Red Sox Get Chris Carpenter As Theo Compensation
by Marc Normandin on Feb 21, 2012 12:00 PM EST
in News
Email
Print
Our long national nightmare is over -- well, sort of -- as compensation for Theo Epstein moving on to the Chicago Cubs was announced this morning. Chris Carpenter will be coming to the Red Sox in exchange for Epstein, but the Cubs will also be sending a future player to be named later to Boston, and the Red Sox will be sending a PTBNL of their own to Chicago to complete the deal.
That last bit, you can only assume, is happening because it's funny, and because they can. But it turns out that it needed to be a player trade in order for the transaction to go through.
Carpenter will use up a 40-man roster spot, but, unlike earlier in the winter, that won't mean the Red Sox have to designate anyone for assignment. Alex Speier points out that today is the first day that the 60-day disabled list can be put to use, meaning John Lackey, Bobby Jenks, and Daisuke Matsuzaka can be cleared from the 40.
Carpenter was a seventh-round pick of the Tigers back in 2004, but elected not to sign. The Yankees then picked him in 2007, and finally the Cubs both drafted and signed him in 2008. He would play in Rookie and Low-A ball as a 22-year-old. His top season statistically as a prospect was 2009, when he posted a 2.3 K/BB across three levels with a 2.82 ERA and 130 innings pitched.
The Cubs converted him to relief last year, and the experiment didn't go so well. His walk rate jumped from 3.8 per nine in 2010 to 5.7 per nine, but he also threw just 42 innings in the minors -- the sample isn't large enough to panic over either way, especially since he missed 30 days with an undisclosed injury. The Red Sox haven't announced if Carpenter will convert back to starting, or if he will remain in relief.
In last year's Top 11 prospect list, Kevin Goldstein made mention of Carpenter's possible need for a relief role:
While Carpenter smoothed out his delivery after a Tommy John procedure in college, there's still considerable effort in it, leading to lapses in control. Between the history of arm troubles and the electricity in his stuff out of the bullpen, more scouts than ever want to see him as a reliever.
That's in the section labeled "The Bad," but there was still considerable good to mull over, too:
Carpenter has a classic power frame and the repertoire to match, beginning with a 92-94 mph fastball that touches 97, a velocity he was parked at when pitching in shorter stints. He's refined his power breaking ball into a true slider that flashes plus, and has some feel for a changeup.
Some health problems and his lack of control turned 2011 into something of a lost year, but he does have excellent velocity and a three-pitch repertoire of note. There could be a pretty good reliever hiding in Carpenter's right arm, or maybe advanced bats are just too much for him. Goldstein rated Carpenter as the #14 prospect in the Cubs' system this year, but he would rank lower in Boston's less shallow farm.
It's not Matt Garza, but it was never going to be Matt Garza. There were prospects we would have rather had, for sure, but without much precedent, this was never going to be a process that was going to please everyone. Carpenter is an intriguing arm, and one who might help out in Boston as soon as this summer. He could also turn into nothing, but if the Red Sox are winning, we'll forget about him like so many other failed prospects. We're a fickle, yet easily pleased, people.
Now, we wait to see who the players to be named later are, in Compensation 2: Electric Boogaloo, in theaters by April 15.
115 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
That is it?
Talk about underwhelming. No more letting guys go until their contract is up please. Especially if this is all you get.
My Twitter @totheights
Of course it's underwhelming
Everyone had unrealistic expectations for compensation.
Twitter: @Marc_Normandin
by Marc Normandin on Feb 21, 2012 12:06 PM EST up reply actions
Maybe so
But there is literally no reason to take on a 40-man player. Just stupid. I’d rather have seen them give him up for free than waste the 40 spot. Just silly.
My Twitter @totheights
So...
You would rather they just automatically have the 40-man spot empty when there is no one around to take it up to begin with than fill it with a lottery ticket they can easily dispose of if he proves later on that he is not worth the spot?
Twitter: @Marc_Normandin
by Marc Normandin on Feb 21, 2012 12:11 PM EST up reply actions
Cherington said they expect to have the other components to be cleared up by the end of spring training
I find it suspicious that he didn’t specify the year of the ST he was referencing.
I am Sandy's bitch
We Are Because You Were
@WadePSU
Not me.
Theo’d run his course.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
Look in the mirror and ask yourself: "Am I a hater troll?"
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
OTM | Silver Seven
I still think Theo might have been trying to sabotage the team
loading it up with three monster contracts before he left, two of which have yet to pay dividends.
"I can’t explain what I mean. And even if I could, I’m not sure I’d feel like it."
-JD Salinger.
by TheLoneDavid on Feb 21, 2012 12:22 PM EST up reply actions
There is no upside for Theo
sabotaging the team. He went to the other league. No competition, impacts his rep.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
Look in the mirror and ask yourself: "Am I a hater troll?"
