One day after the Red Sox saw their season come to an end, general manager Theo Epstein and manager Terry Francona met with reporters to address not only the 2009 campaign, but also the team going forward. Here is a selection of what Epstein had to say in response to questions posed by the Boston media:
Epstein on which areas the team most needs to improve in 2010: “There are a lot of different ways to get better. You probably start with your weaknesses, because the greatest room for improvement is there. I think we weren’t the defensive club we wanted to be, so there is room for improvement in our overall team defense and defensive efficiency. And then there is offense on the road; we didn’t really hit on the road at all this year. We’ll take a look and see if there’s a way to improve that a little bit. Those are probably the two biggest things that stand out for me.”
Epstein on why the team didn’t hit nearly as well on the road [.257/.340/.414] as they did at home [.284/.365/.498/] and how that can be improved upon: “I think there are certain players who don’t have enough power to go out, on a regular basis, in some of the bigger ballparks on the road, but they do have the ability to get the ball off, or over, the wall at Fenway. That‘s one example. We‘ll just try to build a team that can perform a little better on the road, offensively. We did swing that bats well at Fenway this year, and we‘re not going to tailor our entire off-season around that; it‘s just one of probably hundreds of nuances that go into team construction. But we’re good. We won 95 games, so if you’re looking for areas to improve, sometimes you have to look deep and find certain nuances that you can improve upon, even if you don’t know quite how to do that.”
Epstein on the free agent market and trade possibilities: “ We have a lot of opportunities out there. It’s not the world’s greatest free-agent market — there’s not a tremendous amount of impact talent out there — but there are opportunities. I bet that five years from now, if you look back, you’ll say, ’Gosh, that guy was available,’ even if he’s not a big name now. You’ll be surprised at just who was out there, so it’s our job to go find those guys. There are 29 other teams, so there are 29 other opportunities to make trades and maybe address mutual needs. I think the foundation of the organization is still strong. We have a pretty good core of pre-prime and prime players. There are probably 10 guys who are either in their mid 20s, or right around 30, who we can really build around, and we have a strong farm system and tremendous payroll flexibility going forward. It might not happen this off-season; it might happen the next off-season — in the years ahead we have an ability to make a transition, and I hope that it’s a transition no one notices, because we keep winning games, like the last transition, or two, that we’ve had.”
Epstein on Jason Bay, who is a free agent this off-season: “I feel like the core elements are in place in that we really want Jason Bay to be a member of the Boston Red Sox, and Jason Bay wants to be a member of the Boston Red Sox. We’ll just rely on those two strong elements and talk again, and see if we can work something out. We’ve had a lot of discussions with his representatives throughout the course of the last, I’d say, nine months, and most of it has been under the radar screen, unreported, even after the fact. We’ll just continue that and try to work something out, confidentially. He’s a pro, and we have a lot of respect for him and what he’s done since we acquired him. We couldn’t have asked for more from him since the day he put on a Red Sox uniform, and it’s a good thing too, because we traded a pretty good player for him. We want the relationship to continue, and we’ll see if it does. It‘s very unusual for a player not to take the opportunity to at least listen [to other offers] if he’s come this far; he’ll listen to what other teams have to say. But I think the dialogue is still important, and it’s been a really unusual negotiation in the first place. I can‘t tell you what‘s going to happen, but I can tell you that we‘ll talk.”
Epstein on signing reclamation projects: “That’s dictated more by the market. I think there’s a tendency, on the heels of some of those buy-low-one-year deals not working out, to go in the other direction and say, ’We’re not going to do that; we’re going to avoid anyone who is coming off a bad season, or anyone who has health concerns.’ The reality is that you sign one-year-buy-low deals for a reason. A lot of them don’t work out, but they provide you with flexibility. When they do work out great, you have something, and hopefully you have an option and you can keep that player for the next year. If they don’t work out, you move on, and you have flexibility both during that season, and in future years, to address needs. For instance, had we locked into longer-term contracts that we couldn’t have moved on from, we wouldn’t have ended up with Victor Martinez and Billy Wagner during the course of the season.”
