Theo Epstein, Martin Prado, and Front Office Value

According to recent reports, the Marlins are on the verge of signing third baseman Martin Prado to a contract that would keep him from hitting the free agent market this winter; the extension will cost them roughly $40 million over three years, keeping Prado in Miami for his age 33-35 seasons.

According to even more recent reports, the Cubs are on the verge of signing President of Baseball Operations Theo Epstein to a contract that would keep him from hitting the free agent market this winter; the extension will cost them roughly $50 million over five years, keeping Epstein in Chicago for his age 43-47 seasons.

Between the two of them, the Epstein news is certainly more significant. The architect of the best team in baseball, Epstein is now the highest paid executive in the sport, and this represents about a 250% raise over the contract he got when he got to Chicago, which paid him $18 million over five years. The Prado deal is more of a run-of-the-mill contract extension for a nice player, but it barely rated as news in the baseball landscape. But given the differing lengths of the contracts, Prado is actually making more per season, and the two deals are roughly comparable in value.

In other words, MLB just told us that one of the best executives in the game is worth about the same as the decline years of a solid non-star, a guy who should be expected to be something like a league average player during the contract he just signed. I’m sure the Marlins and Cubs weren’t trying to create this kind of juxtaposition, but thanks to the timing of these two deals, we can say that the market is currently valuing coveted front office members in a similar way to an average player.

On the one hand, it’s very easy to think that this means that high level executives are still being wildly underpaid. A couple of years ago, Lewie Pollis — now working for the Phillies — put forth this very argument in his Honors Thesis at Brown University, building a model that claimed the best executives in baseball were worth something like seven or eight wins per year to their franchises, which would translate to something like $50 million per year in value. Previously, Benjamin Morris has argued that Billy Beane has been worth hundreds of millions of dollars to the A’s, and that the Red Sox screwed up by not luring him out of Oakland.

You Aren't a FanGraphs Member
It looks like you aren't yet a FanGraphs Member (or aren't logged in). We aren't mad, just disappointed.
We get it. You want to read this article. But before we let you get back to it, we'd like to point out a few of the good reasons why you should become a Member.
1. Ad Free viewing! We won't bug you with this ad, or any other.
2. Unlimited articles! Non-Members only get to read 10 free articles a month. Members never get cut off.
3. Dark mode and Classic mode!
4. Custom player page dashboards! Choose the player cards you want, in the order you want them.
5. One-click data exports! Export our projections and leaderboards for your personal projects.
6. Remove the photos on the home page! (Honestly, this doesn't sound so great to us, but some people wanted it, and we like to give our Members what they want.)
7. Even more Steamer projections! We have handedness, percentile, and context neutral projections available for Members only.
8. Get FanGraphs Walk-Off, a customized year end review! Find out exactly how you used FanGraphs this year, and how that compares to other Members. Don't be a victim of FOMO.
9. A weekly mailbag column, exclusively for Members.
10. Help support FanGraphs and our entire staff! Our Members provide us with critical resources to improve the site and deliver new features!
We hope you'll consider a Membership today, for yourself or as a gift! And we realize this has been an awfully long sales pitch, so we've also removed all the other ads in this article. We didn't want to overdo it.

Of course, the Red Sox failure to land Beane led them to hire the very same Theo Epstein, and things worked out pretty well in Boston during his tenure. Epstein’s success makes it difficult to accept Morris’ argument that the team made a mistake by failing to spend enough to lure Beane out of Oakland, and more broadly, raises the primary challenge in determining fair executive compensation; what is the baseline we’re measuring against?

For Prado, we have a fairly well understood idea of what the Marlins would get from a league-minimum third baseman. The market for players is fairly predictable, and we generally know what the Marlins should expect to get from a guy they claim on waivers or sign to a minor league contract. Quantifying Prado’s value is not that difficult because we know what the expected performance of not spending the money would be, and how many wins that would project to cost the Marlins over the next three years. Given his age and production, we should expect him to be worth something like +5 or +6 WAR over the next three years, so the Marlins are paying about $7-$8 million per win, right in line with the current market rate for players.

On the other hand, though, we really don’t have a great way of understanding the expected performance level of a theoretical replacement-level GM. Pollis and Morris based their valuations of the top-line executives by looking at the moves the organizations made during their tenures, but this kind of analysis has one very obvious flaw; the GM (or President of Baseball Operations, more likely these days) might get to be the one to make the final call on a transaction, but he certainly didn’t make the decision by himself, and summing up all of the organizational expertise that goes into each decision into one individual ignores the fact that much of that expertise would remain in place even if you didn’t have the top guy around.

Assistant GMs, directors of various departments, quants, programmers, scouts, analysts, and interns all contribute to the organizational knowledge base, and that knowledge contributes to the decision making process. It might be more fair to say that Pollis and Morris argue that entire baseball operations staffs could be worth tens of millions per year, and they were just using the name at the top of the chain as a proxy for the value of the entire staff, which is why there wasn’t a line of teams trying to outbid the Cubs for Epstein’s services even as his contract expired.

While Theo made it clear he had no real desire to leave, and that likely hindered any other teams from making a run at him, if anyone in the game believed that the top executives were really creating seven or eight wins per year in value by themselves, they wouldn’t have let the Cubs keep him for just $10 million a year, which is the going rate for a mediocre back-end starter. The market is clearly not agreeing with the idea that front office personnel are on par with the best players in the game in terms of organizational value, seemingly because most teams believe they can find a younger, cheaper executive to carry out similar ideas and direct their organization in a the same general direction.

