 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Other Stuff » Sports Talk » Epstein Leaves.
Cubsfan13
November 01, 2005 at 04:02AM View BBCode
Where do you think he'll end up now? I heard Peter Gammons say that part of the reason he left was that he didn't like all the attention he got with the Red Sox.
kujayhawks15
If he doesn't like attention, I say go to Tampa or Kansas City.
November 01, 2005 at 04:11AM View BBCode
Originally posted by Cubsfan13
Where do you think he'll end up now? I heard Peter Gammons say that part of the reason he left was that he didn't like all the attention he got with the Red Sox.
If he doesn't like attention, I say go to Tampa or Kansas City.
FiveToolPlayer
As a Red Sox fan, I think this is horrible. Everyone loved Theo. I give him credit for helping build a much better farm system and for having the guts to pull the trigger on the un-popular Nomar deal that eventually pushed the Sox into the World Series. Theo was well spoken, bright, and I hoped he would be the GM for the next 20 years. Apparently Larry Luchinno had other plans. If the Red Sox take a step back after this, the blame can be put squarely on Luchinno.
November 01, 2005 at 04:44AM View BBCode
Why is that good news?As a Red Sox fan, I think this is horrible. Everyone loved Theo. I give him credit for helping build a much better farm system and for having the guts to pull the trigger on the un-popular Nomar deal that eventually pushed the Sox into the World Series. Theo was well spoken, bright, and I hoped he would be the GM for the next 20 years. Apparently Larry Luchinno had other plans. If the Red Sox take a step back after this, the blame can be put squarely on Luchinno.
Smocko
I'm a Yankee fan, remember?
Not everyone's on your side. Just the rest of America.
November 01, 2005 at 04:55AM View BBCode
Originally posted by FiveToolPlayer
Why is that good news?
I'm a Yankee fan, remember?
Not everyone's on your side. Just the rest of America.
whiskybear
If there's one thing the Yankees suffer from, it's certainly the lack of a nationwide fan base.
[Edited on 11-1-2005 by whiskybear]
November 01, 2005 at 05:13AM View BBCode
Originally posted by Smocko
Not everyone's on your side. Just the rest of America.
If there's one thing the Yankees suffer from, it's certainly the lack of a nationwide fan base.
[Edited on 11-1-2005 by whiskybear]
whiskybear
Or Smocko.
[Edited on 11-1-2005 by whiskybear]
November 01, 2005 at 05:45AM View BBCode
Nobody loves the Yankees.Or Smocko.
[Edited on 11-1-2005 by whiskybear]
Smocko
November 01, 2005 at 05:48AM View BBCode
Luis still loves me. Or at least my counting-stat-tastic players.
Smocko
November 01, 2005 at 05:57AM View BBCode
But doesn't FiveToolPlayer's assumption of national mourning annoy anyone else?
FuriousGiorge
November 01, 2005 at 06:02AM View BBCode
Can't discuss it, too busy sitting shiva over this terrible blow to a team that I don't give a sh*t about.
whiskybear
I hate both of your overexposed and underachieving teams, so, yes.
November 01, 2005 at 06:09AM View BBCode
Originally posted by Smocko
But doesn't FiveToolPlayer's assumption of national mourning annoy anyone else?
I hate both of your overexposed and underachieving teams, so, yes.
ABDREW
I must have missed where Fivetool called for a national mourning. He prefaced his remarks by saying "As a Redsox fan"
November 01, 2005 at 10:52AM View BBCode
This is bad news for Redsox fans. Anyone else could care less. Why should they? Hes a GM, does anyone really care when GMs' change positions?I must have missed where Fivetool called for a national mourning. He prefaced his remarks by saying "As a Redsox fan"
barterer2002
November 01, 2005 at 12:47PM View BBCode
Maybe this will cause the Phillies time to stop their ridiculous pursuit of Pat Gillick and sign Epstein instead (or at least allow the Dodgers to sign Gillick and then sign Hunsicker)
lvnwrth
Probably no team in history has drafted as poorly as the Royals did between 1993-2001. That has finally changed the last couple of seasons, and Baird seems to be getting credit for that...though it rightly belongs to Deric Ladnier, their personnel director.
I think they'll wait to pull the trigger on Baird until they see what happens with guys like Billy Butler, Alex Gordon, Chris Lubanski and the bunch of young pitchers that they keep saying are close to ready.
Of course, it really doesn't matter in KC, because as soon as a guy reaches free agency eligibility, he's out of here...see Beltran, Damon, Dye, Byrd, Suppan.
November 01, 2005 at 02:31PM View BBCode
Well, I can assure you that Kansas City is not an option, no matter how much he wants to duck attention. David Glass is in love with Allard Baird, for whatever reason (compromising photos?). Despite Baird's woeful performance in his tenure as GM, he is secure in his job for the time being.Probably no team in history has drafted as poorly as the Royals did between 1993-2001. That has finally changed the last couple of seasons, and Baird seems to be getting credit for that...though it rightly belongs to Deric Ladnier, their personnel director.