Epstein on the development of Clay Buchholz: “A lot of people in the organization — people who have worked with him over the years — and Buch himself, deserve a lot of credit, because his development wasn’t linear. We talk about that a lot with young players, and especially pitchers. There are a lot of ups and downs. There is no such thing as a truly linear development. The guys that step right in, like Papelbon did a few years ago, that’s more the exception than the rule with young pitchers. It’s important as an organization to not give up on young pitchers when they’re down, if they have the talent to ultimately succeed at the big league level, and there were a lot of low points where he was someone who could have been given up on and traded at a low point in his value. Or Tito [Terry Francona] or John [Farrell] could have said, ‘We don’t want this guy pitching in our rotation.’ That didn’t happen in this organization. A lot of people stepped up, on a personal level, to help impact Buch positively, and ultimately, as always happens at the end of someone’s development, he stepped up himself. He decided that he wanted to take responsibility for being the type of pitcher he could be, and unlike last year we can sit here and pencil him into our rotation for next year, and that’s a good feeling.”
Epstein on the development of Jacoby Ellsbury: “The next step for him is growing into his swing a little bit, and continuing to learn what his natural swing is. I think he made strides that way. He swung the bat a lot better, probably even more so than the numbers bore out. He swung the bat better the second half of the season; he started to let the bat go naturally, especially against fastballs, which is something he had a hard time doing earlier in the season, and he became more dangerous as a hitter. So, his next development steps are to improve defensively — I think he’s a good defensive centerfielder, and I think he’s going to be a great defensive centerfielder as he continues to develop. And I think he’ll grow into more power as he continues to learn his swing, and what pitchers try to do to him. With that power will come a little fear, from some pitchers, and I think he’ll start to get on base a little more. He ended up with a reputable on-base percentage — he made some improvements in that area — and I think he’s going to continue to get better and better.”
Epstein on the team going forward: “I think it could go in a number of different directions. I think that we’re always open to change, because you need change to improve; it’s part of the natural cycle of baseball, and in life. Sometimes the market doesn’t bear that out. Sometimes there aren’t the right fits; sometimes it’s not the right free-agent market; sometimes you end up with more status quo than you want. If that’s the case — if we look back three or four months from now, and say ‘Wow, there weren’t major changes,’ then I think that next year will be, perhaps, the last year of this main group of players. We have a lot of players going into contract years next year, so I think it might be one more chance with this group to go out and win the whole thing. If we are able to make changes, maybe that transition that we talked about will happen earlier than expected. I think that it could go one of both ways.”
Somebody did copy/paste wrong. Those slash stats are OBP/SLG/OPS, not AVE/OBP/SLG like normal. The right stats are:
AVE/OBP/SLG/OPS
Home: .284/.365/.498/.862
Road: .257/.340/.414/.753
(I'm a Reds fan and I find Jocketty and Co. to sound about as reserved and old-school and by-the-book as any organization out there. Where's the magic he used to build the Cardinals of the 90's??)
No... because it would be hard for any GM to remake an entire organization, including personnel and philosophy in so short a time. It's not like the Cards went to the World Series the first year Jocketty was there.
And for the record, the correct term is geek. Geeks are extremely passionate about something obscure or silly. Dorks are just silly and obscure in general.
Improving defensive efficiency and resigning Bay are probably mutually exclusive. Then again, he is also one of the guys on the team who hits well on the road.
I'm not that enthusiastic about Bay, especially as a left fielder, but let's play with this.
What if you could sign him to a three-plus-vesting-option deal, which is probably the minimum length that he'll sign for? He plays one year in left field, then replaces David Ortiz at DH in 2011 and 2012. The money coming off the books for Ortiz, Lowell and Martinez ($32.5MM) can be applied to that year's FA class. Hell, add Beckett's $12MM. That's $44 million coming off the books that can be put to Mauer and Crawford (or Doc). Like the Yankees did this year, you could conceivably add two studs and not move the needle on payroll at all. Drew and Papelbon (if he's even around then) come off in 2011, freeing up $20MM for Felix Hernandez.
You'd have a high-payroll year in 2010, though, as Bay's deal joins the raises built in for Youkilis, Pedroia and Lester. However, there's $7 million presumably going away in Varitek and Wakefield (Beckett's opinion notwithstanding).
This would be a really good year to sit out the FA market. The top-tier talent just isn't that good and the contract commitments you might make to it for 2011-2014 will just get in the way when you want to get serious next winter.
This probably shouldn't have been a comment. Whatever.
