Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Indy 500: Coverage of the 'Greatest Spectacle In Racing'

Matt Garza Is Fair Compensation For Theo Epstein

The following comes from an article I wrote for SB Nation Tampa Bay:

A lot of writers have talked this to death, but the decision on the Theo Epstein compensation should come soon, and it could have implications for the Tampa Bay Rays - not only because the Red Sox are in the same division, but this compensation could involve a former Rays pitcher.

Baseball commissioner Bud Selig is now in charge, and my impression is that he wants to make this compensation a 'penalty' more than a 'trade' for the Cubs. Everywhere I read, is see quoted that the Cubs promised "significant compensation" for Theo, but the man involved seems to think otherwise.

Back when it all first happened, Theo had this to say about the situation:

"If you wanted to look at precedent, you'd say, 'Well, whether I'm worth nothing, or something,' -- you would probably get some opinions on that if you ask your callers -- the bottom line is when executives change teams there is no compensation. There have been a handful of instances where there is compensation, and that compensation has been pretty reasonable. If you look when Andy MacPhail, who had won two World Series, left on a lateral move from Minnesota to Chicago back in '94, his compensation was like the 30th ranked prospect in the Cubs system and a little bit of cash."

The problem with Theo's analogy is that MacPhail (which is a perfect name for a Cubs executive) went from GM of the Twins to President of the Cubs after winning two World Series with his old team. Theo has also gone from GM to President after two World Series, so the move appears to be the same on paper. If you believe Epstein and MacPhail are equals. But how much is the mind of Theo Epstein worth?

Star-divide

The MacPhail compensation was also nearly 20 years ago, back when Roger Clemens was earning $5 mil to pitch for the Red Sox as the highest paid guy on the team. You should be shocked by that number. Baseball and the concept of compensation was completely different in the early 90's.

Another assumption worth making is that we cannot quantify players and executives by the same $ amounts. Reading over Dave Cameron's article on the compensation, he notes Buster Olney saying baseball execs make between $800k and $2.5 million - and points out that baseball executives are severely underpaid for the talent they bring to an organization. If Theo is on the upside of that executive pay scale, because of his talent, why shouldn't Boston expect a player that is on the upside of the player pay scale - or at least one that should be, based on his talent?

My point is, Epstein is among the best in the game, and the Sox lost one year of his contributions to the organization. If the Red Sox are getting a player in return, this is apples and oranges. If Epstein really is one of the best executives in baseball, the best compensation is to ask for a player that is worth one year's production by of the best players in the game. So how could we break this down? Let's try Wins Above Replacement.

In 2011, the best players in the league were around 8 or 9 Wins Above Replacement. Jacoby Ellsbury led 2011 with 9.4 WAR, followed by Matt Kemp - 8.7, Jose Bautista - 8.3, Dustin Pedroia - 8.0, and Ryan Braun - 7.8. Worth noting, a baseball player is worth about $3 mil per Win Above Replacement on the market. Therefore, using WAR as our guide, the Red Sox should be asking the Cubs for at least 8 WAR or $24 mil. Then again, because money is not a good quantifier of talent for executive compensation, let's continue to use WAR instead of dollars.

The Cubs have limited options in matching a compensation of 8-9 wins. Aramis Ramirez led the Cubs with 3.6 WAR in 2011, but his contract expired and he is no longer with the team. Alfonso Soriano is available and has three years remaining, but he dropped to only 1.3 WAR last year from 3.1 in 2010. He was worth 0.0 WAR in 2009. There is no telling if he could add up to 8 or 9 WAR required in three years, which is likely an underpay in talent. Asking for a player like Starlin Castro or Darwin Barney is also unreasonable because neither player will be a free agent until 2017. Who else is valuable with the Cubs? Geovany Soto was worth 2 WAR last year, but he has two years left, that adds up to only half the compensation Boston deserves.

What about prospects? A prospect doesn't seem to match up for the situation very well either:

Keith Law's midseason top 50 prospects list, posted in July, didn't have a single Cub on it, and neither did Kevin Goldstein's list. There were two-and-a-half-months of minor league baseball played after those were published, but none of their major prospects did much to give you the idea they would crack the next top 50 from those two. (Marc Normandin)

What about current pitchers? The best Chicago has to offer is former Tampa Bay Rays pitcher Matt Garza, who was worth a career high 5.0 WAR in 2011. In 2010 he was worth only 1.6 WAR, and 3.1 WAR in 2009. He never had a FIP below 4.00 until last season, when he pitched a 2.95 FIP. By the numbers, Garza was excellent.