I think they'll wait to pull the trigger on Baird until they see what happens with guys like Billy Butler, Alex Gordon, Chris Lubanski and the bunch of young pitchers that they keep saying are close to ready.
Of course, it really doesn't matter in KC, because as soon as a guy reaches free agency eligibility, he's out of here...see Beltran, Damon, Dye, Byrd, Suppan.
kujayhawks15
November 02, 2005 at 12:41AM View BBCode
You know a lot, I am a big Royals fan, but I'm only 14 so I only know bad, except for 2003. Anyways, I think that Baird should be fired, he is good at getting something for nothing (ex: justin huber) but not trading Sweeney killed the Royals. I was joking about him going to KC anyways, just saying that he would get no attention there. I think that we have a strong future, and I *hope* that Glass opens up his pockets in like 5 yeras, not now, to sign those guys for a boatload of years.
lvnwrth
It's not his fault he couldn't trade Sweeney. When he's healthy, he's still one of the best RH hitters in the American League. But, he's always hurt and has an 11 million dollar contract that jumps to 12.5 million if he's traded. He also has a limited no-trade clause. If the Royals want to trade him, he gets to designate which 8 teams he can be traded to. How do you trade that kind of contract?
Also, you may not recall a couple of things that were absolutely crucial in the decision to sign Sweeney to that long contract extension:
1) He was coming off a couple of HUGE seasons and was going to get $14-15 million a year in the open market if the Royals didn't sign him when they did. Sweeney left money on the table to stay in KC. If you recall, at the time the players association was upset with him for signing below market value, because he's the guy who would've set the market that winter.
2) The Royals had just lost Johnny Damon, who was a money-crazed jerk, and never intended to stay here. Attitude wise, it was good riddance, but they got little in return for a player of his caliber. They had just lost Jermaine Dye, who WASN'T a money-crazed jerk, and might have stayed here if the Royals had tried. But they were convinced they couldn't re-sign him. Beltran was not yet a huge star, and Sweeney was all the Royals had. If they had let him walk, the Royals might very well have been on baseball's contraction list with Montreal and Minnesota.
Here's what one columnist said of Sweeney just before he signed the contract extension: "Sweeney is the only Royals player fans can identify and idolize. He's an All-Star. He has one of the sweetest swings in baseball. He's a perfect citizen."
Here's what Sweeney said when he signed: "My representatives said on the free market I'd probably be worth $14, $15 (million a year), somewhere around there. But to me, it's not about the money. It's about being fair, not trying to get the most. For me this is the right place. I wrote on a piece of paper the pros and cons, and the pros outweighed the cons to stay in Kansas City. It's not about money, but having peace in your heart. I have peace in my heart to sign this contract."
In the spring of 2002, the Royals HAD to re-sign Mike Sweeney. He made them an offer they couldn't refuse...a five year deal at a $15 million discount. There was no indication at the time that Sweeney was not going to be healthy again...ever...or so it seems.
November 02, 2005 at 01:33AM View BBCode
He does seem to have done okay with the Huber deal. And if he can stay healthy, Danny Bautista for Jason Grimsley is a steal. But he's done an awful job with veteran free agents - the return of Lima, Juan Gonzalez, Benito Santiago, Terrence Long, Chuck Knoblauch, .It's not his fault he couldn't trade Sweeney. When he's healthy, he's still one of the best RH hitters in the American League. But, he's always hurt and has an 11 million dollar contract that jumps to 12.5 million if he's traded. He also has a limited no-trade clause. If the Royals want to trade him, he gets to designate which 8 teams he can be traded to. How do you trade that kind of contract?
Also, you may not recall a couple of things that were absolutely crucial in the decision to sign Sweeney to that long contract extension:
1) He was coming off a couple of HUGE seasons and was going to get $14-15 million a year in the open market if the Royals didn't sign him when they did. Sweeney left money on the table to stay in KC. If you recall, at the time the players association was upset with him for signing below market value, because he's the guy who would've set the market that winter.
2) The Royals had just lost Johnny Damon, who was a money-crazed jerk, and never intended to stay here. Attitude wise, it was good riddance, but they got little in return for a player of his caliber. They had just lost Jermaine Dye, who WASN'T a money-crazed jerk, and might have stayed here if the Royals had tried. But they were convinced they couldn't re-sign him. Beltran was not yet a huge star, and Sweeney was all the Royals had. If they had let him walk, the Royals might very well have been on baseball's contraction list with Montreal and Minnesota.
Here's what one columnist said of Sweeney just before he signed the contract extension: "Sweeney is the only Royals player fans can identify and idolize. He's an All-Star. He has one of the sweetest swings in baseball. He's a perfect citizen."
