:19 AM
Quote from: Brownie on October 13, 2011, 09:56:50 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 13, 2011, 09:50:05 AM
Once Chuck posts the data he used to determine Friedman did a better job than Epstein of drafting & developing players, this will all be settled.
Epstein developed Jon Lester and Clay Bucholz and Jacoby Ellsbury and Dustin Pedroia and signed Josh Beckett and John Lackey.
Friedman developed Carl Crawford.
Carl Crawford was not implicated in the fried chicken, beer and video game scandal that sunk New England, so Friedman wins.
Grittygutty'd.
I realize he was drafted the year before Epstein got there, but does Epstein get any credit for "developing" Kevin Youkilis?
I'm pretty sure that GMs don't ever develop players.
They just acquire them.
Unless you're talking about Hendry and Scott Servais.
Well, they also acquire the people that do develop the players, so they play a role.
Like Rudy Jaramillo?
Rudy's also a minor league coach/instructor? The guy can do it all.
Development stops once players get to the pros?
Maybe that's why the organization has been so shitty.
I'll be honest, I have no idea what point you're trying to make.
Having a GM with a philosophy that he has his guys implement throughout the minors is far more important that giving a player to a major league hitting coach and asking that hitting coach to straighten out years of bad habits. The part in bold is how a GM "develops" a player.
That.
Relatedly, from an interesting internet Q&A with Theo from back in 2003...
http://bostondirtdogs.com/2003/theo_chat_2.6.03.html
QuoteIt starts with the draft. We are committed to finding the best available talent every year (sorry, I know that means nothing, but I have to say it... it's in the GM manual). In general, we look for low-risk, high-reward players. We make no secret about our belief that college players represent lower risks than high school players while offering comparable rewards. That said, we will not shy away from taking the right high school players, especially position players, in the appropriate round. In general, we want college players with tools, but we also want to find the college players who have good make-ups and those who have track records of consistent quality performance.
In an ideal world, we would love middle-of-the-diamond athletes who have plate discipline and power as well as power pitchers with pitchability, command and clean arm action. Usually, these players are only available at the top of the draft. As the draft develops, we make judgment calls, balancing tools, track records, projectability, makeup and signability. I shouldn't go into further detail, except to say that we have a game plan and we know what we're looking for. All of our scouts came to Boston for our organizational meetings in December and we developed a game-plan, a philosophy on how we were going to scout and how we were going to attack the draft. Now it's just a matter of doing it. We were disciplined this off-season and are thrilled to have four picks in the first 54. If we draft well, two or three of our top college picks could be at AA as soon as 2004, making a real impact on our system.
Their second pick in 2003 (32nd overall, a supplemental first rounder) (http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/draftday/search.jsp?sc=team&sp=bos): Matthew Murton of Georgia Tech.
They went on to take Papelbon with their sixth pick (114th overall).
Meanwhile... RYAN HARVEY! JAY KVOX! CASEY MCGEHEE! (http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/draftday/search.jsp?sc=team&sp=chn) So many wrongs to right.
QuoteWith our emphasis on college players in the draft, we will rely on our international program to supply the best 17-year-old talent available... and lots of it. There is so much talent concentrated in the Dominican Republic and Venezuela that it is possible to get both quantity and quality at a reasonable price. (Scouting 17-year-olds is fairly imprecise, so volume is important). If you sign enough promising players, you'll find a Hanley Ramirez for $22,000 or a Denny Tussen for $16,000 or a Juan Cedeno for $30,000. We also will pursue the higher profile players when appropriate (Aneudis Mateo for $400,000), but our emphasis will be on signing lots of promising players to turn over to development. We will also pursue the right talent in other markets, including Asia, although our focus is in Latin America.
I should make another quick point. When we talk about risk-aversion and prudent spending and $22,000 investments instead of $2,200,000 investments, the point isn't to be cheap or pocket the money. The point is to produce players and get value for our dollars where we can, so that when it's time to let it fly for the big investment at the top of the draft or the high-profile international stud, we have the money available. We spend a lot of money on the draft and a lot of money internationally, but it only works if you make wise investments. If you draft high-risk players year-in and year-out or throw all your international money into one multi-million dollar signing, the results usually are not good. For us, the preferred approach is to focus on the best talent and the best investments to get the most out of our considerable resources, allowing us to go "all in" when the right opportunity presents itself. This is our approach to talent acquisition and we are committed to it.
I'm running low on time, so I'll be more general with respect to player development. All I will say is that we finally have an organizational philosophy -- a Red Sox way of doing things -- and, after a major overhaul of the field staff, we finally have the right people in place for implementation. I'll protect the company secrets, but I think it's well known that we care a lot about the strike zone, both for hitters and pitchers. One of the keys to unlocking a player's potential is helping him to control the strike zone. We will work long and hard to get the best out our minor league players and turn out as many prospects as possible. We will be not be afraid to try new methods, nor will we abandon proven methods. If there's someone out there who will help us develop a player, we will hire him. If there's something out there that will help us develop a player, we will buy it. Period. It's that important.
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 13, 2011, 02:22:27 PM
QuoteWith our emphasis on college players in the draft, we will rely on our international program to supply the best 17-year-old talent available... and lots of it. There is so much talent concentrated in the Dominican Republic and Venezuela that it is possible to get both quantity and quality at a reasonable price. (Scouting 17-year-olds is fairly imprecise, so volume is important). If you sign enough promising players, you'll find a Hanley Ramirez for $22,000 or a Denny Tussen for $16,000 or a Juan Cedeno for $30,000. We also will pursue the higher profile players when appropriate (Aneudis Mateo for $400,000), but our emphasis will be on signing lots of promising players to turn over to development. We will also pursue the right talent in other markets, including Asia, although our focus is in Latin America.
I should make another quick point. When we talk about risk-aversion and prudent spending and $22,000 investments instead of $2,200,000 investments, the point isn't to be cheap or pocket the money. The point is to produce players and get value for our dollars where we can, so that when it's time to let it fly for the big investment at the top of the draft or the high-profile international stud, we have the money available. We spend a lot of money on the draft and a lot of money internationally, but it only works if you make wise investments. If you draft high-risk players year-in and year-out or throw all your international money into one multi-million dollar signing, the results usually are not good. For us, the preferred approach is to focus on the best talent and the best investments to get the most out of our considerable resources, allowing us to go "all in" when the right opportunity presents itself. This is our approach to talent acquisition and we are committed to it.
I'm running low on time, so I'll be more general with respect to player development. All I will say is that we finally have an organizational philosophy -- a Red Sox way of doing things -- and, after a major overhaul of the field staff, we finally have the right people in place for implementation. I'll protect the company secrets, but I think it's well known that we care a lot about the strike zone, both for hitters and pitchers. One of the keys to unlocking a player's potential is helping him to control the strike zone. We will work long and hard to get the best out our minor league players and turn out as many prospects as possible. We will be not be afraid to try new methods, nor will we abandon proven methods. If there's someone out there who will help us develop a player, we will hire him. If there's something out there that will help us develop a player, we will buy it. Period. It's that important.
This is going to be fun.
