Theo Epstein On Building Under the Current CBA

In Commentary And Analysis, News And Rumors by GW38 Comments

Theo Epstein was interviewed on WEEI Thursday night (partial transcript). He shared thoughts on a variety of Cub-related topics alongside musings about the Red Sox. There was nothing really groundbreaking in his comments, but they were infused with an undercurrent of pessimism similar to that which you’ve been picking up around these parts since the current CBA was ratified in late 2011.

We're two years into a building project that's probably going to take a longer time than that…

 

No More Loopholes

In Boston, we decided that it was going to be fundamental to our approach, that in order to win a World Series, we needed to develop homegrown players, in order to develop homegrown players, we wanted to shift as many of our resources as we could to the draft. So we let free agents walk…

And now…. you can’t really develop a strategy around draft picks. Sure, you might have someone that in a given year you can make a qualifying offer to, in the case of the Red Sox and Yankees maybe a couple, multiple players you can make qualifying offers to and get picks that way, but you only get one pick. You don’t get two anymore. The scope of players who receive compensation is much more limited and most mid-market teams and below will very rarely, if ever have compensatory picks for leaving free agents now.

Mid-market teams like the in-TV-limbo Cubs? That would help to explain why the team hasn’t pursued mid-level free agents on short-term, high-dollar deals in pursuit of future compensatory picks. The front office doesn’t think it makes financial sense.

On the dearth of prime-age talent:

There are lots of teams demanding talented, prime-age players, and supply is really a trickle…. It’s pretty rare that you find a player — maybe one player a year like that through the posting system, maybe one through Cuban free agency… and that’s about it. So, you’re going to see these prices that cause people to shake heads.

Success in The Modern Draft

…And you can’t overpay players in later rounds anymore unless you really go for a bargain in your first-round pick. That’s just really changed the game. You can still quote-unquote dominate the draft, make an impact in the draft, the way we used to try to, but it’s on a much smaller scale… and you have to make due…

You cannot miss in the draft… 

There will be two kinds of organizations, the kind that can consistently produce young players out of the draft and the amateur and international markets, and kind that can't… 

There’s tons more in the audio on Masahiro Tanaka, core players, evaluating health, getting bargains on extensions, improvements in the minor league system, trying to trade for Junichi Tazawa, etc… so do give it a listen.

Share this Post

Comments

  1. J

    One major obstacle: Will free agents want to play for the Cubs?

    As smart as the FO might be, players are dumb. They will sign with the Yankees, or opt to play in states with better tax situations or warmer climates. Players do not look at prospects coming up. If the team is already winning and their position is clear, they will go along, but the vast majority won’t sign with a team that isn’t already winning unless there’s a big difference in the contract offer.

    Not related, but the Bulls of all teams have had this situation for more than a decade. Top tier free agents do not want to sign with them, and that’s been the case for 15 years now. You need to be a winner first, because the players you need to convince are probably dumber than the fans you need to convince.

    I think it will be a hard an expensive sell to get elite free agents to come here until this team appears in a world series. It’s a lot of added pressure before then, and I think a lot of guys are happy to play for in Seattle or Anaheim or Texas where there’s way less pressure and more money.

    Theo should be pessimistic, because even if this team wanted a $150M payroll, I don’t think the guys they want would come here.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  2. dmick89, Sweatpants Guru

    J wrote:

    One major obstacle: Will free agents want to play for the Cubs?

    Free agents tend to sign where the money is best. Partly because people like money (and more of it) and partly because the union is never too happy if a player takes less to sign elsewhere.

    I’m not too worried about the Cubs ability to sign free agents. I’m far more worried with the Cubs ability to do so. Do they have the money? This is the second time that Theo has referred to the Cubs as a mid-market franchise.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  3. Aisle424

    J wrote:

    Not related, but the Bulls of all teams have had this situation for more than a decade. Top tier free agents do not want to sign with them, and that’s been the case for 15 years now. You need to be a winner first, because the players you need to convince are probably dumber than the fans you need to convince.

    The Bulls’ problem isn’t the winning part (or at least not their only problem). Players have seen how Scottie Pippen and Michael Jordan (MICHAEL FUCKING JORDAN) were dicked around by Reinsdorf (through Krause). And if the players didn’t notice it on their own, Pippen and Jordan (and Horace Grant) gladly told their peers about it.

    Maybe it’s not all fair criticism, but that’s the perception.

    LeBron didn’t shun the Bulls because of a lack of winning, he wanted to play with Wade and Bosh and the only real way that was going to happen was in Miami.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  4. dmick89, Sweatpants Guru

    Aisle424 wrote:

    LeBron didn’t shun the Bulls because of a lack of winning, he wanted to play with Wade and Bosh and the only real way that was going to happen was in Miami.

    Speaking of LeBron, I am still surprised how much hate there is for that man. I don’t care even a little bit about the NBA, but the man made an adult decision to play with some friends in Miami and even took less money by my understanding. Even if he took more money, good for him. He’s quite obviously the best in the game and perhaps the best, relative to his peers, of all time and maybe in all of sports (possible exception being Babe Ruth).

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  5. Aisle424

    @ dmick89, Sweatpants Guru:
    The reason it bugged me was because he made a big show of disappointing a bunch of Ohio school children they gathered together for his big announcement. That was a huge dick move.

    I’m pretty much over it at this point.

    But most people are just pissed he didn’t come play for their team.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  6. dmick89, Sweatpants Guru

    Aisle424 wrote:

    The reason it bugged me was because he made a big show of disappointing a bunch of Ohio school children they gathered together for his big announcement. That was a huge dick move.

    I think he could have handled it better, but I think he got some money out of that and didn’t a bunch go to charity?

