Theo Epstein in 2009: How'd He Do? (John Smoltz Signed) Options

[Snodgrass'Muff]

11/19/08 - Acquired relief pitcher Ramon Ramirez in exchange for outfielder Coco Crisp.
12/3/08 - Signed INF Dustin Pedroia to a 6 year contract.
12/4/08 - Signed free agent Independent Japanese League pitcher Junichi Tazawa to a 3 year contract.
1/5/09 - Signed INF Nick Green to a minor league contract with an invite to Spring Training.
1/8/09 - Signed OF Rocco Baldelli to a 1 year contract.
1/9/09 - Signed SP Brad Penny to a 1 year contract.
1/10/09 - Signed relief pitcher Takashi Saito to a 1 year contract with a club option for 2010.
1/13/09 - Signed SP John Smoltz to a 1 year contract.
1/15/09 - Re-signed OF Mark Kotsay to a 1 year contract.
1/16/09 - Signed INF Kevin Youkilis to a 4 year contract with a club option for a 5th year.
2/6/09 - Re-signed catcher Jason Varitek to a 1 year contract with a mutual option for 2010.
3/8/09 - Signed RHP Jon Lester to a 5 year contract.
7/22/09 - Traded SS Argenis Diaz and RHP Hunter Strickland to the Pirates for 1B Adam LaRoche/Adam LaRoche traded to Atlanta for 1B Casey Kotchman on 7/31/09.
7/31/09 - Traded RHP's Justin Masterson, Nick Hagadone and Bryan Price to the Indians for C Victor Martinez.
8/5/09 - Signed RHP Paul Byrd to a minor league contract.
8/14/09 - Traded SS Kristopher Negron to the Reds for SS Alex Gonzalez.
8/26/09 - Traded 2 PTBNL for RHP Billy Wagner. (PTBNL: Eddie Lora and Chris Carter)

On January 13th, the Red Sox inked veteran pitcher and sure fire Hall of Famer John Smoltz to a one year, incentive laden contract. Most people were optimistic about the move, some cautiously so, but it simply did not work out. Smoltz was DFA'd by the Red Sox on August 7th in the midst of a pretty tight playoff race after getting shelled by the Yankees and seeing his ERA climb to 8.33.

[smastroyin]

This is one of those that is hard to grade because of the unknown questions. Did they sign Smoltz merely to be the 7th or 8th guy in the rotation and circumstance just happened to create a situation where they needed him? If so, why guarantee so much money? Is it a situation where they wanted him to be the 4th or 5th guy with an outside shot at a Schilling '07 performance in the playoffs? If so, then that's a big miss on their part, made worse by his effectiveness in the NL. If you sign Smoltz+Penny in the hopes of getting one solid pitcher, then you have to account better for the fact that they are still two guys.

I graded this a C without having any other information (I assume the former thesis and money is after all just money and this was a short term commitment). If they signed Smoltz instead of signing someone else then I would grade lower. I'm not sure they did, though, and I think without the Smoltz signing we probably would only have seen more Michael Bowden, which seems like it would have been a wash even with Smoltz's poor performance.

I also liked this move when it was made and would have given it an A pending Smoltz's health. Even now I tend to give a bit of benefit of doubt due to the whole thing where they won 95 games and seemed to execute a strategy which included trying a bunch of high upside injury guys to control long term commitment while getting a chance at something great. That said, going forward I don't think they can count on a full season of Wakefield, and it was his injury that really precipitated using Smoltz too long, so for this year I think I would like to do something a little more solid.

[phragle]

F for fail.

[John DiFool]

Hindsight is 20-20. At the time, it looked like a perfectly defensible move. Theo had no control over the rate of balls which dropped in for hits against Smoltz; I'd say in at least 50% of all alternate universes their Smoltz was at least average in ERA (+).

[Rudy Pemberton]

Sure, we all loved the move at the time but the goal of the move, stated by the organizaiton, was to acquire a big game pitcher, bring him along slowly, and he would help the Sox win games in the second half and in the playoffs. By that goal- it was a complete disaster (although he was effective with St.Louis). He had decent peripherals with the Sox and perhaps they panicked in dropping him for Byrd / Tazawa, but hindsight is 20-20 (of course, if we aren't allowed to bring what actually happened in to the equation, why not just read the thread from back when he was signed?).

[Snodgrass'Muff]

(of course, if we aren't allowed to bring what actually happened in to the equation, why not just read the thread from back when he was signed?).