2011: 3.32 ERA, 2.95 FIP, 8.95 K/9, 2.86 BB/9, 0.64 HR/9

If we project Garza to come down from his high next year, assume that he will retain his improvements from last year, and assume that his luck will stay consistent (around .300 BABIP), we can assume Bill James's projections will be accurate, and that his numbers look like this:

James: 3.70 ERA, 3.77 FIP, 7.78 K/9, 2.9 BB/9, 0.93 HR/9

Which also projects Garza around 4-5 WAR. Considering that Garza has two years remaining, his production would add up to 8-9 WAR, which could be fair compensation for Theo Epstein.

Comment 32 comments  |  1 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Epstein.

"There's something out there, beyond the horizon in the corner of your eye. I'm going to find out what it is."
-Thomas Solomon, Gentleman Adventurer.

by TheLoneDavid on Feb 4, 2012 11:15 AM EST reply actions  

No problem.

"There's something out there, beyond the horizon in the corner of your eye. I'm going to find out what it is."
-Thomas Solomon, Gentleman Adventurer.

by TheLoneDavid on Feb 4, 2012 12:43 PM EST up reply actions  

I would love Wells.

"There's something out there, beyond the horizon in the corner of your eye. I'm going to find out what it is."
-Thomas Solomon, Gentleman Adventurer.

by TheLoneDavid on Feb 4, 2012 1:01 PM EST up reply actions  

Dempster would be better though, only here for one year, doesn't clog up a rotation spot.

although Wells could be Aceves 2: Son of Aceves.

"There's something out there, beyond the horizon in the corner of your eye. I'm going to find out what it is."
-Thomas Solomon, Gentleman Adventurer.

by TheLoneDavid on Feb 4, 2012 1:01 PM EST up reply actions  

Yes, but we could send them Lackey in return.

"There's something out there, beyond the horizon in the corner of your eye. I'm going to find out what it is."
-Thomas Solomon, Gentleman Adventurer.

by TheLoneDavid on Feb 4, 2012 2:17 PM EST up reply actions  

I wouldn't mind Dempster but you would think he would have to agree with it.

The league would almost certainly face a grievance if not worse from Dempster if he didn’t want to go to Boston. I don’t know how the language in a no-trade clause is but could you imagine the league sticking it to their veteran players by saying, “Well, technically it isn’t really a trade”. It would be a labor nightmare, and even the public would be on Selig for it.

I could see a guy still in arbitration or even an older player without a no-trade clause. Most likely, I think it will be a prospect or multiple ones.

by The Name is Dalton on Feb 5, 2012 9:57 AM EST up reply actions  

I won't lie, when I saw the title, I thought "not another one"

And then I realized you actually did a lot of research and really thought out this post. And, I won’t lie, you just about have me convinced. However, I still really don’t feel like the Sox will get Garza, or any major leaguer. I’m sure Selig will make it a significant piece, but more in the prospect department.

Although it is Bud Selig, and when the man doesn’t want a team to do something, he really punishes them for it. See: the provisions he fought for in the new CBA. And he really doesn’t want executives to leave their current contracts.

On a related note, how hysterical would it be if the Sox got Rizzo? That would functionally amount to Garza, I’m sure, just with an added step.

Hi ho, Duke!

by The Duke of Silver on Feb 4, 2012 2:39 PM EST reply actions  

Speaking of the new CBA

when Selig finally dies (I’m convinced he’ll never actually retire) how fast do you think those provisions will change?

"There's something out there, beyond the horizon in the corner of your eye. I'm going to find out what it is."
-Thomas Solomon, Gentleman Adventurer.

by TheLoneDavid on Feb 4, 2012 2:49 PM EST up reply actions  

not very quickly

he WAS just unanimously voted to give an extension

by wolf9309 on Feb 5, 2012 2:36 AM EST up reply actions  

I wonder about that

Being the commissioner, if he didn’t like a team he could really fuck them over without it being totally obvious.

"There's something out there, beyond the horizon in the corner of your eye. I'm going to find out what it is."
-Thomas Solomon, Gentleman Adventurer.

by TheLoneDavid on Feb 5, 2012 11:58 AM EST up reply actions  

I'm sure there will be some definite grumblings from GMs

Although I doubt they would be changed until after Selig is gone.

Hi ho, Duke!

by The Duke of Silver on Feb 5, 2012 11:52 AM EST up reply actions  

Lets hope Bud Selig sees it that way :)

The Red Sox suck, and I am the dirt that was sucked in, I am a dirty.