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
OTM | Silver Seven
by Bloggy on Feb 21, 2012 7:54 PM EST via Android app up reply actions
It put his name in the news
kept him in everyone’s mind.
"I can’t explain what I mean. And even if I could, I’m not sure I’d feel like it."
-JD Salinger.
by TheLoneDavid on Feb 21, 2012 8:23 PM EST up reply actions
that's not really an advantage
for a guy that’s already the GM for one of the biggest 2 teams in the league
Which gains him what?
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
Look in the mirror and ask yourself: "Am I a hater troll?"
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
OTM | Silver Seven
When he's not busy having Bobby V. fantasies.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
Look in the mirror and ask yourself: "Am I a hater troll?"
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
OTM | Silver Seven
C'mon
If two bad contracts = sabotage, then Cashman has been sabotaging the Yankees for over a decade.
Twitter: @Greenlineoutfit
by John Leary on Feb 21, 2012 9:02 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
This seems about right.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
Look in the mirror and ask yourself: "Am I a hater troll?"
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
OTM | Silver Seven
by Bloggy on Feb 21, 2012 12:12 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
P.S.
Thank @#$% this goddamn fiasco is over with (for all intents and purposes).
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
Look in the mirror and ask yourself: "Am I a hater troll?"
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
OTM | Silver Seven
Maybe the Sox front office
will learn not to give up its only leverage when teams poach contracted employees.
Sox learned a great lesson, dont trust anyone and most of all Bud Selig.
Cubs walked away from this smiling.
I still don't think they had as much leverage as was assumed
Theo could have left regardless, and taken the year off/been a consultant to a temporary GM. Shady, but doable.
Twitter: @Marc_Normandin
by Marc Normandin on Feb 21, 2012 12:17 PM EST up reply actions
We're not smiling
We’re happy it’s over, but we’re going to miss Carpenter.
by Josh Timmers on Feb 21, 2012 12:24 PM EST up reply actions
Actually, it's nearly universal smiling at BleedCubbieBlue right now.
Only one negative comment from someone who didn’t think the Sox deserved any compensation at all.
Say what?
You made a major upgrade to your front office in exchange for a 26-year-old reliever with bad control and injury problems. If you’re a Cubs fan and you aren’t smiling…I don’t know what to tell you.
Well, I mean.
Cubs fan.
Twitter: @Marc_Normandin
by Marc Normandin on Feb 21, 2012 12:59 PM EST up reply actions
Theo is no upgrade
Everything Must Go.
by Sean O on Feb 21, 2012 1:53 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Quick... name me the GMs that have two World Series rings in the last decade.
I mean, I know you’re negative, but credit has to be given where credit is due.
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til THIS year!
by AlohaSox on Feb 21, 2012 2:16 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Name me one multi-year deal for a FA in the past four years aside from Adrian
that has worked out for us.
"I can’t explain what I mean. And even if I could, I’m not sure I’d feel like it."
-JD Salinger.
by TheLoneDavid on Feb 21, 2012 3:06 PM EST up reply actions
Marco Scutaro.
Shall I continue?
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til THIS year!
Of course, there's another argument here too...
… we’ve had a pretty good build from our internal system over the last decade that Theo has been here, and Boston is widely recognized as one of the better farm systems too, despite depleting it with trades like the Gonzo deal last year.
So when you ask for multi-year deals for FAs that have worked out… I start thinking about the positions we needed filled:
C Varitek, now Salty (so, minor need but hard to fault Theo here…)
1B Youkilis, now Gonzalez (so, no need)
2B Pedroia (no need)
SS Scutaro (example provided)
3B Lowell (extension might have been bad), Beltre and now Youk (no need)
LF Ramirez/Bay/Ellsbury/Crawford (the last one sucked so far)
CF Cameron/Ellsbury (so, no need)
RF Drew/Reddick (so, no need)
Rotation
SP Lester (no need)
SP Beckett (despite his injuries, he’s done well – so no need)
SP Buchholz (no need)
SP Lackey (yes, this was a disaster)
SP Dice K (this is longer than four years back, but he’s been worth the $$)
Closer Papelbon (so, no need until he left)
Set Up Bard (so, no need until we moved him to SP)
So, essentially, you’re looking for a FA contract that filled a starting pitching spot (since Lackey turned out to be a huge bust, which was somewhat predictable) and a LF (where Crawford was expected to be the best available guy for a long time, but 2011 was horrible), and maybe a C.
Since the criteria was a deal that “worked out” we’re not considering the current holes at SS, RF, Closer or Set Up because we haven’t had them long enough to fill them.
Have there been a bunch of busts? Sure… but it’s not like this team has had huge holes to fill before this offseason, and it’s not like he didn’t try to fill them (with miserable failures Lackey and Crawford).