Quote from: Eli on October 13, 2011, 02:31:26 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 13, 2011, 02:22:27 PM
QuoteWith our emphasis on college players in the draft, we will rely on our international program to supply the best 17-year-old talent available... and lots of it. There is so much talent concentrated in the Dominican Republic and Venezuela that it is possible to get both quantity and quality at a reasonable price. (Scouting 17-year-olds is fairly imprecise, so volume is important). If you sign enough promising players, you'll find a Hanley Ramirez for $22,000 or a Denny Tussen for $16,000 or a Juan Cedeno for $30,000. We also will pursue the higher profile players when appropriate (Aneudis Mateo for $400,000), but our emphasis will be on signing lots of promising players to turn over to development. We will also pursue the right talent in other markets, including Asia, although our focus is in Latin America.
I should make another quick point. When we talk about risk-aversion and prudent spending and $22,000 investments instead of $2,200,000 investments, the point isn't to be cheap or pocket the money. The point is to produce players and get value for our dollars where we can, so that when it's time to let it fly for the big investment at the top of the draft or the high-profile international stud, we have the money available. We spend a lot of money on the draft and a lot of money internationally, but it only works if you make wise investments. If you draft high-risk players year-in and year-out or throw all your international money into one multi-million dollar signing, the results usually are not good. For us, the preferred approach is to focus on the best talent and the best investments to get the most out of our considerable resources, allowing us to go "all in" when the right opportunity presents itself. This is our approach to talent acquisition and we are committed to it.
I'm running low on time, so I'll be more general with respect to player development. All I will say is that we finally have an organizational philosophy -- a Red Sox way of doing things -- and, after a major overhaul of the field staff, we finally have the right people in place for implementation. I'll protect the company secrets, but I think it's well known that we care a lot about the strike zone, both for hitters and pitchers. One of the keys to unlocking a player's potential is helping him to control the strike zone. We will work long and hard to get the best out our minor league players and turn out as many prospects as possible. We will be not be afraid to try new methods, nor will we abandon proven methods. If there's someone out there who will help us develop a player, we will hire him. If there's something out there that will help us develop a player, we will buy it. Period. It's that important.
This is going to be fun.
I want the contract for cleaning up the bits of exploded brain on office walls throughout all the levels of the Cubs organization.
Relatedly, from an interesting internet Q&A with Oneri from back in 2007...
http://mlb-rumors.blogspot.com/2007/09/interview-with-oneri-fleita.html
QuoteELI: What are the main things you look for when scouting a player?
ONERI: For pitchers, they have got to have a loose arm. More importantly though, they need to be able to throw a fastball for strikes. Personally, I like guys that throw a good curveball because I believe you can't learn how to throw a curveball, you are born to throw a curveball.
QuoteELI: In your opinion, what is the most important trait a ballplayer needs to be successful?
ONERI: They need to be athletic, have a good makeup. They also need to be tough, and coach able. You may have the ability to make it to the pros, but to stay, you need to tough, coach able, and athletic.
QuoteELI: Who would you say is the best pitching prospect and best hitting prospect AAA and below?
ONERI: Oh, that is a good question-Hmm. That is tough. I'd have to say for pitching it is Jeff Samardzija. He pitches in the upper ninties with good sink action. Has a great curveball and is very durable and athletic. For best hitter, it has to be Tyler Colvin. He has proved that he can hit at all the levels, especially when it counts. He now has even more playoff experience and is very athletic for an outfielder.
Quote from: BH on October 13, 2011, 11:57:13 AM
Quote from: PenPho on October 13, 2011, 11:47:26 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 13, 2011, 11:43:19 AM
Quote from: PenPho on October 13, 2011, 11:24:19 AM
Quote from: Brownie on October 13, 2011, 09:56:50 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 13, 2011, 09:50:05 AM
Once Chuck posts the data he used to determine Friedman did a better job than Epstein of drafting & developing players, this will all be settled.
Epstein developed Jon Lester and Clay Bucholz and Jacoby Ellsbury and Dustin Pedroia and signed Josh Beckett and John Lackey.
Friedman developed Carl Crawford.
Carl Crawford was not implicated in the fried chicken, beer and video game scandal that sunk New England, so Friedman wins.
Grittygutty'd.
I realize he was drafted the year before Epstein got there, but does Epstein get any credit for "developing" Kevin Youkilis?
I'm pretty sure that GMs don't ever develop players.
They just acquire them.
Unless you're talking about Hendry and Scott Servais.
Well, they also acquire the people that do develop the players, so they play a role.
The GM also executes the organization's overall philosophy. Where a team like the Yankees place less emphasis on player development, figuring whatever they need can be adressed through free agency (or pending free agency for deadline deals), a team like the Cubs would probably be better served through more of a development of players though (one can only hope) a farm system where all coaches and managers are playing off the same sheet of music.
Quote from: Fork on October 13, 2011, 02:47:39 PM
Quote from: BH on October 13, 2011, 11:57:13 AM
Quote from: PenPho on October 13, 2011, 11:47:26 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 13, 2011, 11:43:19 AM
Quote from: PenPho on October 13, 2011, 11:24:19 AM
Quote from: Brownie on October 13, 2011, 09:56:50 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 13, 2011, 09:50:05 AM
Once Chuck posts the data he used to determine Friedman did a better job than Epstein of drafting & developing players, this will all be settled.
Epstein developed Jon Lester and Clay Bucholz and Jacoby Ellsbury and Dustin Pedroia and signed Josh Beckett and John Lackey.
Friedman developed Carl Crawford.
Carl Crawford was not implicated in the fried chicken, beer and video game scandal that sunk New England, so Friedman wins.
Grittygutty'd.
I realize he was drafted the year before Epstein got there, but does Epstein get any credit for "developing" Kevin Youkilis?
I'm pretty sure that GMs don't ever develop players.
They just acquire them.
Unless you're talking about Hendry and Scott Servais.
Well, they also acquire the people that do develop the players, so they play a role.
The GM also executes the organization's overall philosophy. Where a team like the Yankees place less emphasis on player development, figuring whatever they need can be adressed through free agency (or pending free agency for deadline deals), a team like the Cubs would probably be better served through more of a development of players though (one can only hope) a farm system where all coaches and managers are playing off the same sheet of music.
Thanks, Fork. Someone really should have pointed this out sooner (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7940.msg246688#msg246688).
Quote from: Fork on October 13, 2011, 02:47:39 PM
Quote from: BH on October 13, 2011, 11:57:13 AM
Quote from: PenPho on October 13, 2011, 11:47:26 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 13, 2011, 11:43:19 AM
Quote from: PenPho on October 13, 2011, 11:24:19 AM
Quote from: Brownie on October 13, 2011, 09:56:50 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 13, 2011, 09:50:05 AM
Once Chuck posts the data he used to determine Friedman did a better job than Epstein of drafting & developing players, this will all be settled.
Epstein developed Jon Lester and Clay Bucholz and Jacoby Ellsbury and Dustin Pedroia and signed Josh Beckett and John Lackey.
Friedman developed Carl Crawford.
Carl Crawford was not implicated in the fried chicken, beer and video game scandal that sunk New England, so Friedman wins.
Grittygutty'd.
I realize he was drafted the year before Epstein got there, but does Epstein get any credit for "developing" Kevin Youkilis?
I'm pretty sure that GMs don't ever develop players.
They just acquire them.
Unless you're talking about Hendry and Scott Servais.
Well, they also acquire the people that do develop the players, so they play a role.
The GM also executes the organization's overall philosophy. Where a team like the Yankees place less emphasis on player development, figuring whatever they need can be adressed through free agency (or pending free agency for deadline deals), a team like the Cubs would probably be better served through more of a development of players though (one can only hope) a farm system where all coaches and managers are playing off the same sheet of music.