I agree that ignoring what happened would be a mistake and would make this entire exercise a waste of time. But I think it would also be unwise to also ignore the context in which these moves were made. Finding a balance between the two is tricky, but analysis without context is pretty hollow. Personally, I gave this move a D. It was risky up front and the risk did not pay off.

It certainly had a negative impact on the team this year so a C grade felt too forgiving and while Smoltz was pretty horrid, there was a Hardball Times article written the day he was DFA'd that demonstrated that his his peripherals were actually pretty solid in some regards, suggesting a bit of bad luck on his part. So I wasn't comfortable giving it an F, either.

I think this is an example of what Theo's biggest weakness this past off season was, though the forthcoming discussion for summing up his moves for the 2009 season would be a better place to espouse on that.

This post has been edited by Snodgrass'Muff: Nov 23 2009, 09:07 PM

[Sprowl]

Personally, I gave this move a D. It was risky up front and the risk did not pay off.

It certainly had a negative impact on the team this year so a C grade felt too forgiving and while Smoltz was pretty horrid, there was a Hardball Times article written the day he was DFA'd that demonstrated that his his peripherals were actually pretty solid in some regards, suggesting a bit of bad luck on his part. So I wasn't comfortable giving it an F, either.

D is my ranking too -- the signing appeared to be a risky gamble with high upside, but like Penny and Saito, ended up being unexpectedly durable without the performance upside. Smoltz's inability to pitch in the AL East seems to be partly a matter of tipping pitches (if the NL rumors are to be believed), so some part of the blame has to go to the Red Sox coaching staff for not catching the tell. His swinging strikes, velocity and location all looked fine and measured well, at least against right-handed hitters, but there's no denying that his results with the Red Sox were simply awful.

[AlNipper49]

The difference between Theo and Duquette is that Smoltz would have been DD's plan for 2nd Starter

I guess that's why I would have a problem giving him a D on this one...

[Plympton91]

I couldn't vote for any of the above options.

To me, the appropriate response would be, "Solid move; significant negative impact"

From the perspective of signing Smoltz, they may have paid a little bit more, but the upside was worth the money it took if that's how much it took to get him to sign.

The negative impact came in using him in the majors before he showed that he could get AAA hitters out for 6 plus innings. If I'm not mistaken, most of his Pawtucket starts ended before the 5th inning just like his Boston starts.

So, the problem wasn't the signing, but the evaluation that Smoltz could contribute. Certainly Epstein takes some responsibility for the latter, but not the majority - he's not the major league scouting director.

So, I guess, after typing this, I can go back and vote D, "poor move." It was an expensive risk, but managed properly could have had the right balance of benefits and costs. Unfortunately, the risk was not managed properly.

[Kevin Mortons Gh...]

D is my ranking too -- the signing appeared to be a risky gamble with high upside, but like Penny and Saito, ended up being unexpectedly durable without the performance upside. Smoltz's inability to pitch in the AL East seems to be partly a matter of tipping pitches (if the NL rumors are to be believed), so some part of the blame has to go to the Red Sox coaching staff for not catching the tell. His swinging strikes, velocity and location all looked fine and measured well, at least against right-handed hitters, but there's no denying that his results with the Red Sox were simply awful.

Unexpectedly durable? I guess in that his arm didn't almost fall off again, but he seldom got us more than 5 innings a start, and they were really bad innings.

Honestly, if you can't give this move an F, what would qualify? The guy almost pitched us out of the post season single-handedly. It was a gamble that not only failed but failed spectacularly. And what were the odds that a 42 year old who hadn't pitched in a year would be terrible? Pretty high, I'd say.

I hope Theo has learned his lesson here.

[Plympton91]

Honestly, if you can't give this move an F, what would qualify?

Eric Gagne or Tony Clark.

Seriously. All they gave up was money, and this was not a move made out of necessity but out of surplus. It's hard to rate it an F unless they gave up talent in exchange or if it was a player who they were counting on to contribute meaningfully. The opportunity cost of the money seems low as well, because it's not like they could have signed a lower-risk, lower reward type of pitcher as depth, because the team would not have been attractive to such a player because they had no spots available in March.

As Nipper said, it's not like Epstein was banking the season on Smoltz working out -- as it is, the move looks worse because Smoltz actually pitched than it would have looked if he'd just re-injured his arm and retired with a $5 million parachute.