I'm narcissistic, nihilistic, and arrogant. That's me in a nutshell.

by outofleftfield on Feb 4, 2012 6:13 PM EST reply actions  

Earlier in the offseason

we heard that when the commissioner’s office inevitably became involved, the compensation would be a pittance because Selig doesn’t want executives to have trade value — which makes sense to me because if they did, this could become a major labor issue. Hot shot front office men could become like NBA players (I think Theo has already pulled that off).

Now the rumor is Selig wants to punish the Cubs to deter executives from reneging on their contracts. The source is one AL executive not involved in the process. I don’t know. The former narrative seems more plausible.

What gets my goat is that an agreement has already been made for “significant” compensation. If it ends up being in fact “insignificant,” I will be upset. I agree Garza would be significant, but funnily enough, at $9.5M could we even afford his salary? Might as well sign Oswalt for that price and take as many prospects as you can get from the Cubs.

by steel sox on Feb 4, 2012 6:27 PM EST reply actions  

Great job on the article

but I still believe it will be a low level minor league player. Selig wants the Cubs to be competitive and I highly doubt he will hamstring them by taking their ace.

AA player who will never turn into anything is my guess.

by SoxAcumen on Feb 4, 2012 7:04 PM EST reply actions  

The lawyer

in me wants to say you assume facts not in evidence. There is nothing in the commisioner’s statement that suggests the Red Sox will be made whole – that they receive in return the equal of what they have lost in Epstien. Moreover, a judge in this situation would likely ask with regards to compensation whether the remedy proposed would have made the deal acceptable to the Cubs. Or, to put another, is it reasonable to assume that the Cubs would have signed Epstien if if meant they would lose Garza.

The question, or questions, answer themselves.

In this context the best definition for significant is meaningful. Receiving a good minor league player meets that definition.

by flasoxfan on Feb 5, 2012 12:55 AM EST reply actions  

I think the thing that people forget is Garza's trade value

Look at the returns for Gio, Latos, and going back to last year, Ubaldo. You’re talking about a guy who has pitched well in the AL East and did it consistently for the three years he was there.

Garza’s coming off his best year yet and has barely entered his prime…you have to assume that he’s worth more now than he was last off-season and even then the Ray’s received two top-100 prospects in return.

I’m not sure if Epstein is even worth one top-100 guy. When we first considered his compensation a lot of people were clamoring for Jackson but he was deemed “too much”. Garza’s worth at least twice that.

I’d love to get him in return but I don’t see it happening. I think Wells or Dempster would be robbery (assuming Dempster’s contract is picked up…would probably have to give up someone in return; Doubront? Tejeda? I don’t know. I’m thinking more of a C+/B- type guy.).

by ritz on Feb 5, 2012 2:26 AM EST reply actions  

I'm don't see the logic

How did we get to the point where Theo was worth 9 WAR? Was it the statement that Theo is good as his job, and Ells and Bautista are two other people good at their jobs? That seemstoapretty loose comparison.

by cds7c on Feb 5, 2012 8:44 AM EST reply actions  

I also don't know how we came up with using WAR at all.
Then again, because money is not a good quantifier of talent for executive compensation, let’s continue to use WAR instead of dollars.

WAR is not a good quantifier of talent for an executive either because noone has ever tried to attach WAR to an executive before. There is no “replacement level” for executives. It doesn’t exist and trying to jam a square peg in a round hole does not work.

On a side note to the original post, Aramis Ramirez isn’t even on the Cubs anymore.

by The Name is Dalton on Feb 5, 2012 10:21 AM EST up reply actions  

I made an assumption that Epstine was among the best GMs in the game.

If the Red Sox are going to receive a player for a GM, there is no direct comparison to decide what is fair. So instead, I took the perspective of trading one year of one of the most talented baseball executives in the game, for one year’s production of one of the most valuable players in the game. To do so, I decided to use WAR.

Ramirez is quite an oversight! I meant to use Alfonso Soriano. I’ll edit accordingly, thanks for pointing that out.

by d.russ on Feb 5, 2012 12:39 PM EST up reply actions  

Right

But my problem is that WAR comes from actual data of what the player actually contributes. We don’t KNOW what Theo contributes. He could sit back and smoke cigars all day and listening to Pearl Jam all day while his minions do all of the work. Or, he could really be the absolute best at his position and have his hands in everything.