There is no way Bay signs a three-year deal. He'll probably get twice that. This looks like a good year to import a defensive star on short money to man an outfield corner (or CF so Ellsbury can go into LF).
I suspect that Theo will try pretty hard to trade Ellsbury.
I suspect you may be projecting your own feelings about Ellsbury onto him. Theo talks about Ellsbury the same way he talks about Buchholz, and I'd be surprised if either was traded unless it was for something pretty special.
Not at all. Ellsbury is a crowd-pleaser, and if it weren't for modern baseball statistics, a me-pleaser as well. I enjoy watching him, but I'd enjoy it more if he simply weren't so overrated. Also, I think it's Theo's *job* to say that his players are special--doing so helps maintain or increase their value in trade.
Joe if they did as you prescribe, then they're essentially staying pat with the same group next year and looking to make a run at some quality FAs in 2010. In fact, that seems like exactly what Epstein is suggesting here, especially in that last paragraph.
I think an Ellsbury-for-Dunn trade is just silly, even if you were find yourself a defensive CF to take over there. He had a down year defensively and improved his offense a bit this year. He'll be a cheap producer for a few years yet, let him prove to you what he can do.
As I understand it, Varitek's deal for 2010 calls for a team option of $5M (which they will assuredly decline) or a player option of $3M (plus performance bonuses based on games played worth up to $2M, most of which he most assuredly would not attain). I have not seen anything that suggests he will retire, and I can't imagine he would get $3M+ anywhere else, so I'm assuming he returns. (Perhaps you are hearing something else?)
Wake has a $4M deal. I suspect he will retire.
So, for 2010, the odds are the Sox will be on the hook for $3M to Varitek. Hence, they would have $6M coming off the books, not $7M.
Unless they trade someone like Ellsbury, they're completely locked in on the right side of the field and up the middle. The only positions where they can improve are left field, shortstop and third base. I wonder who they'll make a run at in the off-season.
How about this? Don't re-sign Bay, trade Ellsbury to the Nats for Adam Dunn (who in all likelihood will be on a shorter, cheaper deal than Bay gets). Find a defensive star to man CF (like Rajai Davis or Nyjer Morgan). When Ortiz's contract ends, Dunn goes to DH, while the system should be able to produce a marquee CF or LF by that time.
Fine then. I suggest you check your anti-Boston meter. Every team looks to improve by checking out other teams' players. It's called scouting. Are you saying that the Red Sox aren't allowed to consider trades? Or that they should get the short end of every trade?
Not every comment on how to better the Red Sox or Yankees has to come from a homer. But you seem incapable of realizing that. Try bringing an open mind to the table and you'll be surprised what you'll get, instead of the bitter resentment for the AL East powers that you seem to have.
ANYONE is movable for the right price (in prospects and/or money). To say otherwise is to give the finger to the truth. The Red Sox have both money and prospects. Dunn, Davis, and Morgan all play for teams that should be rebuilding (and thus should find prospects more attractive than a contender). To say that there is a potential match, and to suggest one, is NOT being a homer.
Besides, you're in a Red Sox thread. What did you expect? A top-ten list of the needs of the San Diego Padres?
I have yet to read any discussion of how to improve the Pirates (and yes, there are some!) that includes the proposition that they should trade for Youkilis, Cano, or Chamberlain. Yet you somehow presume that the Red Sox COULD, if they wanted to, pry cheap, controlled talent like Morgan and Davis away from other teams.
I didn't mean to single you out...I just see it over and over again in these 'What should (big market club X) do in the offseason?' threads.
Heck, I participate in the "improve the Pirates" discussions as well. I still don't see how my commentary is or should be any different from what is being seen on "small-market" team boards. They should be thinking creatively as well. I have an interest in a well-run team, whoever is running it. Neal Huntington should be doing what Theo does, trying to find hidden pockets of value; and in his credit, he does seem to be stockpiling talent for the next contending Pirates team.
The Red Sox can acquire cheap, controllable talent because they have the prospects to do so, as well as the cash to make up some of the difference. Being annoyed that they have that ability doesn't mean that they *don't* have that ability. Maybe it isn't fair (and I for one would love to see a league where the highest leverage always comes from GM smarts, and not from who spends the most), but it's still accurate.
