Cubs fire GM Jim Hendry; Latest: Epstein about to become GM?

[TooLiveBrew]

Also, the Red Sox have been regarded as having a good farm system for basically Epstein's entire tenure iirc.

 

He won WS titles with no players drafted by him in 04 and two of significance in 07. As has been stated he didn't really trade away many prospects that have had a big impact in the majors. I think his drafting capabilities are overrated. Not saying he wasn't good only that his championships were won by means other than his drafting.

Trading away prospects that don't pan out is certainly not an indictment of a GM's abilities or performance. If anything, it suggests superior talent evaluation, if you're repeatedly bringing in good production for prospects that don't wind up panning out.

 

I really don't feel informed enough to talk about Epstein's drafting skills. Many GMs around the league make it fairly clear that they are merely a cog in the machine of the drafting & scouting process. Seems like when farm systems turn out good talent, the GM's a good drafter... and if the opposite is true, he sucks at drafting. Maybe both of those assertions are true, but with so many other people involved in drafting, I find that hard to believe.

 

It's probably better (or at least easier) to judge a MLB GM on the trades & FA moves he makes. Epstein certainly has some duds on his resume, but he also has some flat-out excellent moves.

[SconnieKid]

I think his drafting capabilities are overrated.

You have to give a GM some time to develop their talent. He drafted Ellsbury, Pedroia, Bucholz, etc. He traded a can of beans for AGon. They developed Youk.

 

Almost ALL FA signings are bad deals for the teams. If you look at metrics for WP for free agents they are out of this world expensive. But they were able to afford such talent because they DID have so much home grown talent. Epstein took a solid farm system and turned it into a GREAT one. He also turned Fenway from an old festering building into the destination stadium in baseball.

 

Its going to take time but Chicago just got a lot more dangerous IMO.

[Thurston Fluff]

Trading away prospects that don't pan out is certainly not an indictment of a GM's abilities or performance. If anything, it suggests superior talent evaluation, if you're repeatedly bringing in good production for prospects that don't wind up panning out.

 

I meant his drafts haven't produced a huge number of players that are doing well in the majors. He is fine wiht assessing the value of his minor league players once in pro ball.

 

 

You have to give a GM some time to develop their talent. He drafted Ellsbury, Pedroia, Bucholz, etc. He traded a can of beans for AGon. They developed Youk.

 

He's been there as long as Melvin is here. Which organization did a better job of drafting and developing? The Brewers are winning with a lot more homegrown talent than the Sox did. Given your assertion that it takes time to draft and develop it only furthers my argument that drafting and developing isn't his strong suit. Otherwise his teams would be getting better about now instead of disintegrating.

[monty57]

It should be noted that the epic failure season the Boston Globe, ESPN, etc are talking about ended with 90-wins and missing out on the playoffs because of an extra-inning HR by Evan Longoria. He certainly did better than other $100MM+ teams like the Angels (86-76), White Sox (79-83), Cubs (71-91), Mets (77-85), Giants (86-76), Twins (63-99), and Dodgers (82-79).

 

If a GM's "bad year" is 90 wins, then I'd say he's had a pretty good tenure. I think Boston's season is only a story because ESPN thinks baseball consists of two teams (Sawx and Yankees), so if one of them doesn't make the playoffs the world is coming to an end. The Cubs offered Theo 5 years / $20MM (good money for a GM), so he took it. He will probably be worth it for the Cubs, as he is a good GM, and I think the GM is the most important and most overlooked person in sports.

 

I don't like the Red Sox (or the Yankees), but I have to give Epstein credit for what he's done. Any GM's individual moves can be picked apart (see all the attacks on Melvin on this board), but in the end you look at the net result. Epstein netted two WS Championships for a team who was considered "cursed" before his arrival.

[TooLiveBrew]

He's been there as long as Melvin is here. Which organization did a better job of drafting and developing?

 

- Lester, Buchholz, Papelbon, Bard ... Pedroia, Youkilis, Ellsbury

- Gallardo, Axford ... Fielder, Braun, Weeks, Hart, Lucroy

 

I don't see a significant difference (using 2011 rosters), other than that the homegrown talent trended more towards pitching under Epstein in Boston.