We know what Ellsbury or Batista have done and what they’ve contributed. It’s measurable. Assuming a year of Theo is worth a year of the best players in the league is a huge leap. You can measure the player. You can’t measure the executive because they are one piece of a puzzle that you(us fans) only see as a full picture.

by The Name is Dalton on Feb 5, 2012 10:28 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Standard deviation

Sorry about the screwed up post, but I had help… just think grand children and puppies. That said, Standard deviation is still the best determinant of value in this instance. You can us the formula in determining a player’s standing in relation to fellow players at his position and again using those results to determine his standing among all players. The same method could also be used to determine Theo’s standing alongside his fellows using the team’s W-L record, trade results…. using the same player measures, cost benefit analysis of the team’s payroll with regard to wins, and finally postseason appearances 1 point for div series, 2 points for LCS, 3 points for WS and 4 for winning it all. Then average the standard deviation for each categories.
Finally use the Executive deviation to determine choice level…. Top, middle and bottom shelf or prospect. Then the Sox get to choose from the Cubs players at that level. Assuming Theo is top shelf then the Sox get to Choose a player from that level, if not…. They get an Appropriate lower level choice.

by NJ Native on Feb 6, 2012 2:52 PM EST reply actions  

I think Garza is worth more than Theo

and if the Cubs had just given the Red Sox a player, the Sox should not have gotten Garza, but the Cubs just jumped straight to the contract in order to try to destroy the Sox leverage and give them cash, when before the Sox let them talk to Theo, the Cubs promised significant compensation. I think the Cubs should give the Sox Garza not because he’s equal in value to Theo, but to punish the Cubs, and to make a statement. If the Sox get cash or a lousy prospect, every team will just swoop in and take each other’s executives

by Bososx13 on Feb 6, 2012 9:27 PM EST reply actions  

couldn't agree more

absolutely agree. and allowing Theo to have anything to do with the negotiations is pure conflict of interest. it had failure written all over it once that began. Garza would be punishment and at the same time a deterrent against this happening again. at least the Ozzie deal was done up front with both sides knowing what they were getting and giving up.

by Harryaz on Feb 7, 2012 11:57 PM EST up reply actions  

why should the Cubs be particularly punished?

It was the Red Sox own fault that they allowed him to go before compensation was established. You can’t blame the Cubs for the Sox stupidity.

by wolf9309 on Feb 8, 2012 9:28 AM EST up reply actions  

Agreed.

If there’s punishment to be had, we should receive a bat boy.

Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
Look in the mirror and ask yourself: "Am I a hater troll?"

@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
OTM | Silver Seven

by Bloggy on Feb 8, 2012 9:49 AM EST up reply actions  

I tend to agree.

Even with the understanding of compensation, It was foolish to act on a promise based on a vague term(significant compensation) that has never been established before. That being said, I thought I had read that Selig doesn’t want to executives leaving their teams before their contracts are up. However, he may just want to avoid the situations in this case where he will have to get involved.

You can also accomplish that by punishing the team that had the leverage in the first place.(In this case the Red Sox) If you want to receive something for an exec under contract, work it out beforehand. Otherwise you’re not getting what you wanted. He may have to get involved with the Padres compensation too for Hoyer & McCleod. Do you think if the Cubs and Padres work out a deal they both agree with beforehand that Selig is going to throw a hissy fit in the news? Of course not.

by The Name is Dalton on Feb 9, 2012 8:50 AM EST up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to Over the Monster, an SB Nation community that delivers news and analysis while encouraging discussion regarding everything Boston Red Sox. OTM was founded Feb. 22, 2005.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Einstein_small
OTM Fantasy: Week 7
Einstein_small
OTM Fantasy: Week 6

Recent FanPosts

010_small
OTM Simpson Analogues
Pedroialazers2_small
The possibility of trading Kevin Youkilis
Moar_bacon_small
PSA vs. OTM Fantasy Smackdown Update
Small
The Curious Case of Daniel Nava
Rsz_ashleyspade_small
Top Red Sox Prospects
Einstein_small
OTM Fantasy: Week 5
Small
Mariano Rivera and TS Elliot and maybe Robert Frost
Small
Rivera has torn ACL

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Yahoo_full_count

Managers

Red_seat_small Ben Buchanan

Twitter_eb_2_small Marc Normandin

Authors

Lowrie__1234972975_0178-1_small lone1c

Jddrew_small gizmosandy

Pedoria1_small Mattsullivan

Baghead-1_small Matthew Kory

Photo__2__small BrendanOToole

Cee_small Cee Angi