It's not as though I chose three players (Dunn, Davis, Morgan) whose GMs would scoff at trading. Neither Davis nor Morgan can hit particularly well, and both were considered fourth-outfielder fodder a year ago. Both are exactly the kind of player that would have more value to the Red Sox than to their own teams, since Ellsbury's defense is bad.
And while Dunn is an excellent batsman, his perceived value is diminished by a) his negative press (thanks JP Ricciardi), b) his awful defense, and c) his low BA and strikeouts. He's exactly the kind of player many teams (well, the AL ones who can put him a DH) undervalue.
My proposal was Ellsbury for Adam Dunn. I fully believe (as does Joe) that the Nats would do that deal in a heartbeat.
In short, my suggestions were hardly pie-in-the-sky.
I'm as bearish on Ellsbury and bullish on Dunn as you'll find...and if the Red Sox made that trade I'd laugh Theo out of the room.
I actually suggested acquiring Dunn as a one-year stopgap for left field on Boston radio Monday. His defensive deficiencies are somewhat mitigated 81 times a year by the lack of ground he has to cover, and he can play some DH and first base along the way. I don't know what the price would be for him, but it damn sure needn't be Ellsbury.
Rule #1 right now is to keep your powder dry. This offseason is the 2006 one all over again, and next year is 2008 all over again. No need to be impatient.
Even if you don't trust BP's defensive stats, UZR has both Dunn and Ellsbury as pretty bad fielders, as well. So that's a two-run improvement right there (assuming similar stats for next year, which isn't a bad assumption) even if you put Dunn in LF, which Boston wouldn't necessarily have to do if Ortiz continues declining.
I used Morgan as an example of a player that could easily change hands. It's simply a suggestion of a player who is a good defensive CF that probably wouldn't cost the farm to acquire.
Good DEFENSIVE CFs aren't so hard to find that one should volunteer to keep Ellsbury in CF just because good HITTING CFs *are* hard to find.
So I ask: Why would you laugh Theo out of the room? As I noted, my suggestion of Ellsbury for Dunn is contingent on getting a good CF defender. What would be so crippling about that idea?
It's as though people think that Ellsbury is going to suddenly hit .350. He's a good player, but the stats say that the Red Sox needn't become overly enamored with him (to paraphrase from BP 2007's entry on, ironically, Kevin Youkilis).
Well, it's a good thing the Red Sox didn't become overly enamored with Youkilis, isn't it? FWIW, I do not think the Red Sox expect Ellsbury to suddenly hit .350, I do believe that the Red Sox expect Ellsbury to start getting more extra base hits and improve his defense in CF to some degree, not necessarily "suddenly" in either case. And if you assume that every 25-26 year old player is already everything that he can become, then you will never be the team that benefits from developing a Kevin Youkilis.
Absolutely. But from a statistical standpoint, my assertions are correct. One hopes for a Youkilis to happen, but one should not *expect* it. In Theo's (and all of your) defense, Ellsbury isn't a collection of stats, either: he's an actual player. I base my opinions on the statistical probabilities; Theo likely does the same, but he has much more knowledge of the situation than I could ever hope to have. This is why I often defer to the GM's judgment even when my own knowledge says I should disagree.
However, since I lack inside knowledge and am not likely to ever get that knowledge, I have to stand by my original analysis. Heck, I hope you're right. I hope Ellsbury turns into a great CF and an even better hitter. But I don't think we can bank on it.
I'm not convinced that any defensive system can measure a left fielder at Fenway Park due to the wall. We saw this with Manny when he left and with Bay before he got to Fenway. Why would Ball all of a sudden become a terrible fielder when going from Pittsburg to Boston?
The supposition (not that I necessarily agree with it) is that getting injured in 2007 eroded his defense. However, it's not as though he was a good fielder before he got to Boston. He posted a UZR/150 of -11.5 in his last year with the Pirates, and only once over his career has he posted a positive UZR.
Jason Bay seems to get consistently bad jumps on balls. He gives a good effort but his slow first step and below average throwing arm make a subpar left fielder.
36 comments have been left for this post.
I think the home road splits above are wrong. If those were right, the Red Sox would not have been holding this press conference. Ever.
Somebody did copy/paste wrong. Those slash stats are OBP/SLG/OPS, not AVE/OBP/SLG like normal. The right stats are:
AVE/OBP/SLG/OPS
Home: .284/.365/.498/.862
Road: .257/.340/.414/.753