[Thurston Fluff]

I don't see a significant difference (using 2011 rosters), other than that the homegrown talent trended more towards pitching under Epstein in Boston.

 

Look at what each team traded away as well as what they have on their roster now. He did a masterful job of trading his average at best draft picks for players who turned out better. He was not as good at actually drafting numbers of good players like Melvin did. I'm not making a judgment on his ability to put together a team as much as I am saying he didn't draft all that well. He was pretty good at selling what turned out to be junk draft picks for something useful but that is a separate issue from being able to draft a lot of quality in the first place.

[TooLiveBrew]

I'm not making a judgment on his ability to put together a team as much as I am saying he didn't draft all that well.

 

The 2011 rosters don't show that at all, if the comparison is that the Brewers under Melvin did draft well. The number of home-grown players on the '11 rosters under Epstein v. Melvin is literally dead even.

 

I don't hold it against anyone to say that Epstein was overrated, I just don't think there's been any evidence presented (or available, frankly) that the Red Sox didn't draft well under Epstein. The amount of good players turned out of the farm system in his tenure is one reason I think he's a pretty good GM.

[Ennder]

Epstein is really good in the draft, they have traded away a lot of talent and they have a lot of home grown talent.

[RightFieldCoder]

His signing of Big Papi was a good signing. It had always been the rule to get good RH batters and avoid power LH bats for the Red Sox. He found/did/used a study that calculated that a good LH stick that can go opposite field would thrive at Fenway. He was chided for Ortiz by the normal media (the Joe Morgans of the world) that Ortiz would disappear in that ballpark.

 

He doesn't get credit for Youkilis. The Greek God of Walks in the Red Sox system was talked about a lot in the Moneyball book. Epstein didn't become the GM until the end of the season.

[Thurston Fluff]

The 2011 rosters don't show that at all, if the comparison is that the Brewers under Melvin did draft well. The number of home-grown players on the '11 rosters under Epstein v. Melvin is literally dead even.

 

Epstein didn't have that much left after trading away five prospects. Four of which could or did play in the majors this season.

 

Epstein is really good in the draft, they have traded away a lot of talent and they have a lot of home grown talent.

 

The argument was that Boston traded a lot of their picks who didn't pan out for guys who did. Maybe that is wrong. I am not an expert on the subject. I was more or less going off what others said about his trades. For instance TLB said

I don't think it was all just luck that the players traded away under him for elite or elite-ish vets didn't pan out.

If he drafted so well then how did that happen? Wouldn't his drafted players have panned out if they were good?

 

 

 

Or Rococougar's post that didn't get a lot of dissent.

The heavy majority of trades that he made in Boston, especially early on, involved trading prospects for veterans. He got pretty lucky in that outside of Hanley, none of them really came back to bite him.

So which is it? Did he trade away a lot of talent that is now showing up by doing well on other teams or did he win the trades by getting better players than he gave up? I'm perfectly willing to admit I'm wrong. I'd just like to know who these good prospects are that he traded away.

[jjfanec]

I asked this early but I am not sure if got answered. Was Epstein more involved in the draft than other GM's because here all credit was given to Jack Z for the drafts and very little to Melvin. Why is Epstein getting all the credit for Red Sox drafts? Do they not have a director of scouting?

 

Another reason why the Red Sox are able to have such good drafts. They have had 21 first round or sandwich picks since 2005. That is a great way to restock a system. They had a lot of Type A and B Free Agents who went elsewhere giving them good talent. That is crazy. It takes nothing away from Theo but I thought it was interesting

[TooLiveBrew]

Epstein didn't have that much left after trading away five prospects.

 

What is your point? The Brewers & Red Sox had the same number of homegrown players on their 2011 rosters. There's nothing to debate here.

 

 

I'd just like to know who these good prospects are that he traded away.

 

Nowhere has anyone said every single player he drafted was good. This isn't productive anymore.

[danzig6767]

Epstein is really good in the draft, they have traded away a lot of talent and they have a lot of home grown talent.

When it comes to baseball drafts, i always wonder how much credit should go to the GM be it Theo, Melvin, or whoever?