That's not accurate, the Yankees focus on both player development and getting the best FAs.
Quote from: BH on October 13, 2011, 02:55:19 PM
Quote from: Fork on October 13, 2011, 02:47:39 PM
Quote from: BH on October 13, 2011, 11:57:13 AM
Quote from: PenPho on October 13, 2011, 11:47:26 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 13, 2011, 11:43:19 AM
Quote from: PenPho on October 13, 2011, 11:24:19 AM
Quote from: Brownie on October 13, 2011, 09:56:50 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 13, 2011, 09:50:05 AM
Once Chuck posts the data he used to determine Friedman did a better job than Epstein of drafting & developing players, this will all be settled.
Epstein developed Jon Lester and Clay Bucholz and Jacoby Ellsbury and Dustin Pedroia and signed Josh Beckett and John Lackey.
Friedman developed Carl Crawford.
Carl Crawford was not implicated in the fried chicken, beer and video game scandal that sunk New England, so Friedman wins.
Grittygutty'd.
I realize he was drafted the year before Epstein got there, but does Epstein get any credit for "developing" Kevin Youkilis?
I'm pretty sure that GMs don't ever develop players.
They just acquire them.
Unless you're talking about Hendry and Scott Servais.
Well, they also acquire the people that do develop the players, so they play a role.
The GM also executes the organization's overall philosophy. Where a team like the Yankees place less emphasis on player development, figuring whatever they need can be adressed through free agency (or pending free agency for deadline deals), a team like the Cubs would probably be better served through more of a development of players though (one can only hope) a farm system where all coaches and managers are playing off the same sheet of music.
That's not accurate, the Yankees focus on both player development and getting the best FAs.
They prolly don't win 4 titles between 1996 and 2000 without the homegrown nucelus of Derek Jeter, Bernie Williams, Mariano Rivera, Andy Pettite, and Jorge Posada. Sure, having a cagey veteran like Paul O'Neill and adding guys like Fat Cecil et.al down the stretch may have been equally important, but you can say that about any team. The point remains that this was a legitmaite home-grown base from which they launched all those pennants. They've been more of a fantasy team since 2000 (adding guys like Matsui, Giambi, Sabathia etc.) and have zero titles.
Quote from: PANK! on October 13, 2011, 03:00:50 PM
Quote from: BH on October 13, 2011, 02:55:19 PM
Quote from: Fork on October 13, 2011, 02:47:39 PM
Quote from: BH on October 13, 2011, 11:57:13 AM
Quote from: PenPho on October 13, 2011, 11:47:26 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 13, 2011, 11:43:19 AM
Quote from: PenPho on October 13, 2011, 11:24:19 AM
Quote from: Brownie on October 13, 2011, 09:56:50 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 13, 2011, 09:50:05 AM
Once Chuck posts the data he used to determine Friedman did a better job than Epstein of drafting & developing players, this will all be settled.
Epstein developed Jon Lester and Clay Bucholz and Jacoby Ellsbury and Dustin Pedroia and signed Josh Beckett and John Lackey.
Friedman developed Carl Crawford.
Carl Crawford was not implicated in the fried chicken, beer and video game scandal that sunk New England, so Friedman wins.
Grittygutty'd.
I realize he was drafted the year before Epstein got there, but does Epstein get any credit for "developing" Kevin Youkilis?
I'm pretty sure that GMs don't ever develop players.
They just acquire them.
Unless you're talking about Hendry and Scott Servais.
Well, they also acquire the people that do develop the players, so they play a role.
The GM also executes the organization's overall philosophy. Where a team like the Yankees place less emphasis on player development, figuring whatever they need can be adressed through free agency (or pending free agency for deadline deals), a team like the Cubs would probably be better served through more of a development of players though (one can only hope) a farm system where all coaches and managers are playing off the same sheet of music.
That's not accurate, the Yankees focus on both player development and getting the best FAs.
They prolly don't win 4 titles between 1996 and 2000 without the homegrown nucelus of Derek Jeter, Bernie Williams, Mariano Rivera, Andy Pettite, and Jorge Posada. Sure, having a cagey veteran like Paul O'Neill and adding guys like Fat Cecil et.al down the stretch may have been equally important, but you can say that about any team. The point remains that this was a legitmaite home-grown base from which they launched all those pennants. They've been more of a fantasy team since 2000 (adding guys like Matsui, Giambi, Sabathia etc.) and have zero titles.
The yankees have the 4th (http://www.aolnews.com/2011/02/10/2011-farm-system-rankings/)best farm system.
Apparently the 2009 Yankees don't count.
Quote from: Bort on October 13, 2011, 03:31:51 PM
Apparently the 2009 Yankees don't count.
So, a brief recap of what just happened.
Fork: Time to post!
Fork: The Yankees don't care about player development.
BH: They have the 4th best farm system in baseball.
Fork: Well, the system isn't as good as it used to be, which is why they haven't won any titles since 2000.
Jon: Except for 2009.
And ... scene?
Quote from: Eli on October 13, 2011, 03:41:44 PM
Quote from: Bort on October 13, 2011, 03:31:51 PM
Apparently the 2009 Yankees don't count.
So, a brief recap of what just happened.
Fork: Time to post!
Fork: The Yankees don't care about player development.
BH: They have the 4th base farm system in baseball.
Fork: Well, the system isn't as good as it used to be, which is why they haven't won any titles since 2000.
Jon: Except for 2009.
And ... scene?
Do you have an infographic that might better depict this?
Quote from: PenPho on October 13, 2011, 03:42:30 PM
Do you have an infographic that might better depict this?
Sure.
(http://i56.tinypic.com/5d71a0.jpg)
And speaking of being wrong, I just realized I incorrectly attributed Mike D's "no titles since 2000" statement to Fork.
So, nevermind. I'm the idiot.
Quote from: Eli on October 13, 2011, 03:41:44 PM
Quote from: Bort on October 13, 2011, 03:31:51 PM
Apparently the 2009 Yankees don't count.
So, a brief recap of what just happened.
Fork: Time to post!
Fork: The Yankees don't care about player development.
BH: They have the 4th best farm system in baseball.
Fork Huey: Well, the system isn't as good as it used to be, which is why they haven't won any titles since 2000.
Jon: Except for 2009.
And ... scene?
Your forgetting Huey's contributions.
Quote from: Eli on October 13, 2011, 03:56:15 PM
And speaking of being wrong, I just realized I incorrectly attributed Mike D's "no titles since 2000" statement to Fork.
So, nevermind. I'm the idiot.
Yeah, thanks alot.
Also, I stopped watching baseball after about the 5th inning of Game 3 of the 2008 NLDS, so I don't know nothin' about the Yankees winning the World Series in 2009.
Quote from: BH on October 13, 2011, 03:56:49 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 13, 2011, 03:41:44 PM
Quote from: Bort on October 13, 2011, 03:31:51 PM
Apparently the 2009 Yankees don't count.
So, a brief recap of what just happened.
Fork: Time to post!
Fork: The Yankees don't care about player development.
BH: They have the 4th best farm system in baseball.
Fork Huey: Well, the system isn't as good as it used to be, which is why they haven't won any titles since 2000.
Jon: Except for 2009.
And ... scene?
You're forgetting Huey's contributions.