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til THIS year!
Scutaro, Bay (you didn't say we had to sign him!)
Some good smaller deals, Aceves, Saito, Beltre.
I am Sandy's bitch
We Are Because You Were
@WadePSU
Beltre wasn't multi-year, Aceves wasn't either, he's just arb eligible
and I counter with Cameron, and Jenks.
Theo can’t really be counted on for deals longer than two years.
"I can’t explain what I mean. And even if I could, I’m not sure I’d feel like it."
-JD Salinger.
by TheLoneDavid on Feb 21, 2012 4:50 PM EST up reply actions
Which is why I labeled them as smaller deals
Because when you limit the conversation to “This guy sucks at things he sucks at” all you are going to see is bad and it makes it look systematic, when there is no reason to think that is true, because he was able to find talent elsewhere, it appears more to be bad luck than anything else. IF he can find Adrian Beltre for one year, what could POSSIBLY limit him from being able to sign a similarly good player to a multi-year deal?
It’s like saying, TheLoneDavid is stupid because he doesn’t know he can put spaces between the words in his name. He knows he can, but when you look at only that example, obviously I have to be right.
I am Sandy's bitch
We Are Because You Were
@WadePSU
Oh, I'm sure he COULD sign good players to long-term deals
He hasn’t though, not in a long time.
"I can’t explain what I mean. And even if I could, I’m not sure I’d feel like it."
-JD Salinger.
by TheLoneDavid on Feb 21, 2012 7:02 PM EST up reply actions
Okay... there have been busts.
But where’s your response on my point above? The only real holes we’ve had were for a SP and a LF, which Theo tried to fill (and failed) by grabbing what was arguably the best two players available for those positions in those offseasons.
Now, I hated the Lackey signing and thought we were going to avoid overpaying for Crawford once we got Gonzo, but it’s hard to argue that anyone thought either of them would be as bad as they have been.
So, other than grabbing Matt Holiday (instead of Cameron) and sticking with Ellsbury in CF (despite most people believing he was a horrible defensive CF, and needed to be moved to LF) in the 2010 offseason… which also would have left our rotation as Lester/Beckett/Dice K/Buchholz (who hadn’t yet proved he could pitch at the MLB level) and… um… well.
Plus, if we had signed Holliday (who gave no indication, from what I recall, of wanting to go anywhere but back to Saint Louis), we wouldn’t have gotten Carl, allowing us to sign… um… well… wait… who was the big FA SP that got signed in the 2011 offseason that we could have grabbed? Cliff Lee? Considering he turned down the Rangers and Yankees, I doubt he’d have come to Boston. So…
I just don’t see the moves that Theo could have made that would have worked out better, and I think looking at Lackey and Crawford from our current knowledge base is a huge hindsight advantage. No one thought they’d be this bad, not even those of us that didn’t want to sign either.
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til THIS year!
We could have traded for DeJesus at the time, whom I was campaigning for and could have been had for a song to play LF
If Crawford was the best player for us at the time, why were so many of us pointing out that he would lose a ton of value in Fenway’s LF and saying that we didn’t want him? How could Theo have missed that the area where Crawford was most valuable would be hurt by playing half his games in the worst part possible for him?
I don’t care that we didn’t have Holliday at the time, Crawford was a stupid move that is now potentially blocking Kalish, Hassan, and Lin from the Bigs.
Lackey at least made a little sense, he was a pretty good pitcher who just bounced us out of the playoffs. Crawford made no sense at all, and we should be using the money that he’s being paid right now to re-sign Ellsbury and patch up our rotation.
"I can’t explain what I mean. And even if I could, I’m not sure I’d feel like it."
-JD Salinger.
by TheLoneDavid on Feb 21, 2012 7:07 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah, I didn't want Crawford either.
However, I do think we’ll end up getting value (J.D. Drew kind of value, if not the total dollars of the contract itself) from Crawford over the length of the deal.
Of course, well aware that you don’t agree.
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til THIS year!
Lin is a bench outfielder
He’ll be a good one, but he’s a bench outfielder. And Hassan will never even have a career in the majors if he doesn’t learn to use his legs for power. Kalish’s body is the reason he isn’t in the majors right now, not Crawford.
Twitter: @Marc_Normandin
by Marc Normandin on Feb 21, 2012 7:39 PM EST up reply actions
Right... Kalish would be in RF if he hadn't missed all of 2011.
There’s no argument that Crawford is blocking him, since we needed someone in RF this season. Hopefully, he’s up there by the All-Star Break this year.
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til THIS year!
I was in the DeJesus camp as well.
I don’t buy that “Crawford was the best thing out there, so we should cut Theo some slack” argument at all. I think it was a horrible, horrible use of resources…but absolutely not sabotage.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
Look in the mirror and ask yourself: "Am I a hater troll?"