In other words, teams seem to believe that the value that a guy like Epstein has comes not from an inherent talent, but from transferrable knowledge, and if you can find someone who has learned from one of these guys, perhaps you can get that knowledge without paying a premium for it. That appears to be one of the drivers behind the trend of hiring young analytical types from prestigious northeast universities — which isn’t without its downsides — as teams look for their own Epstein or Beane, rather than trying to poach the ones already out there.

If the belief of transferrable knowledge is correct, than the baseline for a replacement level executive should be pretty high, since it isn’t that hard to find a a smart guy who worked under smart people and could have absorbed the knowledge necessary, and can surround themselves with the kinds of people who will help build the organizational knowledge base up to make good decisions. And if the replacement level for an executive is pretty high, than each individual front office member isn’t worth all that much, and that’s how we end up with Theo Epstein making less per year than an aging Martin Prado.

After all, the Cubs also extended GM Jed Hoyer and Assistant GM Jason McLeod at the same time, strengthening the case for organizational success being about assembling a quality front office, not just landing a dynamic leader at the top. We don’t know how much Hoyer and McLeod are making, but given that McLeod was in the running for the Twins President of Baseball Operations gig, he probably had enough leverage to extract a decent paycheck, and Hoyer would need to make even more than that, given his position as McLeod’s superior. So, while Epstein himself is making less than Prado, it’s likely that the Cubs top executive trio is at least close to Prado’s annual salary, and perhaps even a bit above.

Of course, that doesn’t mean that baseball is properly valuing the contributions of its front office members. The pay structure within baseball operations organizations is very top-heavy, with guys with executive titles making six or seven figures while the guys a few spots down the rung are hanging out closer to $50,000 to $75,000 per year, and the guys on the lowest spots of the ladder making far less than that. It still remains likely true that there are some significant inefficiencies involved with pay for front office talent below the Assistant GM level, and teams could get a strong return on investment if they could identify which mid-level office members should spark a bidding war.

The salaries for the top level executives are going up pretty fast. Andrew Friedman reportedly got $35 million to join the Dodgers, which was an outlier in executive compensation before this Epstein deal; it’s likely that these deals will help push up the salaries for other successful GMs and Presidents when their contracts expire. And hopefully the rising pay at the top will encourage teams to be more aggressive in paying the rest of their baseball operations staff higher wages, since it’s acknowledge that Epstein, Friedman, Beane, and all the rest aren’t doing this work by themselves.

But it is interesting that, even as the market begins to adjust compensation upwards for front office staff, we’re still in a day and age where the highest paid executive in the sport is signing an extension worth a little less per season than Martin Prado. I’m pretty sure the Cubs wouldn’t trade Epstein for Prado if given the choice, but given the realities of the markets for players and front office personnel, this is still where we are. We don’t know enough to say whether it’s correct or not, but it still feels like front offices are being underpaid relative to what teams are spending on players, given the impact that a quality front office can have on assembling a winning team.

But what is the right number for each executive? How much would losing Epstein hurt the Cubs if they were able to retain Hoyer, McLeod, and the rest of their baseball operations staff? How much does any one individual matter in a staff where so many people are contributing to the decision making process?

Right now, I don’t think we really have answers to any of these questions. ‘m not sure the teams do either. And that lack of confidence in our ability to quantify the impact of each person probably factors into the lower salaries. After all, we’re pretty sure we have a decent handle on Martin Prado’s value. Theo Epstein’s value? We think he’s pretty good at his job, but beyond that, we’re all kind of still throwing darts.





Dave is the Managing Editor of FanGraphs.

76 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Paul Kasiński
9 years ago

“Of course, the A’s failure to land Beane led them to hire the very same Theo Epstein” Think you meant Red Sox

mcescher
9 years ago

What would Theo Epstein bring back in a trade?

Brad JohnsonMember
9 years ago
Reply to  mcescher

Martin Prado

JediHoyer
9 years ago
Reply to  KCDaveInLA

That was basically pre cubs, with what he has done his value has only gone up. Bear in mind he was coming off a Carl Crawford signing, Adrian Gonzalez trade and extension as well as an epic September collapse prior to his leaving boston. He has shown having the right executive for a few years can set you up for 10 years.

BipMember since 2016
9 years ago
Reply to  mcescher

It depends how much he can carry. Or, if he’s driving, how much will fit in his car.

Richie
9 years ago

I’d want to think it through before putting my ‘John Hancock’ on it, but seems to me that the Prados of the MLB world are paid more than they’re worth due to their free agent status, which so many of their competitors (what?50% 70%) don’t have. They reap some of the excess that results.

Richie
9 years ago
Reply to  Richie

Which excess portions could then also go to the Epsteins of MLB, or their toadies. So it doesn’t really affect your theme. Just pointing out that Miami probably doesn’t really think Prado is worth the $40 mill. Just that they needs some FAs to compete at the highest level, so you accept overpaying them somewhat.

LHPSU
9 years ago
Reply to  Richie

They don’t think Prado is worth $40M?

phpope
9 years ago
Reply to  LHPSU

I think what he’s saying is that Prado would not be worth $40m in an open market where every player was available. Rather, Prado’s value is partially a result of his free agent status.