Since we're making corrections and all...
Quote from: PANK! on October 13, 2011, 04:15:06 PM
Quote from: BH on October 13, 2011, 03:56:49 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 13, 2011, 03:41:44 PM
Quote from: Bort on October 13, 2011, 03:31:51 PM
Apparently the 2009 Yankees don't count.
So, a brief recap of what just happened.
Fork: Time to post!
Fork: The Yankees don't care about player development.
BH: They have the 4th best farm system in baseball.
Fork Huey: Well, the system isn't as good as it used to be, which is why they haven't won any titles since 2000.
Jon: Except for 2009.
And ... scene?
You're forgetting Huey's contributions.
Since we're making corrections and all...
Irregardless, it's nice to talk about baseball for a change.
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 13, 2011, 02:06:04 PM
Quote from: BH on October 13, 2011, 01:39:52 PM
Quote from: PenPho on October 13, 2011, 01:24:10 PM
Quote from: BH on October 13, 2011, 12:01:59 PM
Quote from: PenPho on October 13, 2011, 11:58:29 AM
Quote from: BH on October 13, 2011, 11:57:13 AM
Quote from: PenPho on October 13, 2011, 11:47:26 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 13, 2011, 11:43:19 AM
Quote from: PenPho on October 13, 2011, 11:24:19 AM
Quote from: Brownie on October 13, 2011, 09:56:50 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 13, 2011, 09:50:05 AM
Once Chuck posts the data he used to determine Friedman did a better job than Epstein of drafting & developing players, this will all be settled.
Epstein developed Jon Lester and Clay Bucholz and Jacoby Ellsbury and Dustin Pedroia and signed Josh Beckett and John Lackey.
Friedman developed Carl Crawford.
Carl Crawford was not implicated in the fried chicken, beer and video game scandal that sunk New England, so Friedman wins.
Grittygutty'd.
I realize he was drafted the year before Epstein got there, but does Epstein get any credit for "developing" Kevin Youkilis?
I'm pretty sure that GMs don't ever develop players.
They just acquire them.
Unless you're talking about Hendry and Scott Servais.
Well, they also acquire the people that do develop the players, so they play a role.
Like Rudy Jaramillo?
Rudy's also a minor league coach/instructor? The guy can do it all.
Development stops once players get to the pros?
Maybe that's why the organization has been so shitty.
I'll be honest, I have no idea what point you're trying to make.
Having a GM with a philosophy that he has his guys implement throughout the minors is far more important that giving a player to a major league hitting coach and asking that hitting coach to straighten out years of bad habits. The part in bold is how a GM "develops" a player.
Something along the lines of this? (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1190632/7/index.htm)
QuoteBack 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."
Thanks for posting that article, outstanding stuff. I'd probably let Theo put the tip in.
Quote from: R-V on October 13, 2011, 05:04:15 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 13, 2011, 02:06:04 PM
Quote from: BH on October 13, 2011, 01:39:52 PM
Quote from: PenPho on October 13, 2011, 01:24:10 PM
Quote from: BH on October 13, 2011, 12:01:59 PM
Quote from: PenPho on October 13, 2011, 11:58:29 AM
Quote from: BH on October 13, 2011, 11:57:13 AM
Quote from: PenPho on October 13, 2011, 11:47:26 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 13, 2011, 11:43:19 AM
Quote from: PenPho on October 13, 2011, 11:24:19 AM
Quote from: Brownie on October 13, 2011, 09:56:50 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 13, 2011, 09:50:05 AM
Once Chuck posts the data he used to determine Friedman did a better job than Epstein of drafting & developing players, this will all be settled.
Epstein developed Jon Lester and Clay Bucholz and Jacoby Ellsbury and Dustin Pedroia and signed Josh Beckett and John Lackey.
Friedman developed Carl Crawford.
Carl Crawford was not implicated in the fried chicken, beer and video game scandal that sunk New England, so Friedman wins.
Grittygutty'd.
I realize he was drafted the year before Epstein got there, but does Epstein get any credit for "developing" Kevin Youkilis?
I'm pretty sure that GMs don't ever develop players.
They just acquire them.
Unless you're talking about Hendry and Scott Servais.
Well, they also acquire the people that do develop the players, so they play a role.
Like Rudy Jaramillo?
Rudy's also a minor league coach/instructor? The guy can do it all.
Development stops once players get to the pros?
Maybe that's why the organization has been so shitty.
I'll be honest, I have no idea what point you're trying to make.
Having a GM with a philosophy that he has his guys implement throughout the minors is far more important that giving a player to a major league hitting coach and asking that hitting coach to straighten out years of bad habits. The part in bold is how a GM "develops" a player.
Something along the lines of this? (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1190632/7/index.htm)
QuoteBack 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."
Thanks for posting that article, outstanding stuff. I'd probably let Theo put the tip in.
Bonus quote for Pex:
QuoteThe advantage of the early adopters is gone. In his first winter as G.M., for instance, Epstein was able to scoop up Kevin Millar, Bill Mueller, David Ortiz, Todd Walker and Jeremy Giambi on the cheap because he understood that on-base percentage was a far better tool to evaluate a hitter than batting average, which was still the industry standard for rating—and paying—players.
Quote from: R-V on October 13, 2011, 05:04:15 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 13, 2011, 02:06:04 PM
Quote from: BH on October 13, 2011, 01:39:52 PM
Quote from: PenPho on October 13, 2011, 01:24:10 PM
Quote from: BH on October 13, 2011, 12:01:59 PM
Quote from: PenPho on October 13, 2011, 11:58:29 AM
Quote from: BH on October 13, 2011, 11:57:13 AM
Quote from: PenPho on October 13, 2011, 11:47:26 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 13, 2011, 11:43:19 AM
Quote from: PenPho on October 13, 2011, 11:24:19 AM
Quote from: Brownie on October 13, 2011, 09:56:50 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 13, 2011, 09:50:05 AM
Once Chuck posts the data he used to determine Friedman did a better job than Epstein of drafting & developing players, this will all be settled.
Epstein developed Jon Lester and Clay Bucholz and Jacoby Ellsbury and Dustin Pedroia and signed Josh Beckett and John Lackey.
Friedman developed Carl Crawford.
Carl Crawford was not implicated in the fried chicken, beer and video game scandal that sunk New England, so Friedman wins.
Grittygutty'd.
I realize he was drafted the year before Epstein got there, but does Epstein get any credit for "developing" Kevin Youkilis?
I'm pretty sure that GMs don't ever develop players.
They just acquire them.
Unless you're talking about Hendry and Scott Servais.
Well, they also acquire the people that do develop the players, so they play a role.
Like Rudy Jaramillo?
Rudy's also a minor league coach/instructor? The guy can do it all.
Development stops once players get to the pros?
Maybe that's why the organization has been so shitty.
I'll be honest, I have no idea what point you're trying to make.
Having a GM with a philosophy that he has his guys implement throughout the minors is far more important that giving a player to a major league hitting coach and asking that hitting coach to straighten out years of bad habits. The part in bold is how a GM "develops" a player.
Something along the lines of this? (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1190632/7/index.htm)
QuoteBack 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."
Thanks for posting that article, outstanding stuff. I'd probably let Theo put the tip in.
He can only balls deep once he displays his ability to develop talent like Andrew Friedman.
