Theo Epstein on the Philosophy of Trades
by Adam J. Morris on Oct 1, 2009 11:00 AM CDT
Email
PrintThe Boston Globe baseball blog has a Q&A up with Theo Epstein, and I thought this was a really fascinating explanation of what the team's philosophy in regards to trades is:
On whether it's gratifying that his in-season acquisitions -- Victor Martinez, Alex Gonzalez, and Billy Wagner -- have all panned out:
Epstein: "I think it's more gratifying for the organization because of the process that's in place. Virtually any trade you make is a crapshoot. When things don't work out, people like to give us a hard time. That's their right, and I would do the same thing as a fan. But reality is that we're not shooting for perfection. In baseball, we're shooting to shift the odds of being right from maybe 50-50 to 55-45. Because we're in the business of predicting future human performance. You simply can't do that. What we try to do is put thorough processes in place with really good people and stick to our organizational ideals and try to shift the odds from 50-50 to 55-45. To me, I believe in our process. I believe in our people. We're looking to be right 55 percent of the time, especially on a midseason deal in which you're getting two months' worth of a player, and the fact that these deals have worked out make you feel really good, I think it was an important part of getting to the postseason this year. But I don't sit there and pat myself on the back and say, 'Oh, wow, we went 3 for 3, great.' Instead, I think we try to take a step back or 10,000 feet and say, 'OK, the processes we used were sound, is there any way we can improve the processes going forward and maybe shift the odds to 56 percent instead of 55 percent, and how do we learn from it and go forward? But the exact same processes we used in these deals were the same we used in the Eric Gagne deal. I think that was a good deal. It didn't work out, because he went from a really good pitcher to a really bad pitcher the second he showed up here. But . . . I'm proud of the organization, I'm proud of the people, I'm proud of the way we approached these deals. But the fact that they all worked out this year doesn't mean that I'm puffing my chest because I know how fickle it is."
Hat tip to David Pinto at Baseball Musings.
30 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
That's a very excellent,
levelheaded look at the reality of trades.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
Great stuff...
…just goes to show that you can’t expect to hit a home run every time and the only way to not make “bad” trades is to never make any trades at all.
The Gagne trade is an excellent example of using your process to arrive at a decision. I’m sure the day he was traded none of us expected the kind of dramatic dropoff that ensued in Gagne’s performance.
I have no objection to man walking on the moon.
Yep
That is the only way to look at deals. Given that both sides are trying to maximize their return while not looking dumb for what they gave up, you cannot expect to win every time. There are occasionally win-win deals that were always obvious for both teams; but more often than not, someone is going to look worse off a few years down the line. People who expect perfection out of a GM are just foolish. All you should demand is to win deals more often than lose, or that the wins are bigger wins than the losses are losses.
JD has had more wins than losses (though he has had a couple of huge losses on his ledger). He’s in the black. The Coco/Gagne/Tex trades (plus the many minor deals that look good, Lofton/original Padilla deal) have been so good that they outweigh the awful (in retrospect) Danks/Gonzalez deals. We’re looking at a 55/45 or 60/40 lead, nothing more. But you maintain that over a decade, along with better than average drafting (over the decade), and you will improve your team considerably.
Go Rice Owls!
I can't stand the Red Sox
But Theo is one of the best execs in the league, hands down.
I had a paper route when I was a kid. I was supposed to go to 2,000 houses. Or two dumpsters.
That's why I thought this was worth noting
When one of the best execs in the league says, hey, if we’re right 55% of the time when we make a deal, that’s all we can expect, I think it helps put things in perspective.
by Adam J. Morris on Oct 1, 2009 11:41 AM CDT up reply actions
This year
4.44 FIP 4.63tRA
The 2009 Texas Rangers offense: sigh...
by Kinslerhomer on Oct 1, 2009 11:49 AM CDT up reply actions
This just further validates MJH's 'stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid' rant
As his point was that the train of thought behind that trade was wrong, not really the trade itself.
So, go MJH!
Look at the comments under Jeff Wilson's blog post on dallasnews.com. What a bunch of rocket scientists.- Keith Law
Referring to the Danks/McCarthy deal?
I understood the rationale behind that one, but was 50-50 on whether it was a good deal at the time.
The Soriano/Wilkerson deal is a great example of good process, bad result.
Gonzalez/Young for Eaton/Aki- bad process, bad result.
"I cannot believe how fucking off base I was about Tiny E before this season. The Kid is great and is going to become a star."
- Wails
How is the Soriano deal
an example of good process?
We had no leverage and got back a guy who was supposed to be pretty damn good
I know its hard to remember back that far but Wilkerson was a very highly thought of player before coming to Texas. he sucked once here but thats why its referred to as a bad result
Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.
he had a bad year before we got him
and had also been injured. We could also have simply not traded Soriano and told him to move to the outfield, like they ended up doing anyway…
That would have been the best move
But given the circumstances, it wasn’t going to happen. Buck didn’t want to tell him to move and JD was entering his first year as GM and didn’t have the power to tell Buck to man up and move him. And the deal JD made was pretty good at the time. Wilkerson was “healthy” at the time and Galarraga was coming off a great season in high A and a decent debut in AA. Plus there was Termel Sledge, a 4th OF type on a team with no OF depth.