Doorknob11
9 years ago
Reply to  phpope

It’s all supply and demand, since the supply of above replacement level third basemen is so low that just makes the ones out there worth that much more.

JediHoyer
9 years ago
Reply to  Doorknob11

Luis valbuena, Justin turner, Neil walker, Aaron hill, ian desmond, Steve pearce, Steven drew. Kung fu panda for peanuts. There is certainly options.

ackbar7Member since 2020
9 years ago
Reply to  Richie

In fact pretty much all of these people are underpaid because of thea increasing profits for all of the teams. Player compensation relative to the money brought in by the is the lowest it has been in decades and it is not like executive payments have gotten so huge to come anywhere close to closing that gap. Teams do recognize that, which is why we have the title inflation, and continuing increases in size of the front offices, but the Martin Prados of the world are absolutely worth that payment if only because history and tradition say so.

mshirkMember since 2020
9 years ago

I think another wrinkle in this is that Epstein, Friedman, Beane, etc. can be ‘at their best’ for two, maybe even three decades. Players only for 5-10 years (with a few exceptions of course). Thus, replacement level goes up and even the best aren’t worth that much more than the ‘worst’.

On another (sorry, political) note, If Pollis and Morris are making the mistake that Cameron says they are (confusing GM for organization) than it looks similar to the way that the top guys at banks and major corporations value themselves vs. their entire organizations. Thus, we see high CEO, CFO, etc. pay.

OtterMember since 2016
9 years ago
Reply to  mshirk

At the same time, we really don’t know how long executives are “at their best”. Epstein absolutely fleeced Beane in a trade two years ago (Samardzija and Hammell for Addison Russell and McKinney), does that mean Beane is on the downside? Or that Beane made one bad trade?

Quick aside: Epstein’s done so well with the Cubs, in part, because he’s made three completely lopsided trades (Feldman for Arrieta; Dempster for Hendricks and he Russell trade). Obviously Epstein is a great executive, but it’s also doubtful that he’ll continue to pull off such lopsided deals. I realize the Cubs are paying all the FO guys for more than just making trades: drafting, scouting, and where/what players to allocate spending, etc. are huge parts of their jobs. But I’d be interested to know what the Cubs are paying him for… is it more for his management of the staff? The strategy that he sets fourth? An uncanny ability to located diamonds in the rough? All of the above?

lesmashMember since 2017
9 years ago
Reply to  Otter

Don’t forget that it was under Epstein that the Cubs landed Anthony Rizzo, which was by trade with San Diego shortly after Theo arrived in the Windy City.

redsoxu571
9 years ago
Reply to  Otter

Your overview of what Epstein brings shows a woefully lack of understanding as to the impact the head of a front office can have, and specifically the impact Epstein has. More than anything else, Epstein brings a PLAN and a PROCESS. The plan is valuable because it is proven…when you have a freshly minted executive, his plans may be just hypothetical, or they might be offshoots of someone else’s plans (which he may not be able to execute as well).

More important, however, is the process. Wise minds understand that you need to trust a process for what it produces as a whole in a sufficient sampling, whereas sports fans and media members tend to focus on everything in isolation, which is a massive mistake. Every single trade is looked at as a win or loss, and tends to ignore the product of the entire trade body and the goals of the trades when made. Because of this, many front office leaders are reactive, and so will modify or abandon a process prematurely (and for the wrong reasons).

Epstein has done well because he has a scouting process, a drafting process, a player development process, a trading process, a free agency process, a coach staffing process etc. While not all are perfect, he likely has built each based on careful analysis and testing, and trusts that they will yield net positive results. And he NEVER wavers any time a single result of a process fails. The lopsided deals help even more (I would say they probably accelerated the rebuild of the Cubs by a year or two, but aren’t the foundation of the rebuild), but then again his trading process aims to occasionally produce such a lopsided result, his player development process aims to efficiently acquire desirably assets that can lead to such deals, and so forth. That’s why he focuses his drafting efforts on hitters; he knows it more efficiently produces assets, and he can and will acquire pitching in other ways.

cubfanjack
9 years ago
Reply to  redsoxu571

Wow! Very nicely crafted and I couldn’t agree more. Theo himself told the media early on in his Cub tenure (and i may be paraphrasing a touch) “you get tired of me saying this, but you have to build a complete organization and there are no shortcuts.”

And as you say sometimes the wins are small and maybe not so noticeable. In December of 2011, 2 months after coming to the Cubs, he traded Sean Marshall who had been a stellar LH pitcher with a great curve for Travis Wood and 2 others. Sean unfortunately has had almost nothing but injuries ever since, while Wood has chipped in with a WAR of 5.1 over those years. He also happens to be a good hitter and pinch runner.

A cliche, but the whole is greater then the sum of the parts when it comes to Theo,Hoyer and McCleod–and their ability to hire scouts and to find under performers with huge upside is near uncanny. Also–their patience (process)…scores of fans and pundits kept wanting them to trade Soler, Baez and others for Shelby Miller or any of a number of other pitchers. But they never seemed to be in a hurry except for when signing Joe Maddon.