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 13, 2011, 02:22:27 PM
Relatedly, from an interesting internet Q&A with Theo from back in 2003...
http://bostondirtdogs.com/2003/theo_chat_2.6.03.html
QuoteIt starts with the draft. We are committed to finding the best available talent every year (sorry, I know that means nothing, but I have to say it... it's in the GM manual). In general, we look for low-risk, high-reward players. We make no secret about our belief that college players represent lower risks than high school players while offering comparable rewards. That said, we will not shy away from taking the right high school players, especially position players, in the appropriate round. In general, we want college players with tools, but we also want to find the college players who have good make-ups and those who have track records of consistent quality performance.
In an ideal world, we would love middle-of-the-diamond athletes who have plate discipline and power as well as power pitchers with pitchability, command and clean arm action. Usually, these players are only available at the top of the draft. As the draft develops, we make judgment calls, balancing tools, track records, projectability, makeup and signability. I shouldn't go into further detail, except to say that we have a game plan and we know what we're looking for. All of our scouts came to Boston for our organizational meetings in December and we developed a game-plan, a philosophy on how we were going to scout and how we were going to attack the draft. Now it's just a matter of doing it. We were disciplined this off-season and are thrilled to have four picks in the first 54. If we draft well, two or three of our top college picks could be at AA as soon as 2004, making a real impact on our system.
Their second pick in 2003 (32nd overall, a supplemental first rounder) (http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/draftday/search.jsp?sc=team&sp=bos): Matthew Murton of Georgia Tech.
They went on to take Papelbon with their sixth pick (114th overall).
Meanwhile... RYAN HARVEY! JAY KVOX! CASEY MCGEHEE! (http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/draftday/search.jsp?sc=team&sp=chn) So many wrongs to right.
QuoteWith our emphasis on college players in the draft, we will rely on our international program to supply the best 17-year-old talent available... and lots of it. There is so much talent concentrated in the Dominican Republic and Venezuela that it is possible to get both quantity and quality at a reasonable price. (Scouting 17-year-olds is fairly imprecise, so volume is important). If you sign enough promising players, you'll find a Hanley Ramirez for $22,000 or a Denny Tussen for $16,000 or a Juan Cedeno for $30,000. We also will pursue the higher profile players when appropriate (Aneudis Mateo for $400,000), but our emphasis will be on signing lots of promising players to turn over to development. We will also pursue the right talent in other markets, including Asia, although our focus is in Latin America.
Awesome stuff to supplement length...cont.
I'm running low on time, so I'll be more general with respect to player development. All I will say is that we finally have an organizational philosophy -- a Red Sox way of doing things -- and, after a major overhaul of the field staff, we finally have the right people in place for implementation. I'll protect the company secrets, but I think it's well known that we care a lot about the strike zone, both for hitters and pitchers. One of the keys to unlocking a player's potential is helping him to control the strike zone. We will work long and hard to get the best out our minor league players and turn out as many prospects as possible. We will be not be afraid to try new methods, nor will we abandon proven methods. If there's someone out there who will help us develop a player, we will hire him. If there's something out there that will help us develop a player, we will buy it. Period. It's that important.
Now, where do I put this raging boner?
Quote from: Slaky on October 13, 2011, 05:32:16 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 13, 2011, 02:22:27 PM
Relatedly, from an interesting internet Q&A with Theo from back in 2003...
http://bostondirtdogs.com/2003/theo_chat_2.6.03.html
QuoteIt starts with the draft. We are committed to finding the best available talent every year (sorry, I know that means nothing, but I have to say it... it's in the GM manual). In general, we look for low-risk, high-reward players. We make no secret about our belief that college players represent lower risks than high school players while offering comparable rewards. That said, we will not shy away from taking the right high school players, especially position players, in the appropriate round. In general, we want college players with tools, but we also want to find the college players who have good make-ups and those who have track records of consistent quality performance.
In an ideal world, we would love middle-of-the-diamond athletes who have plate discipline and power as well as power pitchers with pitchability, command and clean arm action. Usually, these players are only available at the top of the draft. As the draft develops, we make judgment calls, balancing tools, track records, projectability, makeup and signability. I shouldn't go into further detail, except to say that we have a game plan and we know what we're looking for. All of our scouts came to Boston for our organizational meetings in December and we developed a game-plan, a philosophy on how we were going to scout and how we were going to attack the draft. Now it's just a matter of doing it. We were disciplined this off-season and are thrilled to have four picks in the first 54. If we draft well, two or three of our top college picks could be at AA as soon as 2004, making a real impact on our system.
Their second pick in 2003 (32nd overall, a supplemental first rounder) (http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/draftday/search.jsp?sc=team&sp=bos): Matthew Murton of Georgia Tech.
They went on to take Papelbon with their sixth pick (114th overall).
Meanwhile... RYAN HARVEY! JAY KVOX! CASEY MCGEHEE! (http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/draftday/search.jsp?sc=team&sp=chn) So many wrongs to right.
QuoteWith our emphasis on college players in the draft, we will rely on our international program to supply the best 17-year-old talent available... and lots of it. There is so much talent concentrated in the Dominican Republic and Venezuela that it is possible to get both quantity and quality at a reasonable price. (Scouting 17-year-olds is fairly imprecise, so volume is important). If you sign enough promising players, you'll find a Hanley Ramirez for $22,000 or a Denny Tussen for $16,000 or a Juan Cedeno for $30,000. We also will pursue the higher profile players when appropriate (Aneudis Mateo for $400,000), but our emphasis will be on signing lots of promising players to turn over to development. We will also pursue the right talent in other markets, including Asia, although our focus is in Latin America.
Awesome stuff to supplement length...cont.
I'm running low on time, so I'll be more general with respect to player development. All I will say is that we finally have an organizational philosophy -- a Red Sox way of doing things -- and, after a major overhaul of the field staff, we finally have the right people in place for implementation. I'll protect the company secrets, but I think it's well known that we care a lot about the strike zone, both for hitters and pitchers. One of the keys to unlocking a player's potential is helping him to control the strike zone. We will work long and hard to get the best out our minor league players and turn out as many prospects as possible. We will be not be afraid to try new methods, nor will we abandon proven methods. If there's someone out there who will help us develop a player, we will hire him. If there's something out there that will help us develop a player, we will buy it. Period. It's that important.
Now, where do I put this raging boner?
I'm guessing that Mike Quade will be coming soon to a glory hole near you.
Quote from: CT III on October 13, 2011, 04:32:31 PM
Quote from: PANK! on October 13, 2011, 04:15:06 PM
Quote from: BH on October 13, 2011, 03:56:49 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 13, 2011, 03:41:44 PM
Quote from: Bort on October 13, 2011, 03:31:51 PM
Apparently the 2009 Yankees don't count.
So, a brief recap of what just happened.
Fork: Time to post!
Fork: The Yankees don't care about player development.
BH: They have the 4th best farm system in baseball.
Fork Huey: Well, the system isn't as good as it used to be, which is why they haven't won any titles since 2000.
Jon: Except for 2009.
And ... scene?
You're forgetting Huey's contributions.
Since we're making corrections and all...
Irregardless, it's nice to talk about baseball for a change.
Morphbait acknowledged
Quote from: Alrish Yeltin on October 13, 2011, 08:05:40 PM
Quote from: CT III on October 13, 2011, 04:32:31 PM
Quote from: PANK! on October 13, 2011, 04:15:06 PM
Quote from: BH on October 13, 2011, 03:56:49 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 13, 2011, 03:41:44 PM
Quote from: Bort on October 13, 2011, 03:31:51 PM
Apparently the 2009 Yankees don't count.
