Theo Epstein Sploosh Thread

[Saul Goodman]

Epstein-Hoyer 2020?

[Canadouche]

Epstein-Hoyer 2020?

I actually want Tim Cook to run, and I want his staff/cabinet to be primarily Apple execs. I have little logical reason for desiring this.

[PenFoe]

So let's have a fun exercise in the vein of TJ's post.

What if the Cubs are (with roster as presently constructed) somehow hanging in the race in July. It's late July and let's say the Cubs inexplicably hold a 3-4 game lead in the division. Maybe the Cards have some crippling injuries. Maybe the Pirates are back to being the Pirates. But let's just say Cub pitching has far exceeded expectations and while they still can't hit for shit, they're just not giving up enough runs to lose.

What do you think happens?

Again it's a slim lead nearing the trade deadline and in this fake future I've created everyone's waiting for the other shoe to drop. The Cubs don't have the players to win the division. Sell? Buy? Stand pat?

I think it'd be really interesting to see what the front office would do.

I think I want them to stand pat. I'm no genius, but I feel like if they're that close with the current roster (they might have had to call someone up to be in that position, though), then 2015 should be fantastic,

At this point, the project is getting closer to fruition. Even if the Cubs conten at midsummer, there's no reason to deviate from that. The only non-pat-standing that could happen in this instance would be the addition of Baez if he tortures AAA pitching like he did to AA pitching.

So with the consensus being "stand pat" with the exception for Five Head Todd's pointless offering - imagine the shitstorm from the Haughs, Sullys, Morrisseys, Telanders, et. al. if the Cubs didn't beef up the roster with a division lead in July.

It would be just about the greatest spectacle in media history.

If we're talking about a slight division lead and the deal on the table is a player who helps now but not so much in the long run in exchange for Baez, Bryant, Almora or Soler, I think you say no. The opportunity to win the division is not worth sacrificing a player you're counting on to build your franchise. If they would be getting back someone that actually could help over the next two years - a pitcher with a decent upside, say, well, yeah. Do it probably.

I think the theory STAND PAT isn't even feasible without knowing what the deal would be. It's a more useful exercise to look at their assets and decide what they should want back in return. When I read the original hypothetical I thought it was with regard to a "white flag" type of trade. That's a question we'd have to ponder at the moment too. If the Cubs were 3 games up in July and a contending team wanted to know what they'd take for Snork, I think it'd be wise to consider what prospects they've got that can help us beyond Snork - even if it made the CubbieBlueStews of the world crap their pants.  

What makes me crap my pants is that we are 5 and half weeks to go before Spring training and here we are trying to decide if we are going to the World Series this year or the year after.

Neither, Stew.

I'm sorry.

2016 though.  
Consider it an 85th birthday present.

Man, talk about missing an opportunity to leave on a high note.

What everyone I would have given for that to have been my last post ever here.

[CBStew]

So let's have a fun exercise in the vein of TJ's post.

What if the Cubs are (with roster as presently constructed) somehow hanging in the race in July. It's late July and let's say the Cubs inexplicably hold a 3-4 game lead in the division. Maybe the Cards have some crippling injuries. Maybe the Pirates are back to being the Pirates. But let's just say Cub pitching has far exceeded expectations and while they still can't hit for shit, they're just not giving up enough runs to lose.

What do you think happens?

Again it's a slim lead nearing the trade deadline and in this fake future I've created everyone's waiting for the other shoe to drop. The Cubs don't have the players to win the division. Sell? Buy? Stand pat?

I think it'd be really interesting to see what the front office would do.

I think I want them to stand pat. I'm no genius, but I feel like if they're that close with the current roster (they might have had to call someone up to be in that position, though), then 2015 should be fantastic,

At this point, the project is getting closer to fruition. Even if the Cubs conten at midsummer, there's no reason to deviate from that. The only non-pat-standing that could happen in this instance would be the addition of Baez if he tortures AAA pitching like he did to AA pitching.

So with the consensus being "stand pat" with the exception for Five Head Todd's pointless offering - imagine the shitstorm from the Haughs, Sullys, Morrisseys, Telanders, et. al. if the Cubs didn't beef up the roster with a division lead in July.

It would be just about the greatest spectacle in media history.

If we're talking about a slight division lead and the deal on the table is a player who helps now but not so much in the long run in exchange for Baez, Bryant, Almora or Soler, I think you say no. The opportunity to win the division is not worth sacrificing a player you're counting on to build your franchise. If they would be getting back someone that actually could help over the next two years - a pitcher with a decent upside, say, well, yeah. Do it probably.