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
OTM | Silver Seven
my thoughts remain the same
After the 07 season Theo started taking stupid pills or otherwise gave up. Even with several boneheaded moves in 05 and 06, none did the damage of 08 and beyond.
Everything Must Go.
by Sean O on Feb 21, 2012 3:10 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
I actually agree with you
I think he knew he was leaving soon so he just went for broke with big FA signings. If they didn’t work out, well, he knew they wouldn’t be his problem. I’m not pleased about it. But he still won us two WS, and to say he’s not an upgrade over the Cubs former situation is kinda nuts.
Yeah, that was basically my point.
I still think Boston has become ridiculously spoiled, and expects championships in every sport. So that when we come up short, they are gut punch losses that devastate the fan base.
I mean, this is our current status:
Patriots: lost this year’s SuperBowl but won 3 in 5 years, with 5 SB appearances in 11 years, 6 AFC Championship games in 11 years, 6 SB appearances in 15 years
Bruins: 2011 Stanley Cup Champions, and I think they are the favorites for 2012
Celtics: 2008 NBA Champs, and came a Kendrick Perkins knee injury and Game 7 fourth quarter collapse/referee conspiracy away from winning again in 2010.
Red Sox: 2004 & 2007 World Series champions, lost the 2008 ALCS in Game 7, and horror of horror have missed the playoffs two years in a row.
Yet, the Super Bowl losses of 2007(8) and 2011(12) were devastating to me… still hard to believe they both happened, watching the Celtics somehow lose a 20 point lead in the second half to the Lakers made me sick to my stomach and I’m not even a big NBA guy, the Bruins managed to lose four games in a row to the Flyers in 2010, when it looked like they might finally win a cup (shades of 2003 Red Sox, right down to the redemption the following year), and the improbability of the Sox 2011 September collapse, right down to Game 162… unbelievably depressing.
Yet… all I can think is… how spoiled are we??
Red Sox: 2 World Series rings,
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til THIS year!
Whoops... went back and edited my post...
… and apparently overlooked the start I had made for the Red Sox below it… my bad.
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til THIS year!
If I agree (and I do)...
… can we all agree that this means that all other metropolitan fanbases cry themselves to sleep wishing they were us (because they do)?
The Year of Extreme Opinions
BLAAAAAAARGH OMFG SIGN STARTERS!!
I apologize if this post has offended you in any way. Please retroactively ignore it. Thank you for your consideration.
by nuthinboutnuthin on Feb 21, 2012 3:48 PM EST up reply actions
Ha ha ha!
Oh, that’s why we’re so hated around the country… Boston fans are worse than Yankee fans, in the eyes of other metropolitan areas.
Jealousy motivates a powerful hatred.
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til THIS year!
By the way... even with the loss...
… that run by the Patriots since Kraft took over is absolutely ridiculous. We’ve been in the Super Bowl almost every other year in the last decade, and one in three over the last 15 years.
I have to believe that credit is due to the ownership for that, as good as Bill and Tom have been. I know there were dynasties before the salary cap era, but what Kraft has managed to do (whether by accident, hiring the right minds/athletes, or inspiring greatness by his example) is stunning.
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til THIS year!
Yup.
Losing in the Super Bowl still means you’re a better team than 30 other teams (James Harrison and Ryan Clark take note).
The Year of Extreme Opinions
BLAAAAAAARGH OMFG SIGN STARTERS!!
I apologize if this post has offended you in any way. Please retroactively ignore it. Thank you for your consideration.
by nuthinboutnuthin on Feb 21, 2012 5:12 PM EST up reply actions
After the game...
While explaining why I was having a cigar despite the Pats losing, one of the things I said to the person I was with was, “Only one team gets to lose in the Super Bowl, you know.”
Twitter: @Marc_Normandin
by Marc Normandin on Feb 21, 2012 5:53 PM EST up reply actions
That said...
… I resent the Giants’ ability to only be not mediocre against us – mainly because it robs me of my ability to trash-talk ’em.
The Year of Extreme Opinions
BLAAAAAAARGH OMFG SIGN STARTERS!!
I apologize if this post has offended you in any way. Please retroactively ignore it. Thank you for your consideration.
by nuthinboutnuthin on Feb 21, 2012 6:06 PM EST up reply actions
No doubt.
I was rooting for the 49ers, just so we wouldn’t have to face the Giants again.
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til THIS year!
This.
I couldn’t stand the clamor for Giants. Did those people not see the last time?
The Year of Extreme Opinions
BLAAAAAAARGH OMFG SIGN STARTERS!!
I apologize if this post has offended you in any way. Please retroactively ignore it. Thank you for your consideration.
by nuthinboutnuthin on Feb 21, 2012 7:09 PM EST up reply actions
By "for" I mean "Patriots fans wanting to play"...
