Epstein - Boston Globe
In Sunday’s newspaper, the biggest caution flag on the 2010 season yet was tossed.
This offseason, one of the hottest debates surrounding the Red Sox is if the team should “go for it” this year — ala sign Matt Holliday/Jason Bay, pull off a blockbuster trade, so on and so forth. The flip side of the argument was waiting until 2011 where there’s a more competitive free agent class, an increased likelihood of a blockbuster trade and a farm system whose window is 2011-2013.
My opinion has been that the Red Sox are going to stand pat and play out 2010 with their club largely intact along with no major changes. Of course, if an Adrian Gonzalez trade fell into Boston’s lap, I would advocate it and they would certainly pull out the stops to bring him to town. Barring that, however, I couldn’t see Boston making a big push for 2010 and instead preparing themselves for 2011.
Whether you agree with it or not, it seems as if this is exactly what Boston is going to do:
But in the end you have to realize you’re not going to win every single year, you’re not going to win 95 games every year, you’re not going to make the playoffs every year, you’re certainly not going to win the World Series every year. You have to always do what’s in the best long-term interest of your organization. (Theo Epstein, Boston Globe.)
This quote could be verbatim from 2005-6. I recall various public statements that Epstein made to this effect back then, and he’s making them again. Give Theo credit: he’s preparing Sox fans by warning them. The organization could pretend that everything’s great and the moves Epstein is making are the right moves to win. That’s not how Theo wants to operate, though. For the fans to understand the process, they need to be told the process.
In the book Feeding the Monster by Seth Mnookin, the author illustrates this very point by quoting Theo Epstein in discussions how 2006 was likely going to be worse to the benefit of 2007-8:
We won 95 games [in 2005], but this approach isn’t really sustainable over the long run. Sooner or later we might need to take half a step backward in return for a step forward… I warned about this in April. What if we win 85 games [in 2006]? We’re bringing up some young players that are going to be better in ’07 thank they will be next year. And they’ll probably be even better than that in ’08.
… We keep asking for more, more, more. But there will be a point where we don’t do more [one year] because we need to do things for the long run.
… We can be both a large revenue club [that can afford to sign high-priced free agents] and have a strong farm system. But it’s probably not going to be a seamless transition. This year we had a great year. We will probably be worse next year.
We can’t just tell [the fans] we’ll be better. (Inferring the fans need to be prepared, and the only way to do that is to warn them and not mince words publicly.)
I’d call the Sunday quote a warning, wouldn’t you?
Look, even if Boston brings in Matt Holliday or Jason Bay, this team doesn’t quite look like it should be a World Series favorite. A presumptive playoffs favorite? Sure, you can say that. But there are flaws with this team, and they’re not fixable on our own schedule (our meaning both the fan’s and front office). We don’t operate in a vacuum. The team’s best minor league prospects will all begin reaching the high levels of the minors in 2010, preparing for a big influx of talent in 2011-2012. They’re not reaching the majors now. Not a vacuum. Mike Lowell, David Ortiz and Josh Beckett are all free agents after 2010, freeing up massive amounts of money and more importantly, two positions (first and DH) which can be filled with impact players. They’re not freed up now. Not a vacuum. (And spare me the hindsight comments about how Papi or Lowell shouldn’t have been signed, etc. etc. It does not matter. It happened, and it’s the circumstances facing us now.)
Look, Boston is a high-payroll team, but even Boston can’t sustain 95 wins every year. The goal should be 95 wins, and it is Theo’s goal every year, but if you want long-term success, at some point your short-term future has to be compromised.
The opposite is true as well. The Yankees went short-term for years before Brian Cashman took complete control and stopped pushing every prospect out the door. After this happened and the Yankees began emulating Boston, what happened? 2008 and a missed playoff appearance happened, shades of Boston’s experience in 2006. What happened to each respective team in 2007 and 2009? They both got massive contributions from their new talent, made a big outlay for free agents and won the World Series.
Am I saying this is going to mirror itself for a third time in Boston? Well, that’s the intention. That’s what the current and future situations seem to indicate. That said, there are far too many moving pieces of the puzzle. Even Theo doesn’t know where he’ll be sitting a year or even six months from now. Does he have a very good idea? Of course. But even he can’t predict with any certainty what will happen.
You may be asking why Boston signed Marco Scutaro if they truly felt that 2010 was a transition year. My explanation in full is here, but the short version is that it was cost-efficient to sign Scutaro. For what Scutaro produces, he was paid accordingly — and I would argue less than. You see, even though Boston might be entering a transition year, it doesn’t mean they want to lose. They simply have to win with constraints around them — self-imposed constraints that will make the team better in the future. Scutaro fit this philosophy by coming with a short contract that can contribute in the time frame Boston has available for him while being cost-efficient at the same time.
If true that Boston is headed towards a transition year, I understand the philosophy to the point where I embrace it and endorse it. We have a great farm system that will begin to cycle in new contributors. We have aging players whose contracts are about to expire, freeing up money to retain our younger stars and go acquire more stars on the free agent market. There is a perfect storm on the horizon for Boston, and I can see it.
Now, whether or not the philosophy is the correct decision in regards to 2010 is certainly up for debate. Some of you want to go acquire Matt Holliday now and trade for Roy Halladay now, while signing Nick Johnson now and trading Mike Lowell now, even if it means getting less value for Lowell than he can provide Boston. That’s not how it works. Sometimes these opportunities fall in your lap. Other times, Holliday is signed away by a surprise team, the price for Halladay is too high, and the cash outlay to sign Johnson and trade Lowell doesn’t make as much sense as just keeping and playing Lowell.
Theo has a tough job ahead evaluating what makes the most short- and long-term sense for the club. Make no mistake about this: Theo is a very competitive person and every move he makes is dedicated towards multiple World Series titles, not just one.
(Also, in the article, we find out that Theo had no qualms trading Manny Ramirez but found it tough to give up Brandon Moss and Craig Hansen. Really, Theo? Hard to believe that one.)