This post has been edited by Plympton91: Nov 24 2009, 12:14 AM

[Sprowl]

Unexpectedly durable? I guess in that his arm didn't almost fall off again, but he seldom got us more than 5 innings a start, and they were really bad innings.

I mean durability in the didn't-fall-apart sense: I thought that Smoltz, Penny and Saito all held up very well. The best thing to come out of those three signings was that the Red Sox are THE place to sign for rehab starters to build up their shoulders and work their way back to health. Smoltz and Penny both left on good terms, with praise for the club and the coaches, and then pitched well in the NL. Goodwill may help down the road, but it didn't pay off in 2009.

If Tito had reconciled himself to the notion that Smoltz was a 4-5 inning starter who needed to be taken out promptly at 75 pitches, we could have gotten better value out of him. For some reason, the Red Sox conserved bullpen innings when they didn't really need to. When Smoltz lost it, it was obvious: you can really see him losing location, and with his stuff that was the kiss of death.

[FFCI]

Had to go with a 'D.'

As much as it was fun to fantasize about what a vintage Smoltz would look like in a Red Sox uniform, the fact was it was a major gamble - and what we've learned over these low-risk, high-reward signings is that it's almost a sure loss.

It's like a lottery ticket - sure it's low-risk, high reward, but the probability of winning is so low that it is almost guaranteed to be a negative value.

The Red Sox were a World Series contender before the signing, there was no need to try to catch lightning in a bottle. What was needed was a solid investment - not a gamble. If Theo chose to sign a more reliable and predictable starter, say Derek Lowe - the money spent on the reclamation projects would have provided a much greater return.

It's time to move on from playing the lottery and hoping to hit the jackpot. Buying a bunch of lottery tickets - really doesn't increase your odds - but does increase your losses.

[JohntheBaptist]

I gave it a D as well. Even speaking as a huge fan of Epstein, his insistence on taking these Wade Miller, Brad Penny, John Smoltz types isn't so much- to me- about the money, although that becomes a bitter pill when they're as bad as Smoltz, as it is about the time it takes them to identify the failure of the experiment. Given the investment, I definitely think they gave him the right amount of rope. But that's the rub- there's such a high rate of flameout on this sort of FA signing that the investment you make often straps you to a significant amount of shitty performance.

Having seen near worst-case scenario on these guys more often than not, it sort of surprises me how many people are gung ho about someone like Rich Harden. I mean, like the others, there's a lot to like about the concept. But the downside is really down.

[gammoseditor]

I went with D, but the real tragedy of the John Smoltz signing is that it could have ended much earlier, except through his first four starts it looked like he was just getting terribly unlucky. In 20 innings he had not given up a home run, struck out 17 guys, and walked only four. Despite this he had an ERA of 5.40. If only he had given up some home runs and not struck out so many guys the experiment probably would have ended at least two starts earlier.

[johnlimberakis]

I gave it a B. It was a solid gamble that didn't pay off. Even if Smoltz were great with Boston I still would have given it a B. For me I have trouble basing my grade on the end result. I based my grade on the logic, reason and purpose of the signing. He was a high-risk, high-reward crap shoot. He didn't pay off. It happens. But that doesn't mean I don't want Theo to engage in these types of moves in the future. It's like value stocks. Sure 27/30 might lose money or break even, but when the other 3/30 pay off, they make up for all the losses and then some. If the author, instead, wants the grades by result then I give this an F and I'll vote that way next time.

Edit: balancing the two... B for signing, F for result, so it's either a C or a D.

This post has been edited by johnlimberakis: Nov 24 2009, 06:55 AM

[yecul]

F and here's why. First, there's the results. Now, that's hindsight, so let's rewind back to the offseason. Second, you either sign Smoltz or Penny. You never sign Smoltz AND Penny. Pick one. Roll the dice. We all saw the consequence of tying yourself to old, injured and declining talent -- you get fucked because they're veterans who are going to be in your rotation spot and cannot be put anywhere else.

I loved the move at the time and hated that it was coupled with Penny. It didn't make sense to me then. It didn't make sense to me that they held onto Penny through his good streak. It didn't make sense that they kept them both around as long as they did (and they moved relatively quick on them as far as this type of situation goes).

I freely admit that F is probably harsh given the hindsight factor, but fuck it. I can't ignore it and I also can't look at it in isolation. He and Penny were a package.

[Smiling Joe Hesk...]