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
"I am one of the biggest Texas Ranger fans out there but I'm also one of the smartest. Deal with it."
-The Outlaw
Soriano
Was also coming off two of the worst years of his career, and Wilkerson was an OBP machine.
Most of the national writers I read at the time liked the trade for Texas- a couple (most notably Christina Kahrl) thought the Rangers absolutely fleeced the Nats.
At least it did give Texas the payroll room to sign Millwood, and opened up 2B for Kinsler.
"I cannot believe how fucking off base I was about Tiny E before this season. The Kid is great and is going to become a star."
- Wails
I'm sorry but no one then
and no one now is going to convince me that Soriano for Wilkerson, Galarraga and Sledge was ever going to have a chance at being a good deal. When the marquis player you get back for Soriano, (who in his down year was a 30/30 guy with a 100RBIs), is Brad Wilkerson a leadoff hitter with a .248BA and less than 60 runs scored in his last season, that’s a bad deal.
In Soriano's down year
He was an above average offensive 2B with horrible defense. He wasn’t much better than your average 2B those years. And Wilkerson’s average was never expected to be great, but he was expected to be a high OBP high SLG hitter like he was in previous seasons with the Expos. If you can’t understand how BA and RBIs aren’t telling of anything, then yeah, no one now is going to convince you the deal wasn’t as bad as you once thought.
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
"I am one of the biggest Texas Ranger fans out there but I'm also one of the smartest. Deal with it."
-The Outlaw
so Wilkerson's huge dropoff
in SLG the year before he was traded wasn’t an issue for you?
Bring up a one year chart for SPY.
Cover up all of the chart except for the month of June. If you just look at that part of the chart, you would say, this is a downward trend. But if you look at the entirety of the chart, you would say, oh, wait, that’s actually part of a 6 month sustained upward trend.
We can all look back and say, “man, that Wilkerson trade turned out badly.” And we can all look back and say, “man, SPY has been on a sustained upward trend for 6 months.”
"Blalock in the cleanup spot makes gives me agita." - Dustin
In addition to what Ben said
There were also reasons for his SLG to be down that year and to expect it to rise in 06/07. He spent 2005 hurt which wasn’t expected to be an issue going forward. That had a pretty clear effect on his hitting and defense that season as it seemed to have done since then. Also, he was going from the pitcher friendly RFK Stadium to a more hitter friendly ballpark.
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
"I am one of the biggest Texas Ranger fans out there but I'm also one of the smartest. Deal with it."
-The Outlaw
i distinctly remember
Gagne’s performance already beginning to decline while he was still a Ranger before the trade. it wasn’t as black and white as Epstein is attempting to portray. his process failed him to some extent in that case.
Here's what's interesting about the Gagne trade
In the Mitchell Report it states that the Red Sox FO either knew or very strongly suspected that Gagne had been on PEDs yet they still rolled the dice. Essentially, they knew/suspected that his prior stats/performance was inflated by PEDs but they thought he might still be good without them. They were wrong.
Remember Red, hope is a good thing. Maybe the best of things. And no good thing ever dies.
Gagne was slipping a little towards the end of his Rangers tenure...
…but not much. His last 12 appearances in a Rangers uni covering a 4-week span:
12 G
12.1 IP
3.65 ERA
7.3 K/9
2.2 BB/9
1.22 WHIP
Those are good numbers for a veteran reliever you want to insert as your 8th-inning guy/backup closer.
Also, here are his stats for his entire time as a Ranger:
34 G
33.1 IP
2.19 ERA
7.8 K/9
3.2 BB/9
1.05 WHIP
Pretty salty numbers and his last two appearances as a Ranger were saving both halves of a late July DH on a very hot day at RBiA (I know how hot since I was there).
I think Theo had good reason to think he was trading for a guy who was going to be a great addition to his bullpen.
I have no objection to man walking on the moon.
That's a damn good summary...
of how a GM has to view deals that are made.
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates
Theo can usually tell if a deal is good right away
That is because he is almost always trading for veterans. It’s hard to know the other side of the deal because the players going back the other way are often years away from the Majors.
"What ... 92 miles per hour?" Feldman scoffed. "That's not gas. Feliz throws gas."
by NorCalRangersFan on Oct 1, 2009 1:44 PM CDT reply actions
Another article about Theo that I can't find right now
His theory on constructing the positional players is that he tries to get a team together that’s league average at every position. They aren’t trying to construct some team of superstars everywhere but just league average. If you can do that, then the Youks and Pedroias put you over the top. Not earth shattering but interesting nonetheless. Of course, when they signed Varitek I had to question whether they were following their own guideline.
Remember Red, hope is a good thing. Maybe the best of things. And no good thing ever dies.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Keeping good company: Albert Pujols becomes fourth-youngest player to hit 450 home runs
- Giancarlo Stanton misses cutoff man, and Logan Morrison is thankful he did (Video)
- Snoop Dogg delivers memorable first pitch at U.S. Cellular Field
- The Juice: Mesoraco’s grand slam helps Reds complete four-game sweep of Braves
- Please hold: Indians’ Joe Smith jumps the gun on relief appearance