Curious Gorge
9 years ago
Reply to  redsoxu571

Very well said redsoxu571… not only that, he also rebuilt ***everything*** from the ground up… the scouting department was the smallest in baseball, the computer system was antiquated, the server with all their records was in a small closet in the upper deck next to one of the concession stands… every cliche of a dump you can think of is what and how the Cubs were run. Theo, Ricketts, and the rest of the F.O. have rebuilt the entire organization. From ancient to modern. It’s been amazing to watch the process. Even if they don’t win the World Series, the work the team has done is amazing. Just WOW…

OtterMember since 2016
9 years ago
Reply to  redsoxu571

I’m a few days late circling back to this, but there are 30 front offices in MLB and I’d say roughly 22-25 of them are trying to do the exact same thing that Theo is doing. Theo isn’t zigging while everyone else is zagging (that would be the D’backs). Theo’s trying to find low cost talent that will bring surplus value (usually through the draft or international signings—Bryant, Contreras), ID players he feels the coaching staff can ‘fix’ (Arrieta being the most obvious), then spend the remaining budget wisely (Lester, Heyward, Zobrist). And if he can lock up the low cost talent to sweet heart deals (Rizzo) then even better. But he’s not the only GM/FO/Pres in baseball doing this; most FO are trying to do this.

Theo is doing it better than most/all right now, there is zero debate about this. I’m just wondering if this is what are the Rickett’s specifically paying him for (as I listed above but I know we’ll never really know); as for the trades are they: 1) sustainable and 2) if so, why is he better at it than everyone else?

Brad JohnsonMember
9 years ago

There’s one interesting side element here. Executives influence win totals, but their contracts aren’t bound by the luxury tax rules. So, for rich teams spending at or above the soft cap, a marginal dollar on an executive’s contract is cheaper than a dollar on a player’s contract.

I’d expect a bubble to form with the top five or so executives able to name their price. Perhaps that’s what we’ve seen with Epstein and Friedman. But in a sport with so much money, it seems like the numbers should be higher – at least for these consensus FO stars.

I agree with Dave’s point that more credit should be given to the entire org rather than just one man. The so-called title inflation in baseball strikes me as an attempt acknowledge more individuals financially while still keeping traditional pay structures intact for lower level employees.

dtpollittMember since 2016
9 years ago
Reply to  Brad Johnson

I believe there is some sort of clause in Zell’s selling of the Cubs that limits the team’s payroll. Brett outlined it here, extensively, but if I remember correctly the clause limits payroll but not other expenditures, like $$$ for the front office.

http://www.bleachernation.com/2014/03/19/the-chicago-cubs-financial-story-the-payroll-the-debt-and-the-syncing-of-baseball-and-business-plans/

It’s been awhile since I read this superb analysis, but that was a take away I vaguely recall. Others who know more than I please chime in!

Dave TMember since 2016
9 years ago
Reply to  dtpollitt

Good link, but the Cubs’ debt to EBITDA restriction (EBITDA is, roughly speaking for a baseball team, operating income before interest and taxes) limits executive salaries just as surely as player salaries. Both executive salaries and player salaries are ordinary operating expenses.

cubfanjack
9 years ago
Reply to  Dave T

That makes more sense. A deal that with a limitation on payroll built in does not. Who would agree to that?

HappyFunBallMember since 2019
9 years ago
Reply to  Brad Johnson

I believe the Washington Redskins tried that once. They spent a bazillion dollars trying to assemble a super staff of assistant coaches, since that was not subject to the salary cap

But, Dan Snyder, so of course they sucked anyway.

Brad JohnsonMember
9 years ago
Reply to  HappyFunBall

Hey, that’s what I do in Maddon!

Graves
9 years ago

Great article, I believe a great front office is highly underrated. The Dodgers Braintrust lead by Friedman and Zaidi is proving to be exremely valuable. 4 division titles in a row, and they will be good for years to come. It helps that they have money, but lots of orgs have money but don’t spend it, or don’t spend it wisely.

Graves
9 years ago
Reply to  Graves

Queue the shit storm of Dodger haters and comments about Carl Crawford…

BipMember since 2016
9 years ago
Reply to  Graves

My only comment about Carl Crawford is that Friedman and Zaidi didn’t acquire him, so I’m not sure what comments you are expecting.

vmx
9 years ago
Reply to  Graves

Friedman was with the Dodgers since 2015. If he got the Dodgers 4 division titles in 2 years, he truly is amazing.

stanMember since 2019
9 years ago

I respect Theo Epstein and believe he is a quality GM, but… I have to point out that he built the Cubs after taking the unprecedented step of shamelessly tanking with a team in the top 5 in revenues. That’s not exactly deserving of a contract that shatters previous boundaries for GMs. Neil Huntington is probably twice as valuable.

output gap
9 years ago
Reply to  stan

Or he’s not because his ownership can’t be convinced to spend $50 million on their best players, let alone their GM. But yeah, be a homer.

stanMember since 2019
9 years ago
Reply to  output gap

You think Huntington is just supposed to convince his ownership to spend more money? As if its just a matter of their choice? C’mon man. The Cubs have spent more on their management than the Rays have on their entire roster. They have more money to spend than all but a couple of teams in the league. You can’t pretend that building a team with those resources behind it doesn’t have a lot to do with the size of your budget.

LHPSU
9 years ago
Reply to  stan

Huntington does a lot of good things and also some strange decisions that turn out exactly as everybody expect them to. The jury’s still out.