So, a brief recap of what just happened.
Fork: Time to post!
Fork: The Yankees don't care about player development.
BH: They have the 4th best farm system in baseball.
Fork Huey: Well, the system isn't as good as it used to be, which is why they haven't won any titles since 2000.
Jon: Except for 2009.
And ... scene?
You're forgetting Huey's contributions.
Since we're making corrections and all...
Irregardless, it's nice to talk about baseball for a change.
Morphbait acknowledged
You guys need better Morphbait.
(http://trainwreckpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/obama-marxist21.jpg)
There, that's better.
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 13, 2011, 08:12:07 PM
Quote from: Alrish Yeltin on October 13, 2011, 08:05:40 PM
Quote from: CT III on October 13, 2011, 04:32:31 PM
Quote from: PANK! on October 13, 2011, 04:15:06 PM
Quote from: BH on October 13, 2011, 03:56:49 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 13, 2011, 03:41:44 PM
Quote from: Bort on October 13, 2011, 03:31:51 PM
Apparently the 2009 Yankees don't count.
So, a brief recap of what just happened.
Fork: Time to post!
Fork: The Yankees don't care about player development.
BH: They have the 4th best farm system in baseball.
Fork Huey: Well, the system isn't as good as it used to be, which is why they haven't won any titles since 2000.
Jon: Except for 2009.
And ... scene?
You're forgetting Huey's contributions.
Since we're making corrections and all...
Irregardless, it's nice to talk about baseball for a change.
Morphbait acknowledged
You guys need better Morphbait.
(http://trainwreckpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/obama-marxist21.jpg)
There, that's better.
Sure.
Four pages of the hatewagon thread already. Welcome to hell, Theo.
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on October 13, 2011, 09:33:29 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 13, 2011, 08:12:07 PM
Quote from: Alrish Yeltin on October 13, 2011, 08:05:40 PM
Quote from: CT III on October 13, 2011, 04:32:31 PM
Quote from: PANK! on October 13, 2011, 04:15:06 PM
Quote from: BH on October 13, 2011, 03:56:49 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 13, 2011, 03:41:44 PM
Quote from: Bort on October 13, 2011, 03:31:51 PM
Apparently the 2009 Yankees don't count.
So, a brief recap of what just happened.
Fork: Time to post!
Fork: The Yankees don't care about player development.
BH: They have the 4th best farm system in baseball.
Fork Huey: Well, the system isn't as good as it used to be, which is why they haven't won any titles since 2000.
Jon: Except for 2009.
And ... scene?
You're forgetting Huey's contributions.
Since we're making corrections and all...
Irregardless, it's nice to talk about baseball for a change.
Morphbait acknowledged
You guys need better Morphbait.
(http://trainwreckpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/obama-marxist21.jpg)
There, that's better.
Sure.
I admit it, I LOLed. Twice.
Phil Rogers wrote this today:
"It's clear that the sides have at least discussed Brett Jackson, the Triple-A outfielder who could take center field away from Marlon Byrd in 2012. There would be howls all around if Jackson went to Boston, but consider what ESPN's Keith Law thinks of a guy who is widely regarded as the Cubs' No. 1 prospect. He sees Jackson as a reasonable part of this exchange. "If you think Theo is going to turn this organization around, you wouldn't give up six years of a non-star prospect?'' Law said in an ESPN.com chat on Thursday, answering a question with a question. I'm with Law on this one. Epstein and the front office that he will assemble for Ricketts – along with Ricketts' understanding that you have to spend heavily on teenage players to grow your own stars – should be a game-changing shift for a franchise that has been patching things together annually since Dallas Green left. No one should think the Cubs are going to get Epstein without some labor pains. Jackson could be the biggest of those pains."
I wish that he had written this in English. I don't have any idea of what his point is.
Quote from: CBStew on October 14, 2011, 12:42:37 PM
Phil Rogers wrote this today:
"It's clear that the sides have at least discussed Brett Jackson, the Triple-A outfielder who could take center field away from Marlon Byrd in 2012. There would be howls all around if Jackson went to Boston, but consider what ESPN's Keith Law thinks of a guy who is widely regarded as the Cubs' No. 1 prospect. He sees Jackson as a reasonable part of this exchange. "If you think Theo is going to turn this organization around, you wouldn't give up six years of a non-star prospect?'' Law said in an ESPN.com chat on Thursday, answering a question with a question. I'm with Law on this one. Epstein and the front office that he will assemble for Ricketts – along with Ricketts' understanding that you have to spend heavily on teenage players to grow your own stars – should be a game-changing shift for a franchise that has been patching things together annually since Dallas Green left. No one should think the Cubs are going to get Epstein without some labor pains. Jackson could be the biggest of those pains."
I wish that he had written this in English. I don't have any idea of what his point is.
I think he's saying that Epstein would net zero for the Cubs. Epstein +1, Jackson -1. 1-1=0. QED.
Quote from: morpheus on October 14, 2011, 12:53:43 PM
Quote from: CBStew on October 14, 2011, 12:42:37 PM
Phil Rogers wrote this today:
"It's clear that the sides have at least discussed Brett Jackson, the Triple-A outfielder who could take center field away from Marlon Byrd in 2012. There would be howls all around if Jackson went to Boston, but consider what ESPN's Keith Law thinks of a guy who is widely regarded as the Cubs' No. 1 prospect. He sees Jackson as a reasonable part of this exchange. "If you think Theo is going to turn this organization around, you wouldn't give up six years of a non-star prospect?'' Law said in an ESPN.com chat on Thursday, answering a question with a question. I'm with Law on this one. Epstein and the front office that he will assemble for Ricketts – along with Ricketts' understanding that you have to spend heavily on teenage players to grow your own stars – should be a game-changing shift for a franchise that has been patching things together annually since Dallas Green left. No one should think the Cubs are going to get Epstein without some labor pains. Jackson could be the biggest of those pains."
I wish that he had written this in English. I don't have any idea of what his point is.
I think he's saying that Epstein would net zero for the Cubs. Epstein +1, Jackson -1. 1-1=0. QED.
Clearly Epstein only wanted the Cubs job because he wanted Brett Jackson. Once Boston found out about this, like any scorned lover, they made Jackson their main target. This just keeps getting juicier.
Quote from: BH on October 14, 2011, 01:07:43 PM
Quote from: morpheus on October 14, 2011, 12:53:43 PM
Quote from: CBStew on October 14, 2011, 12:42:37 PM
Phil Rogers wrote this today:
"It's clear that the sides have at least discussed Brett Jackson, the Triple-A outfielder who could take center field away from Marlon Byrd in 2012. There would be howls all around if Jackson went to Boston, but consider what ESPN's Keith Law thinks of a guy who is widely regarded as the Cubs' No. 1 prospect. He sees Jackson as a reasonable part of this exchange. "If you think Theo is going to turn this organization around, you wouldn't give up six years of a non-star prospect?'' Law said in an ESPN.com chat on Thursday, answering a question with a question. I'm with Law on this one. Epstein and the front office that he will assemble for Ricketts – along with Ricketts' understanding that you have to spend heavily on teenage players to grow your own stars – should be a game-changing shift for a franchise that has been patching things together annually since Dallas Green left. No one should think the Cubs are going to get Epstein without some labor pains. Jackson could be the biggest of those pains."