/continuing day for bifurcated comments
The Year of Extreme Opinions
BLAAAAAAARGH OMFG SIGN STARTERS!!
I apologize if this post has offended you in any way. Please retroactively ignore it. Thank you for your consideration.
by nuthinboutnuthin on Feb 21, 2012 7:10 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah, for some kind of revenge/redemption theme.
Me? I wanted nothing to do with Eli and that pass rush…
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til THIS year!
For the narrative, man.
The best part of the 2004 WS was beating the Yankees. If we had come back like that against the Twins or something, it wouldn’t have been near as sweet.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
Look in the mirror and ask yourself: "Am I a hater troll?"
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
OTM | Silver Seven
Oh, I get it...
… it was mainly because Bill Simmons was clamoring for it and it was related to New England-area sports – so I assumed it was the stupidest and most counter-productive thing possible to want (and lo and behold).
The Year of Extreme Opinions
BLAAAAAAARGH OMFG SIGN STARTERS!!
I apologize if this post has offended you in any way. Please retroactively ignore it. Thank you for your consideration.
by nuthinboutnuthin on Feb 22, 2012 11:23 AM EST up reply actions
Except that the Giants hadn't dominated the NFL for decades...
… instead, we were the dominant, evil empire of the NFL that the upstart Giants, that snuck into the playoffs, knocked off the top teams in the NFC and then beat our undefeated juggernaut.
Therefore… there was no reason to want the Giants this time around, as hindsight clearly shows us.
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til THIS year!
I agree with this. We have been so spoiled and the run has been great.
Unfortunately, there is a sick feeling crawling up in my stomache from the fact that
a) the NY Yankees won the division again last year (and really, should have performed much better in the playoffs) while we choked the season away.
b) the NY Giants won the SB. Against the Patriots. Groan.
c) the NY Rangers look really, scary good right now while the Bruins offense has disappeared.
d) even the stinkin’ NY Knicks suddenly look good with Linsanity while our Celtics are struggling..
Ugh …. I could live with the fading of our ‘dynasties’ …. but please, Sports Gods of the Universe – don’t make me watch NY have a similar run.
NBA Officiating - Corrupt? Incompetent? Which is worse? Does it matter? It sucks.
What?
I have no idea what you mean. * looks around nervously *
The Year of Extreme Opinions
BLAAAAAAARGH OMFG SIGN STARTERS!!
I apologize if this post has offended you in any way. Please retroactively ignore it. Thank you for your consideration.
by nuthinboutnuthin on Feb 21, 2012 6:46 PM EST up reply actions
I think most Michiganders are okay with not being Bostonians
Two teams on the rise ready to be a force for the next decade in the Lions and Tigers, one of the most successful hockey franchises in history, and fuck the NBA.
"I can’t explain what I mean. And even if I could, I’m not sure I’d feel like it."
-JD Salinger.
by TheLoneDavid on Feb 21, 2012 4:53 PM EST up reply actions
Michigan has done well for itself...
… and they have 1 more NBA championship in the past decade than most other teams.
The Year of Extreme Opinions
BLAAAAAAARGH OMFG SIGN STARTERS!!
I apologize if this post has offended you in any way. Please retroactively ignore it. Thank you for your consideration.
by nuthinboutnuthin on Feb 21, 2012 5:11 PM EST up reply actions
But...
… I get the feeling, Eminem and Clint Eastwood aside, that most people in Michigan’s major metropolis cry themselves to sleep at night anyway.
The Year of Extreme Opinions
BLAAAAAAARGH OMFG SIGN STARTERS!!
I apologize if this post has offended you in any way. Please retroactively ignore it. Thank you for your consideration.
by nuthinboutnuthin on Feb 21, 2012 5:13 PM EST up reply actions
In a way which I realize immediately after posting is totally unfunny.
The Year of Extreme Opinions
BLAAAAAAARGH OMFG SIGN STARTERS!!
I apologize if this post has offended you in any way. Please retroactively ignore it. Thank you for your consideration.
by nuthinboutnuthin on Feb 21, 2012 5:14 PM EST up reply actions
Two years ago you might have been right
but Detroit’s unemployment is just over the national average right now, the Big Three are making a comeback, and the Lions are about to do for us what the Saints did for New Orleans.
There hasn’t been a better time to be a Michigander in the last ten years.
"I can’t explain what I mean. And even if I could, I’m not sure I’d feel like it."
-JD Salinger.
by TheLoneDavid on Feb 21, 2012 7:09 PM EST up reply actions
I don't think he sabotaged, nothing you hear about him suggests that is who he is
Same as how I don’t think it would have been a big deal in the first place if we refused to let him go to Chicago, I think the next day he’d be at work doing his job, instead of sitting at home doing nothing to spite the owners, it takes a real douchebag to do that and I don’t think he’s that.