Peter
9 years ago
Reply to  output gap

How is Nutting being cheap the fault of Huntington?

LHPSU
9 years ago
Reply to  Peter

Because even within Huntington’s limited resources, the Pirates front office has made some decisions that looked questionable and turned out to be questionable.

Joeys Bat FlipMember since 2016
9 years ago
Reply to  stan

I’m not quite sure exactly what you’re talking about here. The Sox they never had a losing season under Epstein, and although they missed the playoffs on that famous last-night-of-the-season in 2011, they were still a really good team that won 90 games, and should have been in the playoffs. Epstein left the club before the 2012 season; it was Cherington that then tore down Epstein’s team.

When Epstein joined the Cubs in 2011 they were just coming off of a 71 win season where they had only one pitcher (Matt Garza) with an ERA under 4.50. The following year was unquestionably worse, as the team lost 101 games. But from then on, the win totals just kept climbing under Epstein:

2012 61-101
2013 66-96
2014 73-89
2015 97-65
2016 101-57 (*not yet complete)

So I don’t know if what you meant by “shamelessly tanking with a team” was ‘lose on purpose’, but I don’t see a point in his career when he did that. It’s possible that he spent less on the team’s roster from one year to another, but if the team won more games…should we care?

stanMember since 2019
9 years ago
Reply to  Joeys Bat Flip

Are you disputing that the Cubs tanked during those years? They won 71 the year before he came aboard and Theo did nothing but trade all of his best players in the next two years (Samardzija, Dempster, Feldman, Cashner). All while spending about $40M less per year in payroll and losing more than his predecessor. I’m not complaining about it because it was the path of least resistance for rebuilding, especially since the new CBA rewards tanking even more, but it hardly makes him an all star GM. Can you think of a time when the Dodger, Red Sox or Yankees tanked for 3 straight years? I sure can’t. That win rate is pretty much what Huntington accomplished with Pittsburgh and he didn’t have even half the money to work with (nor a favorable CBA). I’m not even a Pittsburgh fan, btw. I’m just using Huntington as an example.

redsoxu571
9 years ago
Reply to  stan

Learn the difference between tanking and rebuilding, and then you’ll be ready to rejoin the conversation with a knowledgeable opinion.

cubfanjack
9 years ago
Reply to  stan

He won all those trades you mention..how on earth could you call that tanking? You have to be kidding. Hendricks for Dempster…Rizzo for Cashner….Arrieta for Feldman….Russell for Shark. He wasn’t tanking, he should have been arrested for grand larceny.

redsoxu571
9 years ago
Reply to  Joeys Bat Flip

When did Cherington “tear down Epstein’s team”? He stuck with largely the same team for the first year (2012), which failed due to a lack of flexibility from some non-Cherington mistakes (Crawford, Lackey, etc) and a bevy of bad luck. He used one of the team’s best pieces (Gonzalez) to unload some mistakes and regain flexibility in order to reload around that same core to make a championship run in 2013. After that season, Epstein’s next wave of prospect player development was beginning to ripen, and so Cherington then began the transition to those players (a transition that has more bumps than hoped, but such is how transitions sometimes go), and it should be noted that Epstein had been building the franchise to transition around that same period anyways.

GMs can’t make their mark unless they have room to craft a team as desired, and Cherington started with very little, so he did what he could to try to win for a few years before he then had the room to put his own stamp on things. He chose to focus a bit more on helping the younger players develop, rather than maximize wins in the short term, and now the team is reaping the benefits of that plan. It’s a shame that he isn’t around to get the credit he deserves for helping bring the team to this position, just as it’s a shame Epstein didn’t have a chance to guild the team through 2012-2013’s win-now focus while waiting for the player development to kick in. But so it goes when your ownership teeters back and forth between following a plan and being reactive.

Clutch Narrative
9 years ago
Reply to  redsoxu571

The Lackey contract was far from a mistake . Even with time lost to Tommy John, he outperformed his salary.

Cherington was not the architect of the Punto deal.

redsoxu571
9 years ago
Reply to  stan

Your opinion illustrates the value of someone like Epstein, for his ability to stick with what he knows works instead of reacting to your kind of weak and/or ignorant viewpoint.

Epstein inherited a losing, expensive, veteran clubs with just a single truly valuable asset (Starlin Castro) on its MLB roster, plus a weak minor league system. LEARN TO TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN “TANKING” and “REBUILDING”. To TANK is to “intentionally lose in order to improve a team’s draft position”, something that isn’t even effective in baseball in the first place. To REBUILD is to “not waste time trying to squeeze every win out of a team that still wouldn’t make the playoffs anyways”. Epstein got the value for the expensive veterans that he could or shipped out the rest, set about getting players who MIGHT develop value some playing time, and focused on building up the minor league system…and it succeeded tremendously.

Without a doubt, the same GM/President has a MUCH easier task heading a high-revenue team than a low revenue team, and I have no doubt there are some front office executives that are on a similar level as that of Epstein but who are unable to produce the same results given revenue restrictions. But operating with an advantage doesn’t make Epstein less capable. He would be terrific heading ANY franchise.