I think the theory STAND PAT isn't even feasible without knowing what the deal would be. It's a more useful exercise to look at their assets and decide what they should want back in return. When I read the original hypothetical I thought it was with regard to a "white flag" type of trade. That's a question we'd have to ponder at the moment too. If the Cubs were 3 games up in July and a contending team wanted to know what they'd take for Snork, I think it'd be wise to consider what prospects they've got that can help us beyond Snork - even if it made the CubbieBlueStews of the world crap their pants.  

What makes me crap my pants is that we are 5 and half weeks to go before Spring training and here we are trying to decide if we are going to the World Series this year or the year after.

Neither, Stew.

I'm sorry.

2016 though. 
Consider it an 85th birthday present.

Hey.  Not bad.  Though it put a handful of extra years on me.

[CT III]

Epstein-Hoyer 2020?

I actually want Tim Cook to run, and I want his staff/cabinet to be primarily Apple execs. I have little logical reason for desiring this.

That is because this is an insane thing to desire.

[Saul Goodman]

Epstein-Hoyer 2020?

I actually want Tim Cook to run, and I want his staff/cabinet to be primarily Apple execs. I have little logical reason for desiring this.

That is because this is an insane thing to desire.

INSANELY GREAT?

No. Just insane.

[Canadouche]

Epstein-Hoyer 2020?

I actually want Tim Cook to run, and I want his staff/cabinet to be primarily Apple execs. I have little logical reason for desiring this.

That is because this is an insane thing to desire.

INSANELY GREAT?

No. Just insane.

I don't know. I think there are worse things than having brilliant executives run the United States, after having a track record of already running the most successful company in the world, who have an understanding about how important it is to protect the environment, as well as the privacy rights of US citizens.

[Bort]

Epstein-Hoyer 2020?

I actually want Tim Cook to run, and I want his staff/cabinet to be primarily Apple execs. I have little logical reason for desiring this.

That is because this is an insane thing to desire.

INSANELY GREAT?

No. Just insane.

I don't know. I think there are worse things than having brilliant executives run the United States, after having a track record of already running the most successful company in the world.

Oh good god no. Not in any way. No.

[Canadouche]

Epstein-Hoyer 2020?

I actually want Tim Cook to run, and I want his staff/cabinet to be primarily Apple execs. I have little logical reason for desiring this.

That is because this is an insane thing to desire.

INSANELY GREAT?

No. Just insane.

I don't know. I think there are worse things than having brilliant executives run the United States, after having a track record of already running the most successful company in the world.

Oh good god no. Not in any way. No.

You're right. Theo would totally be a more logical choice.

[CT III]

Epstein-Hoyer 2020?

I actually want Tim Cook to run, and I want his staff/cabinet to be primarily Apple execs. I have little logical reason for desiring this.

That is because this is an insane thing to desire.

INSANELY GREAT?

No. Just insane.

I don't know. I think there are worse things than having brilliant executives run the United States, after having a track record of already running the most successful company in the world.

Oh good god no. Not in any way. No.

You're right. Theo would totally be a more logical choice.

Apple's success depends in large part on being able to manufacture their products cheaply in Chinese factories where conditions are so depressing that nets have been erected outside the buildings to catch suicidal employees. 

If you think Apple executives give a tin shit about humanity, I don't know what to tell you.

I mean, at least Peter Thiel is up front about the fact that he's a fucking vampire.

[Bort]

Epstein-Hoyer 2020?

I actually want Tim Cook to run, and I want his staff/cabinet to be primarily Apple execs. I have little logical reason for desiring this.

That is because this is an insane thing to desire.

INSANELY GREAT?

No. Just insane.

I don't know. I think there are worse things than having brilliant executives run the United States, after having a track record of already running the most successful company in the world.

Oh good god no. Not in any way. No.

You're right. Theo would totally be a more logical choice.

Oh good god no. Not in any way. No.

[R-V]

I just want to make sure I follow your logic here, Kurt: we have two choices for our next President - Theo Epstein or Tim Cook?

[Canadouche]

I just want to make sure I follow your logic here, Kurt: we have two choices for our next President - Theo Epstein or Tim Cook?

Only if I'm operating with little logic.

[PenFoe]

I just want to make sure I follow your logic here, Kurt: we have two choices for our next President - Theo Epstein or Tim Cook?

Only if I'm operating with little logic.

For the record, I'd vote for Theo.

I don't even want to hear any of his platforms in case I disagree.

[Eli]

Epstein-Hoyer 2020?

I actually want Tim Cook to run, and I want his staff/cabinet to be primarily Apple execs. I have little logical reason for desiring this.

That is because this is an insane thing to desire.

INSANELY GREAT?

No. Just insane.

I don't know. I think there are worse things than having brilliant executives run the United States, after having a track record of already running the most successful company in the world, who have an understanding about how important it is to protect the environment, as well as the privacy rights of US citizens.

Running a business is almost nothing like running a country.