I am Sandy's bitch
We Are Because You Were
@WadePSU
Agreed
If anything, as I’ve said, he would have resigned, not sat there and pouted. Theo is a pro, even if you don’t always like what he’s done.
Twitter: @Marc_Normandin
by Marc Normandin on Feb 21, 2012 4:18 PM EST up reply actions
I think resigning would have been unlikely too.
I don’t think it’s a good way to guarantee yourself continued employment if you become known as the guy who will purposely make bad decisions for a team or just quit on them before a contract is finished.
I am Sandy's bitch
We Are Because You Were
@WadePSU
They replaced a GM
who has driven his team into the ground for the near and (reasonably) long term with boneheaded contracts on mediocre players with a GM who has driven his team into the ground for the near and (reasonably) long term with boneheaded contracts on mediocre players.
Everything Must Go.
The Sox got a good arm
He’s hit 100 mph in short stints, and can sit around 96-97 in relief. He’s had some trouble throwing strikes and his secondary stuff isn’t up to his fastball, but he could be a really good 8th inning guy if he can just throw some more strikes.
So, are we all cool now?
"If he can just throw some strikes"
The mantra of the eternally hopeful and disappointed
Over the Monster -- SB Nation's Resident Red Sox Site
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Feb 21, 2012 12:29 PM EST up reply actions
I hate comps unless they are perfect
This is not a perfect comp
Twitter: @Marc_Normandin
by Marc Normandin on Feb 21, 2012 1:03 PM EST up reply actions
No, it's not perfect
From what I’ve read, and from the tendency for prospects to not reach their ceilings, I’ll be hoping for a Kyle Farnsworth-type career for Carpenter, but prepare for much less.
by South Coast Ghost on Feb 21, 2012 1:06 PM EST up reply actions
I hated picking up anything but 10's at 2am when I had 14 beer in me
but I still went home with the 3’s.
Just because it ain’t perfect, doesn’t mean it’s not right.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
Look in the mirror and ask yourself: "Am I a hater troll?"
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
OTM | Silver Seven
It's interesting that they finally came to this agreement on the day that players can be moved to the 60 day DL
that, paired with Theo saying that they resolved it without MLB intervention, makes me think they probably agreed on this some time ago.
by wolf9309 on Feb 21, 2012 1:24 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Good catch.
Tricky bastards.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
Look in the mirror and ask yourself: "Am I a hater troll?"
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
OTM | Silver Seven
Would have prefered
someone younger – but I suppose this fits the “major league ready” criteria.
He was the 13th rated Cubs prospect.
If only there was some way to have avoided this extended period of uncertainty...
Oh . Wait.
The Year of Extreme Opinions
BLAAAAAAARGH OMFG SIGN STARTERS!!
I apologize if this post has offended you in any way. Please retroactively ignore it. Thank you for your consideration.
by nuthinboutnuthin on Feb 21, 2012 1:48 PM EST reply actions
why do we always
Get the bad version of players? Chris Carter, Chris Carpenter…
Also, like we need another reliever.
Everything Must Go.
by Sean O on Feb 21, 2012 1:51 PM EST via mobile reply actions
He's a starter...
… they’re all… starters… /Ken Watanbe at the end of Last Samurai
The Year of Extreme Opinions
BLAAAAAAARGH OMFG SIGN STARTERS!!
I apologize if this post has offended you in any way. Please retroactively ignore it. Thank you for your consideration.
by nuthinboutnuthin on Feb 21, 2012 1:55 PM EST up reply actions
As a Cubs fan
I’m happy that this ridiculous thing is over with, and am certainly fine with giving up Carpenter. As someone who is partial to the Red Sox having spent many years there, this must be a disappointing ending for you guys (I still think the Red Sox would’ve been better off to ask for high ceiling low level chips to groom with the talent down in A ball), but I can understand why Carpenter might’ve been the “headline” piece (of the 2), as he offers a potentially close to ready guy who has some late inning ability (see below), so he could potentially help the pen next year for you guys.
On Carpenter – I liked him more as a starter than a reliever in some respects. As a starter, he went with a 2-seamer a bit more, I believe, and he got good action on his 2-seamer. He hasn’t junked that pitch, but he goes more with his hard heat out of the pen. Now, upper 90’s is awesome, but the pitch can flatten out at times and I preferred the sinking action better. His breaking ball showed plus ability at times, but was inconsistent. Change-up is more average with above average potential. Problem with being a starter was that the control wasn’t good enough, along with durability questions.