JediHoyer
9 years ago
Reply to  stan

The pirates have had 3 winning seasons and 6 losing seasons since Huntington took over. It also helps to remember the pirates just had a losing season with the same core, I certainly can’t see the cubs having a losing season for a very long time.

dtpollittMember since 2016
9 years ago

Ricketts and Theo both admitted this week they each threw the bargaining chips out the window in spring training and knew they wanted to get a deal done. It’s reasonable to think that if push came to shove, Theo could have commanded more money, right? That said, I don’t know of too many organizations who already don’t have a top-tier FO and could afford paying a president, GM, and scouting director more than the Cubs just agreed to.

BipMember since 2016
9 years ago
Reply to  dtpollitt

Well, the bargaining chips probably didn’t fall that far out the window–maybe some of them ended up lying on the windowsill–because if I’m not mistaken Theo still got the highest AAV ever for an executive.

I think this brings up and interesting consideration though. I think one advantage free agent players have that executives have in lower quantity is mobility. While changing teams does impact a player, it seems like the most significant part of that move is where he will live and where his family will live. Sometimes that is prohibitive, but it seems usually not. Aside from that, if he’s got a bat, a glove, and a uniform, he can play baseball, with probably some minor notable exceptions.

The executive, on the other hand, needs to work with others in a way that is far more extensive than a player does. A player needs to get along with his teammates, but only in the minimum possible capacity; in other words, he needs to physically coexist with 24 people without being driven to violence. The executive has to do way more: he has to implement or familiarize himself with the organization’s infrastructure, he has to delegate a large number of critical tasks, he has to build literally the roster of the entire organization, he has to have a direct relationship with the owner (in fact that may be the most important part of his job in a sense.)

All these things, to me, seem like things that would serve as friction to relocating. Theo is probably more the rule than the exception as someone who would prefer to make something work with his current org instead of moving. The primary exception is cases where a move would be a promotion, but if we limit our sample to top executives, I think my observation is even more true. Players, on the other hand, pay lip service to staying with the same organization, but it’s clear the money is their primary consideration (and obviously I apply no moral judgement to that statement.)

output gap
9 years ago

MLB teams have been, anecdotally, hiring more than their share of Ivy League-type trust fund babies, who can take lower salaries to work for a baseball team, than what they are worth if they were working for an insurance or manufacturing companies.

cubfan131
9 years ago
Reply to  output gap

This is very true. The only ones working the lower level position in an MLB front office either can afford to work for less or just really want to work in baseball. I work in an analytic position in the financial sector and easily make 2x what I would from a team as well as working half the hours.

jpgMember since 2020
9 years ago

It’s important to note that it’s not just baseball. All of the major team sports in North America have a similar compensation structure. It’s particularly interesting in the NFL where the top paid head coaches make $8M per year whereas their superiors, GMs and Team Presidents, make around $2M per year on average. Obviously NFL head coaches have a much more significant impact on wins and losses than their counterparts, but it’s still interesting that a guy like Bill Belichick makes around the same amount as the fifth highest paid guard.

matt_the_hulk
9 years ago

I think the discussion is interesting when you see the complete valuation of the ball club because of the health of the franchise. Ricketts bought the Cubs for approx 850 mill pre-Theo and now the valuation is 2.2 billion post Theo. When you factor in the Cubs impending TV contract and how our viewership skyrocketed due to Theo’s & friends amazing moves, the actual value is significantly higher than the $10 mill he’s making now. Appropriating value to a front office should be similar to the summation of projected future revenue streams by various success levels and then the risk of the proposed front office persons success.

In 2008 Ricketts needed a bonafide slam dunk winner for a big market club and he got one and now is sitting on a gold mine for his choice. Just straight smart business. $1,3B profit in a 7 year span sounds like a pretty good return on investment to me.

cubfanjack
9 years ago
Reply to  matt_the_hulk

And thank goodness the other owners weren’t Mark Cuban fans–when i first heard of his interest, it seemed cool. But he turns into a bigger and bigger cow pie by the day and he would have interfered like crazy probably

Dominikk85Member since 2020
9 years ago

I agree GMs are underpaid. a good gm can save/earn many more dollars than he costs.

Epstein certainly is as good as it gets and losing him would be a big blow albeit Hoyer probably wouldn’t be terrible either.

However you also need to give credit to the Cubs owners. Epstein did a great job but usually big market owners won’t allow a full multi year tear down (with a couple top picks) because that costs a lot of money.

However ricketts was allowing Epstein to field a crappie team for 3-4 years to finally bring a championship to the Cubs. was the right thing to do but many owners won’t allow that but instead fake competitiveness like the yanks the last couple years to sell more tickets.

Epstein still executed it perfectly but ricketts made is possible by being willing to lose some money and attendance to build the next great team.

Dave TMember since 2016
9 years ago
Reply to  Dominikk85

It’s true that ownership also committed to it, but the Cubs also have an unusual market situation – presumably due to Wrigley Field and the lovable losers history – where attendance didn’t really drop as much as one might expect.

In recent years, Cubs’ attendance peaked at 3.30 million in 2009, when the team won 97 games and went to the playoffs. That was 5th (of then 16 teams) in the NL. It bottomed out in 2013 at 2.64 million (7th of 15 teams in the NL) for a 66 win team coming off a 61 win season.

So attendance did drop, but nothing like the Astros, to take another example of a full teardown and rebuild. Their attendance fell all the way from 3.04 million in 2007 to 1.61 million in 2012.