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  7. Author
    GW

    @ dmick89, Sweatpants Guru:

    yeah, that struck me as a little strange, too. he meant it in terms of throwing money at late-rounders and picking up as many compensatory picks as possible. it sure seems like they are still “developing a strategy around draft picks” namely, tanking.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  8. Author
    GW

    @ J:

    i hadn’t really thought about MLB going the way of the NBA.

    i don’t think that will happen in the near future in baseball. In basketball all the good players are hugely underpaid in free agency. they have to find something else to substitute for that value, be it winning or taxes, or whatever. in baseball it goes the other way, everyone is overpaid in free agency (but hugely underpaid before that). so usually top dollar still wins. the problem is that there are no free agents anymore.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  9. uncle dave

    @ GW:
    I had to read it a couple of times, but I think he was specifically talking about stockpiling comp picks from departing free agents. That option is now gone, for the most part.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  10. Suburban kid

    Where did Levine get that 100K apart thing for Samardzija? Carrie says Cubs offered 4.4M and he asked for 6.2M. Unless the 100K diff was the difference between later compromise negotiations. Anyhoo, Cubs suck.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  11. dmick89, Sweatpants Guru

    @ uncle dave:
    That’s what he was speaking about, but he’s essentially admitting that you can no longer build through the draft. I think what he was saying was that since you can no longer stockpile draft picks, you can no longer build through the draft. It’s very true. You simple can’t do it.

    To the Cubs credit, they have gone harder after IFA’s, though probably should have gone after them more than they did. They have picked up a few guys they can trade for usable parts, though to be fair, they’re not the only team doing it.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  12. Author
    GW

    probably should have mentioned this in the post, but the bolded words are theo’s emphasis, not mine. at least that’s how I interpreted the audio, which I realize can be dubious…

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  13. Author
    GW

    @ GW:

    That’s a hell of a lot of incentives. Especially going to a team in which he could easily be bumped out of the rotation by May.

    How in the hell does Maholm get that much less guaranteed than Hammel AND go to a team that could leave him out of the rotation given that they were basically identical pitchers last year, right down to the elbow injuries. (Except Maholm is left-handed. And Hammel’s elbow injury was/is worse.)

    Not that I’m itching to see Maholm take the mound for the Cubs again, but I think this rotation could really, really stink.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  14. dmick89, Sweatpants Guru

    @ GW:
    $5 million more in guaranteed money makes the Hammel deal look pretty bad. I thought it wasn’t very good when it first happened, but I’d rather have Maholm. I think the Hammel deal works out about as well as the Scott Baker deal, which is another one-year sign that I thought was quite high.

    The Cubs have made some good one-year deals over the last couple years too, but maybe more bad ones than you’d like.

    Don’t get me wrong, if a team is going to make a poor decision when signing someone, I’d much rather it be 1 to 2 years than 6 to 7 and generally speaking, the short-term deals give little to no reason to complain that much.

    I also think the Cubs rotation is pretty bad. Maybe I’m underestimating Travis Wood, but I’m not buying it yet. I think it’s more likely that he’s a number 4/5 than a 2/3.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  15. Rice Cube

    I don’t really think you can compare the Maholm deal to the Hammel deal. Hammel is being signed as a starter, and I assume if the Cubs had signed Maholm, he would be a starter too. This seems to be a situation where Maholm decided he’d rather be a Dodger than to be guaranteed a starting spot plus extra money. There’s this:

    Dylan Hernandez ‏@dylanohernandez 2m
    Mattingly: Maholm OK with pitching in relief if no place for him in rotation.

    I guess even reclamation projects have some criteria, the Cubs would have needed to pay that extra $5MM in guaranteed money to get Hammel (or similar guys) to come to Chicago. Maholm’s contract is smaller because he likely gets bumped to relief whenever Billingsley comes back so he won’t be able to get most of those incentives anyway…and it sounds like he’s fine with that.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  16. Author
    GW

    Rice Cube wrote:

    likely gets bumped to relief whenever Billingsley comes back

    Or whenever Beckett comes back. Or if Zach Lee beats him out for the gig. Or even Stephen Fife.

    It’s not like Maholm has made a ton of money in his career. Or should clearly be settling for whatever long relief role he’s being offered…

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  17. Rice Cube

    @ GW:

    B-Ref suggests he’s made around $26MM before taxes. He had a “meh” 2013 which probably scared off some suitors. I don’t know why he settled, but the Dodgers are a pretty clear contender and maybe at this point he just wants a shot at the ring. I’m just saying that if the Cubs wanted Maholm they probably would have had to pay him about as much as Hammel got to wrestle him away from more likely contending teams.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  18. dmick89, Sweatpants Guru

    @ Rice Cube:
    I’m not sure. I think the Dodgers will be really good of course, but a lot can go wrong in a season. I’d say there’s a better chance he’s playing for a contender on August 31, 2014 if he signed with the Cubs, Astros, Marlins or maybe another team or two. He’d obviously be trade bait at the deadline and the only teams interested would be teams in contention. If the Cubs signed him and he stayed healthy, he’d definitely be on a contender in September.

    As I said, I think the Dodgers will be good, but I’m not willing to say they’re definitely going to be in contention in September. I’d say it’s likely, but not a near certainty.

    This is why I don’t think teams not contending have to pay more. Players know they’ll be traded to a contender at the deadline on one year deals, but may not end up signing with a contender if they decide to go with another team.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  19. Andrew

    @ dmick89, Sweatpants Guru:

    This assumes players don’t mind being traded which i dont think is true. If playerswanted to be traded to contenders, why would they get NTC’s in their contract so often. I think players don’t all like the idea that they could be shipped off anywhere during a given season.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

Leave a Comment