I don’t think he’s a closer type (at least, I doubt he anchors a pen for long stretches in his career). I think he’ll probably be more of a setup type if all goes well (I think he can rebound from the horrid control in 2011, but even if he reverts to before, it’s still below average, which can work in the pen, but may not be consistent enough to anchor as a closer), and may be a power middle reliever for much of his career. That’d be my guess, a nice arm to have, but not a great arm. I wouldn’t be too concerned about his medical history from college – as with all arms, there’s always concern, but relative to the college issues, I don’t believe it is of significant relevance now.
by toonsterwu on Feb 21, 2012 3:32 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Kirk Minihane says it perfectly.
The Red Sox blew this one big time, just ridiculous:
This is where it gets confusing. Why didn’t the Red Sox hold Epstein hostage, stick him in an office and let him do paperwork until the Cubs gave them the prospect or player that they wanted? Not the second choice, not the fifth choice, not the 13th choice. Does anyone think the Cubs would let the deal fall apart over a prospect? Did you watch Epstein’s introductory press conference, or read the press coverage in Chicago when his name was first mentioned? It was tongue bath after tongue bath, the savior had arrived. The backlash of losing that because you wouldn’t give up a guy with a .420 OBP in Double-A would have been enormous, and the Cubs (already getting smoked by the press for years of ineptitude) wouldn’t have risked it. No chance.
Red Sox dropped the ball in compensation battle
My Twitter @totheights
This. This. This.
The Cubs were under tremendous pressure to get this deal done – both from fans/media/years of incompetence and from the need to pursue an offseason. The Sox would not have suffered had they retained Theo for an additional year. The Sox could have applied significant leverage by simply permitting Theo to seek an agreement, but insisting that assuming any duties were contingent upon an agreement on player compensation – leverage which would have increased as time went on. Not only should they not have compromised on the prospect package sought (by which label I exclude Messrs. Castro and Garza), they should not have compromised on the scenario which produced the leverage.
Soft-headed, soft-hearted nonsense leading to a bad result for the organization (so far, at least).
The Year of Extreme Opinions
BLAAAAAAARGH OMFG SIGN STARTERS!!
I apologize if this post has offended you in any way. Please retroactively ignore it. Thank you for your consideration.
by nuthinboutnuthin on Feb 22, 2012 11:35 AM EST up reply actions
Just another example of a poorly handled offseason.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
Look in the mirror and ask yourself: "Am I a hater troll?"
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
OTM | Silver Seven
Ignorant
As valuable as Theo was, with the current FO practices/development programs in place, letting him go for literally nothing, would have been a smarter move than the one suggested.
Want to harm the possibility of future transactions with the Cubs? Want to scare off the best FO talent? Then by all means, Theo should’ve been locked in an office until the Cubs agreed to give up something more better.
Twitter: @Greenlineoutfit
How would keeping a guy who is under contract
UNTIL you got the compensation you want going to scare people way?
That is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard.
My Twitter @totheights
Because
FO contracts are largely formalities to prevent heinous acts. Despite them, fairly lose FO movement between organizations is often permitted. Look at how the Cubs/Padres handled Hoyer this off-season.
In this circumstance, maintaining a healthy relationship with Theo and the Cubs, as well as a strong reputation was significantly more advisable.
It only sounds ridiculous if you have no idea how things work.
Twitter: @Greenlineoutfit
of course, the reason the Hoyer thing wasn't a bigger deal
is because the new owner really wanted his old buddy, Josh Byrnes to be in charge. Otherwise, that would’ve been a bigger deal since that actually was a lateral move.
True
But irrelevant to this discussion.
The Padres had an asset. They could have demanded the Cubs give them something in return (quite easily as well since there’s precedent).
No reason not to do so, other than valuing their reputation. Could have just released Hoyer if the Cubs didn’t make an offer.
Twitter: @Greenlineoutfit
Thanks.
Wasn’t aware. I’d say they’re still a valid example since it clearly wasn’t a sticking point.
Twitter: @Greenlineoutfit
Yes...
… people do often get scared off by the prospect of being forced to accept literally millions of dollars to work at the top of their profession pursuant to a contract they signed. It happens as often as well-run business organizations refuse to make profitable deals because of hurt feelings.
The Year of Extreme Opinions
BLAAAAAAARGH OMFG SIGN STARTERS!!
I apologize if this post has offended you in any way. Please retroactively ignore it. Thank you for your consideration.
by nuthinboutnuthin on Feb 22, 2012 1:20 PM EST up reply actions
That analogy doesn't work
It happens as often as top college graduates have their choice among employers. Which is to say, all of the time.
No reason to assume that the baseball ops environment is any different from that of elite law or business firms, especially since they’re hiring from the same talent pool.
And to look just within the baseball world, the effects of a poor reputation were seen when the O’s had multiple candidates turn down offers and even interviews.
Reputation matters.
Twitter: @Greenlineoutfit
I disagree...
… I think the business analogy works well, particularly when it informs an examination of the negotiation positions of the organizations.