Neils-Henning Orsted Joc Pederson
9 years ago

Exceptional article, one of the best at any baseball site over the past few years. This is an insight you rarely if ever read:
“…the GM (or President of Baseball Operations, more likely these days) might get to be the one to make the final call on a transaction, but he certainly didn’t make the decision by himself, and summing up all of the organizational expertise that goes into each decision into one individual ignores the fact that much of that expertise would remain in place even if you didn’t have the top guy around.”
“Assistant GMs, directors of various departments, quants, programmers, scouts, analysts, and interns all contribute to the organizational knowledge base, and that knowledge contributes to the decision making process.”
Well done, Cameron.

Doug LampertMember since 2016
9 years ago

The problem is evaluation. There are lots of ways to evaluate players, but the guys doing the evaluations that matter ARE the front office.

Who do I ask if Billy Bean is really all that good, or if he just got lucky for a few years?

The best front offices make deals that bring in millions of dollars in surplus value, but that’s circular, we think that they’re the best front offices because their deals worked and brought in surplus value. It only works retrospectively, how much evidence do we have that this is true talent and repeatable?

We don’t know who’s responsible for the good moves, and we don’t know if it’s luck or skill that the moves were good. Meanwhile if you throw money at Martin Prado you’ve got some idea what you’re getting for your money.

“For $40 million you can have a player expected to be worth roughly $40 million on the field based on current evaluations and projections, or for $50 million you can have whatever is behind door number one, and we really have no idea what’s behind door number one, but the guy selling it claims he thinks it’s a really good deal for only $50 million.”

I’ll take Martin Prado for $40 million Alex.

jdbolickMember since 2016
9 years ago
Reply to  Doug Lampert

I would much rather have Epstein than Prado, but I agree that one of the two driving factors here is uncertainty. We have compelling tools to estimate the value of players whereas the impact of executives would be far more amorphous. I don’t even know how you would go about building a model to place a value on an executive’s decisions, as even total WAR of the players acquired and jettisoned would need all kinds of additional modifiers. As the column notes, individual decisions also are not discrete, so you can’t accurately assess what percentage influence a particular executive had on each move.

The other major factor would be precedent, as teams are inclined to pay something close to established levels. Few teams would be willing to go well above established levels and risk the opprobrium that results if it doesn’t work out.

Dave Stewart
9 years ago

“On the other hand, though, we really don’t have a great way of understanding the expected performance level of a theoretical replacement-level GM.”

Good thing.

KinanikMember since 2016
9 years ago

One thing to think about is asset specificity: the difference in value of each person in their alternative roles. Martin Prado can play the same level of baseball anywhere. Prado is also a somewhat liquid asset, because he can produce similar value elsewhere and thus be traded for other assets of comparable value.

Theo Epstein could be a good executive anywhere, but because his job requires investing in knowledge and relationships that matter in one organization, there is an asymmetry between the value he can give the Cubs and the value he can give an alternative organization.

This asymmetry means that his salary will likely be below the value he gives the Cubs (but above what he could make elsewhere). The asymmetry also means that he is, as an asset, less liquid (tradable) and the Cubs would therefore be willing to pay less. (Of course, there is a lot of value that his specific knowledge with the Cubs brings to the organization, which would bring his salary up… it gets complicated)

Thr33Rings
9 years ago

This article is dumb. All Theo did was balloon payroll and become the Yankees. There needs to be more written about how the Giants’ GM built a dynasty with a moderate payroll. Real talent right there. Cubs are going down in the post season!

rustybob
9 years ago
Reply to  Thr33Rings

The Giants and the Cubs are right around each in terms of payroll for 2016. Both are in the $170 Million range. The Giants are in the upper tier of payroll. They can afford it. They’ve got a stadium that’s basically always sold out, is one of the nicest ballparks in all of baseball, I believe was fully paid off quite a while ago, and is located in a populated area. They’ve also been GOOD for quite a while now, and have a large fan base because they’ve been good, and because they do have roots on the east coast who are still Giants fans eons after they left.

The Giants’ payroll since the start of the decade has rapidly increased. You can call them “moderate payroll” somewhat in 2010, but they’ve been upper tier ever since.

LHPSU
9 years ago
Reply to  rustybob

Payroll commitment by year:
2016: Giants $179.3M, Cubs $189M
2017: Giants $144.9M, Cubs $117.3M
2018: Giants $132.7M, Cubs $83.8M
2019: Giants $98.2M, Cubs $75.7M

Mmm facts

Ukranian to Vietnamese to French is back
9 years ago
Reply to  Thr33Rings

johnforthegiants:

This is stupid. According to payroll and became a Yankees ball. Want more text about how giant GM to build pay dynasty. It’s a real talent. They are

rustybob
9 years ago
Reply to  Thr33Rings

I also just looked on the Baseball Prospectus payroll pages, and in 2010, the Giants had a payroll right around average, in the $97 million range ($95 Million average), So they’ve nearly doubled their payroll in six seasons, with the average payroll going to the $125 Million range. Again, no longer a “moderate payroll” team.

More facts.

redsoxu571
9 years ago
Reply to  Thr33Rings

The Giants have averaged about 86.5 wins a year for the past 7 years, all while playing in a mediocre division in the lesser of the two leagues…and won three championships over that span. There’s a word for that, and “dynasty” is not it.