 

They obviously don't have the time to go scouting hundreds and hundreds of kids scattered across the country. I guess i can see GM's having some input on first round picks, but even that is questionable that a GM would over-rule a scouting director who has spent vastly more time evaluating the available talent. I can't fathom a baseball GM deciding which kids to pick in the 4th-5th-8th-12th-17th-25th rounds etc. They simply don't have the time.

 

So should we just mainly credit or downgrade a GM for the structure/people they have in place for drafting players? Or actually credit/bash them for individual selections which turned out great or bad even though they very likely just let their scouting director make the picks?

[RedFlash2]

Regardless of which side of the fence you are on when it comes to Epstein, for us Cub fans we are excited (at least cautiously optimistic until the intro PC is announced) about the change of organizational philosophy this move represent. I know you guys don't follow the Cubs, but the last several Cubs GMs (Hendry/Lynch/MacPhail, etc) definately do not adhere to the "Moneyball" era of baseball and they have been stuck on the Earl Weaver's "Double-plays and the Three Run Homer" philosophy for decades. So this change of philosophy is a welcome sight. Getting Epstein basically said, "welcome to the 21st century of baseball" Cubs. So, you can imagine how excited we are about Epstein.

[danzig6767]

Regardless of which side of the fence you are on when it comes to Epstein, for us Cub fans we are excited (at least cautiously optimistic until the intro PC is announced) about the change of organizational philosophy this move represent. I know you guys don't follow the Cubs, but the last several Cubs GMs (Hendry/Lynch/MacPhail, etc) definately do not adhere to the "Moneyball" era of baseball and they have been stuck on the Earl Weaver's "Double-plays and the Three Run Homer" philosophy for decades. So this change of philosophy is a welcome sight. Getting Epstein basically said, "welcome to the 21st century of baseball" Cubs. So, you can imagine how excited we are about Epstein.

I understand the overall point you're trying to make, but for the most part when it comes to hitting/offense at least, the "Moneyball" philosophy believes in the Earl Weaver way of doing things by not playing much small ball and instead looking for guys who get on base and then have power to hit lots of 2-3 run homers.

 

The biggest problems i saw under Hendry was not valuing enough getting on base, poor drafting, and making some extremely poor choices in who to give long term big money contracts like Soriano and Zambrano. Nearly all GM's with a sizable payroll will make at least a bad signing or two, but almost everyone in baseball and most fans knew right away that the Soriano contract would morph into an epic disaster and that Zambrano was to big of a headcase to give 90 million bucks.

[monty57]

Epstein is really good in the draft, they have traded away a lot of talent and they have a lot of home grown talent.

When it comes to baseball drafts, i always wonder how much credit should go to the GM be it Theo, Melvin, or whoever?

 

They obviously don't have the time to go scouting hundreds and hundreds of kids scattered across the country. I guess i can see GM's having some input on first round picks, but even that is questionable that a GM would over-rule a scouting director who has spent vastly more time evaluating the available talent. I can't fathom a baseball GM deciding which kids to pick in the 4th-5th-8th-12th-17th-25th rounds etc. They simply don't have the time.

 

So should we just mainly credit or downgrade a GM for the structure/people they have in place for drafting players? Or actually credit/bash them for individual selections which turned out great or bad even though they very likely just let their scouting director make the picks?

Part of a GM's job is hiring the people who make the decisions, so being able to evalutate the evaluators is a necessary skill-set of a good GM.

 

To put it as mathematically as I can, let's look at it this way: There are multiple goals of a baseball team, but for simplicity, we'll say the ultimate goal is "x." There are a lot of variables a GM has to juggle. Does it really matter if the GM reaches "x" by going 2y+3z+t, vs going 3q?w?

 

I'm reading a lot of worry over the individual aspects of GMing, and individual examples of trades, drafts, etc. Really, the broad picture is far more important than any individual examples.

 

In other words, someone could be the best in the business at one aspect (hiring personnel, making trades, scouting, development, etc), but still be a poor GM. A good GM (like any good business owner/CEO) has to be adept at handling all aspects of the job, and if they are weak in an area, they have to recognize that and bring in personnel who complement them well. If the ultimate goal is "reaching x," then I'd say Epstein did a good job, as the Red Sox during his tenure came very close to "x." They won two titles, were perennial contenders, have a tremendous record of selling out the stadium, have a rabid fan base, seem to have a great revenue stream/be very profitable, and for all the hullabaloo about how poor the 2011 team was, if they don't make one roster move this offseason, they would probably go into next year as one of the favorites to win the World Series.