Top college graduates isn’t an appropriate analogy, because they obviously have a wide spectrum of options and usually no preexisting commitments to any one employer. Neither are law firms or elite investment or management firms good analogies, since even the top talents there don’t typically sign contracts which limit their ability to move in a lateral fashion should they wish to do so. I’ve seen no indication that this is the case with top “key-man” management in baseball organizations. Indeed, it seems that lateral employment movement is significantly curtailed. I’ve not seen anyone suggest that Theo could have forced his way to the Cubs, apart from a general suggestion that the fact that he now inhabits a position with a different name and most of the same duties and responsibilities might somehow have facilitated his move (which I don’t buy for a second). If the Red Sox desired Theo’s services this year, he could have: (a) offered them; or (b) done something else not involving Major League Baseball. That’s it. This situation creates the leverage the Sox had vis-a-vis the Cubs, which was further enhanced by the passage of time and the Cubs’ constituent environment.
Working against this leverage is the assertion that keeping Theo would have somehow damaged Boston’s reputation. I’m afraid I don’t buy the suggestion that “forcing” Theo to perform his obligations would have constituted some ineffable stain on the escutcheon of the Red Sox.* Certainly, the Orioles analogy doesn’t really work, because their reputation has been damaged by crappy teams, a crappy farm, and Peter Angelos mysteriously sucking only at baseball ownership. The Red Sox are significantly different, because we’re a better machine both in terms of baseball assets and organizational personalities and structure. I also don’t think that people competing for rarefied jobs like baseball organization management attach serious negative weight to the possibility that they will be called on to perform the contract they’re trying to get. That seems extremely backwards. Finally, I don’t think that smart baseball operations people make deals which improve their teams, regardless of how they feel about the people they are dealing with. Favoring personal feelings over the organization is just a bad way of doing a job which is already difficult.
————-
* – One caveat: I’m not talking about the hypothetical “Theo collate these TPS reports” scenario, but actually employing the services of a top-10 GM to manage the organization generally. I think the former scenario is figment of fan’s imaginations and would have been extremely unlikely to happen – because it would have engendered that sort of reputational backlash and would have also been absurdly inefficient.
The Year of Extreme Opinions
BLAAAAAAARGH OMFG SIGN STARTERS!!
I apologize if this post has offended you in any way. Please retroactively ignore it. Thank you for your consideration.
by nuthinboutnuthin on Feb 22, 2012 3:11 PM EST up reply actions
Are we looking at this from different angles?
I don’t see how college graduates choosing between employers:
It happens as often as top college graduates have their choice among employers. Which is to say, all of the time.
is less analogousness to people choosing between employers:
people do often get scared off by the prospect of being forced to accept literally millions of dollars to work at the top of their profession pursuant to a contract they signed.
than things that inform us of negotiating decisions (your last response). It appears to me that you’re muddling desirableness of employer
people do often get scared off by the prospect of being forced to accept literally millions of dollars to work at the top of their profession pursuant to a contract they signed.
It seems to me that starting with the first response, you may have muddled desirableness of employer with business decisions (leverage, etc.)?
-——————————————————————————————————————————-
I don’t disagree with your take on the actual leverage that existed. I just don’t believe it was/or should be as strongly considered as some are suggesting, which was the entirety of my original point - letting him go was considerably wiser than locking him in an office.
Top college graduates isn’t an appropriate analogy, because they obviously have a wide spectrum of options and usually no preexisting commitments to any one employer.
The “Epsteins,” assuredly had such a wide-range of options out of college as a result of their education. As successful front office-types, these options assuredly continue to exist. If not in baseball, then in other competing fields.
Commitments go back to what I said about leverage above.
Neither are law firms or elite investment or management firms good analogies, since even the top talents there don’t typically sign contracts which limit their ability to move in a lateral fashion should they wish to do so.
As well here, and from then on, you’re dipping into leverage.
Twitter: @Greenlineoutfit
Preliminarily - it occurs to me that we might be...
… as I was writing, it struck me that the leverage conversation has very different aspects when you consider Theo v. Sox as opposed to Sox v. Cubs. I do think that there was relatively little reputational risk here for the Sox, but maybe I came down too hard on the leverage point (which was really what I liked about what Minihane was saying) and undersold the absurdity of Theo Epstein, General Manager of Janitoring – which I don’t think would ever really happen, but would impact the desireability of the Sox as a destination for top talent (although, the GM position is still one of only 30 in the world and geeks love the baseball).
The Year of Extreme Opinions
BLAAAAAAARGH OMFG SIGN STARTERS!!
I apologize if this post has offended you in any way. Please retroactively ignore it. Thank you for your consideration.
by nuthinboutnuthin on Feb 22, 2012 4:01 PM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Over the Monster
Related FanShots on Over the Monster
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Eric Hosmer redefines the Baltimore chop with infield double (Video)
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