Here's what Sweeney said when he signed: "My representatives said on the free market I'd probably be worth $14, $15 (million a year), somewhere around there. But to me, it's not about the money. It's about being fair, not trying to get the most. For me this is the right place. I wrote on a piece of paper the pros and cons, and the pros outweighed the cons to stay in Kansas City. It's not about money, but having peace in your heart. I have peace in my heart to sign this contract."
In the spring of 2002, the Royals HAD to re-sign Mike Sweeney. He made them an offer they couldn't refuse...a five year deal at a $15 million discount. There was no indication at the time that Sweeney was not going to be healthy again...ever...or so it seems.
kujayhawks15
I read somewhere that we have something like $23 million invested in players for past next year, 11 million of that is Sweeney, so essentially KC could have traded him, and started putting together pieces for the puzzle a couple years down the road.
It seems that whenever we sign an unwanted free agent, or when we make a trade for a "nobody" that he is always a *better* player than when we try to go out and sign a veteran guy like JuanGone or Lima this past year. So I think that Baird should stick to getting role players, stocking a roster full of role players/prospects (Teahen, Huber, etc.) and see what happens. This way, we could save up money for later years when we will (gasp!) try to compete.
[Edited on 11-2-2005 by kujayhawks15]
November 02, 2005 at 02:33AM View BBCode
No, I loved the fact that they resigned him as we had just had a winning season and KC thought that they could actually make the playoffs. What I am saying is that (correct me if I'm wrong about any of this, but I'm pretty sure) the Angels were going to give us Casey Kotchman and take on ALL of the contract for Sweeney. I don't think that is what he is worth, but Kotchman is a good prospect and we need to unload that.I read somewhere that we have something like $23 million invested in players for past next year, 11 million of that is Sweeney, so essentially KC could have traded him, and started putting together pieces for the puzzle a couple years down the road.
It seems that whenever we sign an unwanted free agent, or when we make a trade for a "nobody" that he is always a *better* player than when we try to go out and sign a veteran guy like JuanGone or Lima this past year. So I think that Baird should stick to getting role players, stocking a roster full of role players/prospects (Teahen, Huber, etc.) and see what happens. This way, we could save up money for later years when we will (gasp!) try to compete.
[Edited on 11-2-2005 by kujayhawks15]
barterer2002
November 02, 2005 at 03:46AM View BBCode
How about that, A Yankees/Red Sox thread hijacked by the Royals.
kujayhawks15
Isn't it amazing?
November 02, 2005 at 03:51AM View BBCode
Originally posted by barterer2002
How about that, A Yankees/Red Sox thread hijacked by the Royals.
Isn't it amazing?
FuriousGiorge
Signing Mike Sweeney to a long-term deal was a move that looked just as bad then as it does now. An injury-prone 1st basemen on a team with limited resources and a lot of holes?
That being said, Allard Baird is better than the guy who preceeded him.
November 02, 2005 at 04:17AM View BBCode
Yeah, that's pretty awesome.Signing Mike Sweeney to a long-term deal was a move that looked just as bad then as it does now. An injury-prone 1st basemen on a team with limited resources and a lot of holes?
That being said, Allard Baird is better than the guy who preceeded him.
lvnwrth
Check your facts, Curious. He had never had any kind of serious injury problems when he signed that extension. The chronic back problems came after. So your statement implying that he was "an injury prone 1st baseman" at the time of the signing simply displays your ignorance of the Royals, which isn't surprising. No one in KC cares about them. Why should you?
As for your statement that Baird is better than Herk Robinson, that's faint and damning praise, at best. Heck, CG...YOU'RE better than Herk Robinson.
[Edited on 11-2-2005 by lvnwrth]
November 02, 2005 at 03:48PM View BBCode
Originally posted by FuriousGiorge
Yeah, that's pretty awesome.
Signing Mike Sweeney to a long-term deal was a move that looked just as bad then as it does now. An injury-prone 1st basemen on a team with limited resources and a lot of holes?
That being said, Allard Baird is better than the guy who preceeded him.
Check your facts, Curious. He had never had any kind of serious injury problems when he signed that extension. The chronic back problems came after. So your statement implying that he was "an injury prone 1st baseman" at the time of the signing simply displays your ignorance of the Royals, which isn't surprising. No one in KC cares about them. Why should you?
As for your statement that Baird is better than Herk Robinson, that's faint and damning praise, at best. Heck, CG...YOU'RE better than Herk Robinson.
[Edited on 11-2-2005 by lvnwrth]
FuriousGiorge
November 02, 2005 at 04:11PM View formatted
You are viewing the raw post code; this allows you to copy a message with BBCode formatting intact.
Fair enough leavening. He wasn't injury-prone at the time. He was still a 1st baseman with old man skills on a team with a lot of holes, and he couldn't be expected to age all that well. KC never looks at the big picture, which is why they've been stuck in neutral for 20 years.
Pages: 1 2