F, and that's not too harsh, and this is coming from someone who liked the idea of the signing when it first happened. They took a risk that a badly injured pitcher would return to effectiveness after surgery. No problem, since normally such deals are for small money with significant incentives; if it doesn't work you lose very little. This deal was for big money plus significant incentives. Smoltz was 1) completely horrible and 2) cost a ton of money while sucking horribly. They brought this guy in and put him on a rehab plan with the publicly stated goal that he would be a strong contributor in the playoffs. We know how that worked out.

This is a hindsight analysis, so there's no way in my mind to justify giving this move anything but an F once all the results are in. The results could not have been worse. He didn't contribute a damn thing, significantly hurt the team in the time he was out there pitching, and cost a very large amount of money before finally and mercifully being jettisoned in August.

F F F. No other way to grade this. The Sox are in a battle for the division and the playoffs every year; they cannot tolerate a project like this failing so miserably. At least Penny was decent for a month or so; the mistake there was in not trading his fat ass for something of value when he still had some. Smoltz was horrible from day 1. I certainly hope the lesson learned in all this is to move away from these starting pitcher reclamation projects, or to use them only at very cheap money and with very short leashes. Wade Miller, Brad Penny, and John Smoltz were all failures in Boston; I see little reason why a guy like Rich Harden or Ben Sheets is suddenly going to be the exception to that pattern. Even the relievers on this pattern have had mixed results; Saito was good but Mantei was awful. These guys are poor performance risks.

[smastroyin]

F F F. No other way to grade this. The Sox are in a battle for the division and the playoffs every year; they cannot tolerate a project like this failing so miserably.

I have now seen this twice in the thread. The Red Sox made the playoffs by 8 games. 8 games! Smoltz's replacements in the rotation were Tazawa, Bowden, and eventually broken Wakefield. They combined for an ERA of around 7 in August and September. And the Red Sox STILL made the playoffs by 8 games.

Of course they can tolerate it. They did tolerate it. And their early playoff exit had nothing to do with Smoltz either, unless signing Smoltz made the road offense turn into the suck machine. At an individual level Smoltz failed, that is clear and there is no argument against. But he was a small cog on this team. If he had pitched really well, he could have been a bigger cog come playoff time. He didn't. But in itself even if they had pitched him right until the end of the season (or when Dice-K was ready) it would not have made a material difference to the Sox season. To cost them anything near the 8 games that it would take to have missed the playoffs he would had to have strangled Youkilis and Martinez in the shower or something.

Put it this way. Smoltz was almost as bad as the worst expectations could have imagined. He was more necessary (due to injury to Wakefield and Dice-K and a reluctance to promote Buchholz) than was thought at the beginning of the season. Basically Smoltz's season was almost the worst case scenario and the Sox still won 95 games and made the playoffs by 8. I think that's pretty damn good evidence that the can absolutely tolerate projects like this.

I would say the worst part of the deal was giving him a guaranteed call-up. They get an F for that I and I hope they do not repeat it. But I seriously doubt people would have much vitriol for this signing if Smoltz had simply failed in Pawtucket even at the cost of a $6 million.

[Smiling Joe Hesk...]

I have now seen this twice in the thread. The Red Sox made the playoffs by 8 games. 8 games! Smoltz's replacements in the rotation were Tazawa, Bowden, and eventually broken Wakefield. They combined for an ERA of around 7 in August and September. And the Red Sox STILL made the playoffs by 8 games.

Of course they can tolerate it. They did tolerate it. And their early playoff exit had nothing to do with Smoltz either, unless signing Smoltz made the road offense turn into the suck machine. At an individual level Smoltz failed, that is clear and there is no argument against. But he was a small cog on this team. If he had pitched really well, he could have been a bigger cog come playoff time. He didn't. But in itself even if they had pitched him right until the end of the season (or when Dice-K was ready) it would not have made a material difference to the Sox season. To cost them anything near the 8 games that it would take to have missed the playoffs he would had to have strangled Youkilis and Martinez in the shower or something.

They had a divisional race for a while, one that was close in July and August when Smoltz was stinking up the joint.

The Sox have the ability to pay more for players than most of their competition. I would prefer to see them spend the extra money on performance surety rather than extreme performance risks. They paid Smoltz a lot of money and received absolutely nothing in return; that's tough to swallow under any circumstances, never mind a team trying to win a division. When you pay north of $8 million for a guy and get 8 starts and 40 innings of 8.32 ERA and 1.70 WHIP in return, that move gets an F in my book. I can't justify any other grade, even if I overstated my case at first. It's a risk that couldn't have turned out worse for the team.