Errol
9 years ago

Under Theo Epstein and Jed Hoyer, the cubs acquired:
Rizzo – Trade
Bryant – Draft
Russel – Trade
Zobrist – FA
Fowler – Trade
Soler – INTFA
Heyward – FA
Schwarber – Draft
Contreras – INTFA
Lester – FA
Arrieta – Trade
Hendricks – Trade
Lackey – FA
Hammel – FA
and many many more serviceable players, plus the farm system is still doing well.
The amount of talent brought in by the front office is astonishing, and 50 million seems cheap at this point.

output gap
9 years ago
Reply to  Errol

Contreras was signed prior to Epstein’s hire. You can credit with the Epstein regime for converting him to catcher in 2012.

Brett
9 years ago
Reply to  Errol

The only guys who contributed value to the Cubs this year brought in prior to Epstein are Baez, Szczur, Contreras, and Felix Pena. Great work by the Cubs.

redsoxu571
9 years ago
Reply to  Brett

I like applying the same exercise to the 2007 Red Sox roster. Seeing Epstein do it twice now in two opportunities shows that he knows what he’s doing.

redsoxu571
9 years ago

I think the most accurate idea presented here is that “replacement level” for executives is pretty high. Elite athletic capabilities are very limited, especially when it needs to intersect with enough years of baseball skill development and a proper mindset for the sport (I think that greatly reduces the pool of suitable talent out there).

With that in mind, I would argue that MLB managers are the most OVERPAID entity in baseball. The supply is huge and the potential positive value questionable at best…so why are those guys getting paid, at times, millions of dollars a year?

BipMember since 2016
9 years ago
Reply to  redsoxu571

so why are those guys getting paid, at times, millions of dollars a year?

because its weird as hell if you are making 10 million and your manager is making 80K and taking out loans to put his kids through college.

BipMember since 2016
9 years ago
Reply to  redsoxu571

“replacement level” for executives is pretty high. Elite athletic capabilities are very limited

I think this is true, but the other thing is that a relatively small difference in athletic ability at the top of the scale has a huge impact on wins too. The baseline is so high that the difference between 97th and 99th percentile baseball ability in the overall population is like the difference between a winning and losing season.

With executives, we assume that anyone above the baseline of competence is not that far from anyone else. If an exec can:

* Organize and get along with a team
* Understand statistical research and economics concepts
* Delegate to people with the proper expertise when necessary

We assume he can probably do as good a job as anyone else. It’s hard to say what an exec could do to really distinguish himself beyond that. Freidman and Zaidi of the Dodgers have clearly shown great creativity with all the multi-team trades they have done. I am confident that most GMs couldn’t have done that. But how many wins a year will that get them? Maybe like 2? Certainly worth $10 million a year, but not clearly more. It’s hard to say what else he could do without a player outcome crystal ball.

Mike NMN
9 years ago

Epstein is worth what he was offered, because that’s what the Cubs thought it would take him to stay. And it makes some sense–because between excellent management adequate management, and bad management is a lot of success on the field, which usually translates to success at the gate and increasing franchise values. This is a business, and you need to pay top talent. Is Mike Scioscia worth $5M a year for ten years?

hcs
9 years ago

i think you could make the argument that it takes a lifetime to make even just a league average ball player, vs maybe a few years of tutelage to make a league average GM. GMing is a job thats built on analysis and research, maybe you need some people sills in communicating with other GMs but isn’t it harder to field a bunt or hit a home run?

scooter262
9 years ago

Buster Olney was talking about pay for front office people today on his podcast as well. One thing he did not mention, and that I don’t see you mentioning either, is the law of supply and demand.
Keith Law gave an example of a young PhD candidate who was offered half what he would make outside of baseball, to work for a baseball front office. The fact is, many such talented, smart people are willing to take less pay to work in the world of baseball.
Thus, there is little incentive for baseball to pay more than necessary, when there are so many talented people willing to work for less than they could receive in other industries.

JediHoyer
9 years ago
Reply to  scooter262

And yet dave stewart, Kenny williams and everyone in the Rockies front office still have jobs.

Brad Ballew
9 years ago

I really like your point about the fact that the GM is not the only one in the front office making decisions, and in fact they have an entire team of employees helping them. So it is perhaps unreasonable to try to use a similar method of evaluating productivity for both general managers and players. WAR measures the production provided by each player individually, and it would be nearly impossible to try to replicate that for front office staff members.

But let’s say that we can measure productivity of general managers using the same method that we use to evaluate player productivity. For example, say that we have two guys: a player with a WAR of 4 and a GM with a WAR of 4 as well. So they have the same value of marginal product of labor, right? Not so fast. This would assume that the two guys are in the same labor market, which they are not. The baseball players market and the front office staff labor market are different. The difference is due to the difference in the elasticity of supply in both markets (it’s probably also due to the difference in demand as well, but I’m just focusing on supply). Graphically, this would mean that the labor supply in the players market would be nearly vertical, but the labor supply in the front office market would be sloped. There are very few people in the world that have the ability and talent to play baseball at the Major League level, but there are many smart, baseball-loving people that could become effective general managers. So, because of this, and because that front office members can easily share knowledge with each other, but baseball players cannot be taught innate talent, this naturally means that front office members will not be compensated as much as the players. It’s really just a supply and demand problem.