I wish that he had written this in English. I don't have any idea of what his point is.
I think he's saying that Epstein would net zero for the Cubs. Epstein +1, Jackson -1. 1-1=0. QED.
Clearly Epstein only wanted the Cubs job because he wanted Brett Jackson. Once Boston found out about this, like any scorned lover, they made Jackson their main target. This just keeps getting juicier.
Where does Peavy come in?
Quote from: morpheus on October 14, 2011, 12:53:43 PM
Quote from: CBStew on October 14, 2011, 12:42:37 PM
Phil Rogers wrote this today:
"It's clear that the sides have at least discussed Brett Jackson, the Triple-A outfielder who could take center field away from Marlon Byrd in 2012. There would be howls all around if Jackson went to Boston, but consider what ESPN's Keith Law thinks of a guy who is widely regarded as the Cubs' No. 1 prospect. He sees Jackson as a reasonable part of this exchange. "If you think Theo is going to turn this organization around, you wouldn't give up six years of a non-star prospect?'' Law said in an ESPN.com chat on Thursday, answering a question with a question. I'm with Law on this one. Epstein and the front office that he will assemble for Ricketts – along with Ricketts' understanding that you have to spend heavily on teenage players to grow your own stars – should be a game-changing shift for a franchise that has been patching things together annually since Dallas Green left. No one should think the Cubs are going to get Epstein without some labor pains. Jackson could be the biggest of those pains."
I wish that he had written this in English. I don't have any idea of what his point is.
I think he's saying that Epstein would net zero for the Cubs. Epstein +1, Jackson -1. 1-1=0. QED.
Lord knows, any outfielder drafted by the Hendry Regime is bound to be a superstar.
Boston can take any or our prospects if they let Theo bring along any of his top aides he wants to chicago.
Quote from: CBStew on October 14, 2011, 12:42:37 PM
"If you think Theo is going to turn this organization around, you wouldn't give up six years of a non-star prospect?'' Law said in an ESPN.com chat on Thursday
Keith Law is one smug, annoying asshole.
Quote from: Eli on October 14, 2011, 01:26:51 PM
Quote from: CBStew on October 14, 2011, 12:42:37 PM
"If you think Theo is going to turn this organization around, you wouldn't give up six years of a non-star prospect?'' Law said in an ESPN.com chat on Thursday
Keith Law is one smug, annoying asshole.
Couldn't agree more. But he's right, in this instance.
Quote from: morpheus on October 14, 2011, 12:53:43 PM
Quote from: CBStew on October 14, 2011, 12:42:37 PM
Phil Rogers wrote this today:
"It's clear that the sides have at least discussed Brett Jackson, the Triple-A outfielder who could take center field away from Marlon Byrd in 2012. There would be howls all around if Jackson went to Boston, but consider what ESPN's Keith Law thinks of a guy who is widely regarded as the Cubs' No. 1 prospect. He sees Jackson as a reasonable part of this exchange. "If you think Theo is going to turn this organization around, you wouldn't give up six years of a non-star prospect?'' Law said in an ESPN.com chat on Thursday, answering a question with a question. I'm with Law on this one. Epstein and the front office that he will assemble for Ricketts – along with Ricketts' understanding that you have to spend heavily on teenage players to grow your own stars – should be a game-changing shift for a franchise that has been patching things together annually since Dallas Green left. No one should think the Cubs are going to get Epstein without some labor pains. Jackson could be the biggest of those pains."
I wish that he had written this in English. I don't have any idea of what his point is.
I think he's saying that Epstein would net zero for the Cubs. Epstein +1, Jackson -1. 1-1=0. QED.
Phil's impeccable plus-minus system only alots "one" for a major league player. Thus, since Epstein is not a major league player, the Red Sox should let him go for free.
Also: the Cubs should give up Jackson, and for that matter any other prospect in their system, for free as well.
Edited to add:Actually I'm not quite right. From Phil's defense of his system (http://blogs.chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports_hardball/2008/01/clarification-.html):
QuoteTo be factored into the ratings, a player has to have filled a regular spot in the batting order or been a starting pitcher, closer or eighth-inning reliever. Thus most transactions do not impact the ratings at all -- only those involving the guys who would be considered "proven" players.
Thankfully, the first Google search result for "phil rogers plus minus" is the FJM takedown of said system. We can keep faith in America.
Quote from: Slaky on October 14, 2011, 01:52:48 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 14, 2011, 01:26:51 PM
Quote from: CBStew on October 14, 2011, 12:42:37 PM
"If you think Theo is going to turn this organization around, you wouldn't give up six years of a non-star prospect?'' Law said in an ESPN.com chat on Thursday
Keith Law is one smug, annoying asshole.
Couldn't agree more. But he's right, in this instance.
I don't disagree with the premise of trading prospects for Epstein. I disagree with how he just flippantly dismissed Jackson.
Quote from: Eli on October 14, 2011, 03:23:35 PM
Quote from: Slaky on October 14, 2011, 01:52:48 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 14, 2011, 01:26:51 PM
Quote from: CBStew on October 14, 2011, 12:42:37 PM
"If you think Theo is going to turn this organization around, you wouldn't give up six years of a non-star prospect?'' Law said in an ESPN.com chat on Thursday
Keith Law is one smug, annoying asshole.
Couldn't agree more. But he's right, in this instance.
I don't disagree with the premise of trading prospects for Epstein. I disagree with how he just flippantly dismissed Jackson.
Right - he's a cunt.
Quote from: Slaky on October 14, 2011, 04:36:14 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 14, 2011, 03:23:35 PM
Quote from: Slaky on October 14, 2011, 01:52:48 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 14, 2011, 01:26:51 PM
Quote from: CBStew on October 14, 2011, 12:42:37 PM
"If you think Theo is going to turn this organization around, you wouldn't give up six years of a non-star prospect?'' Law said in an ESPN.com chat on Thursday
Keith Law is one smug, annoying asshole.
Couldn't agree more. But he's right, in this instance.
I don't disagree with the premise of trading prospects for Epstein. I disagree with how he just flippantly dismissed Jackson.
Right - he's a cunt.
Can't it be both?
Quote from: Bort on October 14, 2011, 06:50:05 PM
Quote from: Slaky on October 14, 2011, 04:36:14 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 14, 2011, 03:23:35 PM
Quote from: Slaky on October 14, 2011, 01:52:48 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 14, 2011, 01:26:51 PM
Quote from: CBStew on October 14, 2011, 12:42:37 PM
"If you think Theo is going to turn this organization around, you wouldn't give up six years of a non-star prospect?'' Law said in an ESPN.com chat on Thursday
Keith Law is one smug, annoying asshole.
Couldn't agree more. But he's right, in this instance.
I don't disagree with the premise of trading prospects for Epstein. I disagree with how he just flippantly dismissed Jackson.
Right - he's a cunt.
Can't it be both?
Now who's being naive, Bort?
Quote from: PANK! on October 14, 2011, 06:56:14 PM
Quote from: Bort on October 14, 2011, 06:50:05 PM
Quote from: Slaky on October 14, 2011, 04:36:14 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 14, 2011, 03:23:35 PM
Quote from: Slaky on October 14, 2011, 01:52:48 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 14, 2011, 01:26:51 PM
Quote from: CBStew on October 14, 2011, 12:42:37 PM
"If you think Theo is going to turn this organization around, you wouldn't give up six years of a non-star prospect?'' Law said in an ESPN.com chat on Thursday
Keith Law is one smug, annoying asshole.