[SconnieKid]

I'm not making a judgment on his ability to put together a team as much as I am saying he didn't draft all that well.

 

The 2011 rosters don't show that at all, if the comparison is that the Brewers under Melvin did draft well. The number of home-grown players on the '11 rosters under Epstein v. Melvin is literally dead even.

 

I don't hold it against anyone to say that Epstein was overrated, I just don't think there's been any evidence presented (or available, frankly) that the Red Sox didn't draft well under Epstein. The amount of good players turned out of the farm system in his tenure is one reason I think he's a pretty good GM.

The Red Sox have also traded a ton of their farm system away to get veteran players over the years. So throw in Hanley Ramirez, etc on the Sox side of the equation. Until this year the Brewers haven't done that as trading cost controlled players isn't generally something a small market team does. Meanwhile, the Sox make a trade for an elite player with considerable frequency.

 

 

[monty57]

The Red Sox have also traded a ton of their farm system away to get veteran players over the years. So throw in Hanley Ramirez, etc on the Sox side of the equation. Until this year the Brewers haven't done that as trading cost controlled players isn't generally something a small market team does. Meanwhile, the Sox make a trade for an elite player with considerable frequency.

 

The fact that teams operate on an uneven "playing field" is certainly a factor in rating a GM. Epstein's performance history as a GM for a big market team and the fact that he is going to another big market team should bode in his favor if trying to predict whether he will be able to succeed in Chicago. If he were going to a small market, you'd have to consider the variable of whether or not he'd be able to adapt to managing within a limited budget.

[RedFlash2]

Regardless of which side of the fence you are on when it comes to Epstein, for us Cub fans we are excited (at least cautiously optimistic until the intro PC is announced) about the change of organizational philosophy this move represent. I know you guys don't follow the Cubs, but the last several Cubs GMs (Hendry/Lynch/MacPhail, etc) definately do not adhere to the "Moneyball" era of baseball and they have been stuck on the Earl Weaver's "Double-plays and the Three Run Homer" philosophy for decades. So this change of philosophy is a welcome sight. Getting Epstein basically said, "welcome to the 21st century of baseball" Cubs. So, you can imagine how excited we are about Epstein.

danzig6767 (and to the NSBB boys who visit this site as guests) Earl Weaver was the wrong comparasion. Hiring Epstein represents a 180 degree change in philosophy from the Dusty Baker era. I mean Dusty once said, "It's called hitting, and it ain't called walking. Do you ever see

the top 10 walking? You see top 10 batting average. " Can you believe that? You can see why we are excited.

 

Good luck to you guys against the Cardinals.

 

 

 

[berniebrewer4life]

Apparently compensation talks are not going well. The Cubs want to give them money, but the Red Sox are only interested in players.

[adamb100]

Not surprising, the Red Sox are loaded with cash, why do they need more?

[jjfanec]

The Sox asked for Garza first and there were rumors Cubs number one prospect Brett Jackson was rumored (since denied) to be a part of the deal. Sounds like this is going to take a quality player or prospect from an already weak team.

[TooLiveBrew]

For an indication of the direction Epstein wants to go with the Cubs, intially --

 

4. Matt Garza, RHP, Cubs - Epstein will listen to offers on Garza and just about anyone on his team. The reason? Epstein needs players to fill his farm system. The Cubs likely are not going to be really competitive for a while, so rather than keep resources that won’t be able to make your team better instantly, why not trade assets for younger players until that moment comes? Epstein always coveted Garza when he was Red Sox GM. Will Cherington take a shot?

Source, via MLBTR

[Point Beer Is Best]

If that's the case, I don't see them being a player for Fielder. Wouldn't make any sense if they were going forward with a full-fledged rebuild.

[brettac1]

I never really thought they would be a player for Fielder. That seemed more like a media fantasy. Kurkjian was saying stupid stuff like "they need a dominant personality on their team".