Re: Theo Compensation
posted at 12/24/2011 7:55 AM EST
In Response to Re: Theo Compensation
[QUOTE]In response to "Re: Theo Compensation": The RS were asked and permission was granted. Henry specifically stated he would never hold anyone back, and he also felt change was good. Please state any instance, in all of baseball, where an executive chAnged organizations to a higher job position, and compensation was granted. Wasn't Lunhow of the Cards under contract and just took the Astros job? In that instance, zero compensation was even discussed. Hoyer moved from the Padres to the Cubs in a lateral position, and no compensation was awarded. Theo moved from GM of the RS to a greater position with the Cubs. Permission was granted. In this case Zero compensation is "owed". Perhaps compensation was discussed in order for the Sox to grant permission. To think that compensation would be an asset such as Garza, as I mentioned earlier is ridiculous.
Posted by rkarp[/QUOTE]
The rules and regualtion regarding managers, coaches or front office personell leaving to assume jobs with other teams differ from team to team and industry to industry. In my job, previuos to hiring. I signed a non-compete aggreement that prohibits me from accepting a like positon with a competitor during my employ or for 18 months after terminating my employment.
Recently the Blue Jays changed thier policy. That once allowed field managers or front office personall to void thier contracts and take a like position with another organization. To protect themselves from losing Farrel, they amended that policy, when Frnacona resigned. In the case of Hoyer, the Padres had Brynes at the ready to take over and thus allowed Hoyer (who was under contract) to leave without asking for compensation.
In the case of Epstein, after learning that Luccino had agreed to stay on in his present role. Henry then met with Epstein to gauge his interest in staying on as the GM and signing an extension. After learning that Epstein was not ameanable to continuing long term in his current role. He allowed him to seek a position in another organination that was not seen as a lateral move while under his current contract. He also made clear that if he were to allow Epstein to void the final year of his deal that the Red Sox as a condition of his leaving, would expect the new organization to compensate the Red Sox in the form of a player(s) and not financially....Otherwise, he'd be expected to honor the last year of his deal. The Cub's it appears by offering Epstein a contract for emplyement, agreed to the compensation clause. Now it's a matter of working through the details to arrive at what is fair and equitable...
From all I've read, it doesn't appear that either side is all that concerned about the timing of when the transaction will be completed. Cherington has stated publically that both parties have already agreed to the framework, it's the details that need to be put to paper and then submitted to MLB for approval....