Couldn't agree more. But he's right, in this instance.
I don't disagree with the premise of trading prospects for Epstein. I disagree with how he just flippantly dismissed Jackson.
Right - he's a cunt.
Can't it be both?
Now who's being naive, Bort?
Oh for god's sake...
Bort, Brett Jackson wasn't a stripper.
Quote from: CT III on October 14, 2011, 07:09:16 PM
Quote from: PANK! on October 14, 2011, 06:56:14 PM
Quote from: Bort on October 14, 2011, 06:50:05 PM
Quote from: Slaky on October 14, 2011, 04:36:14 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 14, 2011, 03:23:35 PM
Quote from: Slaky on October 14, 2011, 01:52:48 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 14, 2011, 01:26:51 PM
Quote from: CBStew on October 14, 2011, 12:42:37 PM
"If you think Theo is going to turn this organization around, you wouldn't give up six years of a non-star prospect?'' Law said in an ESPN.com chat on Thursday
Keith Law is one smug, annoying asshole.
Couldn't agree more. But he's right, in this instance.
I don't disagree with the premise of trading prospects for Epstein. I disagree with how he just flippantly dismissed Jackson.
Right - he's a cunt.
Can't it be both?
Now who's being naive, Bort?
Oh for god's sake...
Bort, Brett Jackson wasn't a stripper.
Now who's being naive?
"And after one day of negotiating, reports from both Boston and Chicago indicate the two sides are pretty far apart.
The Cubs only want to send money to the Red Sox, while the Red Sox are insistent on receiving back a package of players. The two sides reportedly didn't give much ground Thursday, so it's at a stand-still right now "(Chicago Tribune).
Screw it. The Red Sox have bid goodbye to Epstein and annointed a new GM. Epstein should just say that he changed his mind and go back to his desk at Fenway. If the Rockettes negotiate their way deeper into this mess then they deserve what they get.
Quote from: CBStew on October 14, 2011, 10:45:07 PM
"And after one day of negotiating, reports from both Boston and Chicago indicate the two sides are pretty far apart.
The Cubs only want to send money to the Red Sox, while the Red Sox are insistent on receiving back a package of players. The two sides reportedly didn't give much ground Thursday, so it's at a stand-still right now "(Chicago Tribune).
Screw it. The Red Sox have bid goodbye to Epstein and annointed a new GM. Epstein should just say that he changed his mind and go back to his desk at Fenway. If the Rockettes negotiate their way deeper into this mess then they deserve what they get.
http://www.csnchicago.com/baseball-chicago-cubs/news/Red-Sox-playing-hardball-with-Cubs?blockID=577760&feedID=8487
A Dave Kaplan source:
QuoteLarry Lucchino is one of the most unreasonable people I have ever dealt with and because of his frayed relationship with Theo Epstein he is looking to make a point at the expense of Theo's happiness and his desire to go to Chicago. I didn't believe that ownership group for one second when they said that they wouldn't stand in Theo's way if he wanted out of Boston. They are furious that he wants out and they are trying to make a point. Theo helped bring them two World Series titles and they have no loyalty to him and his happiness. They messed with Terry Francona and that was just an incredibly pathetic move and now they are trying to make life very tough for Theo.
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 15, 2011, 12:18:41 PM
Quote from: CBStew on October 14, 2011, 10:45:07 PM
"And after one day of negotiating, reports from both Boston and Chicago indicate the two sides are pretty far apart.
The Cubs only want to send money to the Red Sox, while the Red Sox are insistent on receiving back a package of players. The two sides reportedly didn't give much ground Thursday, so it's at a stand-still right now "(Chicago Tribune).
Screw it. The Red Sox have bid goodbye to Epstein and annointed a new GM. Epstein should just say that he changed his mind and go back to his desk at Fenway. If the Rockettes negotiate their way deeper into this mess then they deserve what they get.
http://www.csnchicago.com/baseball-chicago-cubs/news/Red-Sox-playing-hardball-with-Cubs?blockID=577760&feedID=8487
A Dave Kaplan source:
QuoteLarry Lucchino is one of the most unreasonable people I have ever dealt with and because of his frayed relationship with Theo Epstein he is looking to make a point at the expense of Theo's happiness and his desire to go to Chicago. I didn't believe that ownership group for one second when they said that they wouldn't stand in Theo's way if he wanted out of Boston. They are furious that he wants out and they are trying to make a point. Theo helped bring them two World Series titles and they have no loyalty to him and his happiness. They messed with Terry Francona and that was just an incredibly pathetic move and now they are trying to make life very tough for Theo.
Having gone to law school, I am obviously handicapped when I try to understand what is going on. Epstein is still under contract with Boston. However, after the 13th amendment, it is very difficult to force someone to work for you, even if he has promised in writing to do so. Boston may be entitled to damages, but the Cubs don't have a contract with Boston, Epstein does. Epstein is not in a position to pay off those damages with Cubs' players, and the Cubs don't have to volunteer to bail Epstein out with players. I think Epstein should go back to Henry and say, "You win. I'm coming back for my last year and you can continue to pay me AND the person you just hired to replace me."
Quote from: CBStew on October 15, 2011, 02:03:57 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 15, 2011, 12:18:41 PM
Quote from: CBStew on October 14, 2011, 10:45:07 PM
"And after one day of negotiating, reports from both Boston and Chicago indicate the two sides are pretty far apart.
The Cubs only want to send money to the Red Sox, while the Red Sox are insistent on receiving back a package of players. The two sides reportedly didn't give much ground Thursday, so it's at a stand-still right now "(Chicago Tribune).
Screw it. The Red Sox have bid goodbye to Epstein and annointed a new GM. Epstein should just say that he changed his mind and go back to his desk at Fenway. If the Rockettes negotiate their way deeper into this mess then they deserve what they get.
http://www.csnchicago.com/baseball-chicago-cubs/news/Red-Sox-playing-hardball-with-Cubs?blockID=577760&feedID=8487
A Dave Kaplan source:
QuoteLarry Lucchino is one of the most unreasonable people I have ever dealt with and because of his frayed relationship with Theo Epstein he is looking to make a point at the expense of Theo's happiness and his desire to go to Chicago. I didn't believe that ownership group for one second when they said that they wouldn't stand in Theo's way if he wanted out of Boston. They are furious that he wants out and they are trying to make a point. Theo helped bring them two World Series titles and they have no loyalty to him and his happiness. They messed with Terry Francona and that was just an incredibly pathetic move and now they are trying to make life very tough for Theo.
Having gone to law school, I am obviously handicapped when I try to understand what is going on. Epstein is still under contract with Boston. However, after the 13th amendment, it is very difficult to force someone to work for you, even if he has promised in writing to do so. Boston may be entitled to damages, but the Cubs don't have a contract with Boston, Epstein does. Epstein is not in a position to pay off those damages with Cubs' players, and the Cubs don't have to volunteer to bail Epstein out with players. I think Epstein should go back to Henry and say, "You win. I'm coming back for my last year and you can continue to pay me AND the person you just hired to replace me."
I thought baseball got an exemption for the 13th Amendment when they got their antitrust exemption.