Theo Epstein hatewagon...

[PenPho]

Once Chuck posts the data he used to determine Friedman did a better job than Epstein of drafting & developing players, this will all be settled.

Epstein developed Jon Lester and Clay Bucholz and Jacoby Ellsbury and Dustin Pedroia and signed Josh Beckett and John Lackey.

Friedman developed Carl Crawford.

Carl Crawford was not implicated in the fried chicken, beer and video game scandal that sunk New England, so Friedman wins.

Grittygutty'd.

I realize he was drafted the year before Epstein got there, but does Epstein get any credit for "developing" Kevin Youkilis?

I'm pretty sure that GMs don't ever develop players.

They just acquire them. 

Unless you're talking about Hendry and Scott Servais.

Well, they also acquire the people that do develop the players, so they play a role.

Like Rudy Jaramillo?

[BH]

Once Chuck posts the data he used to determine Friedman did a better job than Epstein of drafting & developing players, this will all be settled.

Epstein developed Jon Lester and Clay Bucholz and Jacoby Ellsbury and Dustin Pedroia and signed Josh Beckett and John Lackey.

Friedman developed Carl Crawford.

Carl Crawford was not implicated in the fried chicken, beer and video game scandal that sunk New England, so Friedman wins.

Grittygutty'd.

I realize he was drafted the year before Epstein got there, but does Epstein get any credit for "developing" Kevin Youkilis?

I'm pretty sure that GMs don't ever develop players.

They just acquire them. 

Unless you're talking about Hendry and Scott Servais.

Well, they also acquire the people that do develop the players, so they play a role.

Like Rudy Jaramillo?

Rudy's also a minor league coach/instructor? The guy can do it all.

[R-V]

Once Chuck posts the data he used to determine Friedman did a better job than Epstein of drafting & developing players, this will all be settled.

Epstein developed Jon Lester and Clay Bucholz and Jacoby Ellsbury and Dustin Pedroia and signed Josh Beckett and John Lackey.

Friedman developed Carl Crawford.

Carl Crawford was not implicated in the fried chicken, beer and video game scandal that sunk New England, so Friedman wins.

Grittygutty'd.

I realize he was drafted the year before Epstein got there, but does Epstein get any credit for "developing" Kevin Youkilis?

I'm pretty sure that GMs don't ever develop players.

They just acquire them. 

Unless you're talking about Hendry and Scott Servais.

Well, they also acquire the people that do develop the players, so they play a role.

Like Rudy Jaramillo?

Rudy's also a minor league coach/instructor? The guy can do it all.

The minor leagues is just a bunch of players playing pickup ball all summer. There aren't any coaches or routines or anything like that.

[PenPho]

Once Chuck posts the data he used to determine Friedman did a better job than Epstein of drafting & developing players, this will all be settled.

Epstein developed Jon Lester and Clay Bucholz and Jacoby Ellsbury and Dustin Pedroia and signed Josh Beckett and John Lackey.

Friedman developed Carl Crawford.

Carl Crawford was not implicated in the fried chicken, beer and video game scandal that sunk New England, so Friedman wins.

Grittygutty'd.

I realize he was drafted the year before Epstein got there, but does Epstein get any credit for "developing" Kevin Youkilis?

I'm pretty sure that GMs don't ever develop players.

They just acquire them. 

Unless you're talking about Hendry and Scott Servais.

Well, they also acquire the people that do develop the players, so they play a role.

Like Rudy Jaramillo?

Rudy's also a minor league coach/instructor? The guy can do it all.

Development stops once players get to the pros?

Maybe that's why the organization has been so shitty.

[BH]

Once Chuck posts the data he used to determine Friedman did a better job than Epstein of drafting & developing players, this will all be settled.

Epstein developed Jon Lester and Clay Bucholz and Jacoby Ellsbury and Dustin Pedroia and signed Josh Beckett and John Lackey.

Friedman developed Carl Crawford.

Carl Crawford was not implicated in the fried chicken, beer and video game scandal that sunk New England, so Friedman wins.

Grittygutty'd.

I realize he was drafted the year before Epstein got there, but does Epstein get any credit for "developing" Kevin Youkilis?

I'm pretty sure that GMs don't ever develop players.

They just acquire them. 

Unless you're talking about Hendry and Scott Servais.

Well, they also acquire the people that do develop the players, so they play a role.

Like Rudy Jaramillo?

Rudy's also a minor league coach/instructor? The guy can do it all.

Development stops once players get to the pros?

Maybe that's why the organization has been so shitty.

I'll be honest, I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

Having a GM with a philosophy that he has his guys implement throughout the minors is far more important that giving a player to a major league hitting coach and asking that hitting coach to straighten out years of bad habits.  The part in bold is how a GM "develops" a player. 

[J. Walter Weatherman]

Once Chuck posts the data he used to determine Friedman did a better job than Epstein of drafting & developing players, this will all be settled.

Epstein developed Jon Lester and Clay Bucholz and Jacoby Ellsbury and Dustin Pedroia and signed Josh Beckett and John Lackey.

Friedman developed Carl Crawford.

Carl Crawford was not implicated in the fried chicken, beer and video game scandal that sunk New England, so Friedman wins.

Grittygutty'd.

I realize he was drafted the year before Epstein got there, but does Epstein get any credit for "developing" Kevin Youkilis?

I'm pretty sure that GMs don't ever develop players.

They just acquire them. 

Unless you're talking about Hendry and Scott Servais.

Well, they also acquire the people that do develop the players, so they play a role.

Like Rudy Jaramillo?

Rudy's also a minor league coach/instructor? The guy can do it all.

Development stops once players get to the pros?

Maybe that's why the organization has been so shitty.

I'll be honest, I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

Having a GM with a philosophy that he has his guys implement throughout the minors is far more important that giving a player to a major league hitting coach and asking that hitting coach to straighten out years of bad habits.  The part in bold is how a GM "develops" a player. 

Something along the lines of this?

Back in 2002, as Lewis and Beane were collaborating, Epstein worked with Cherington, Craig Shipley, now the senior vice president of player personnel and international scouting, and their fellow whiz kids in the basement of Fenway on a project of their own. There was no established Red Sox Way, so they set out to define it: They began writing a player-development manual. "Everything from bunt plays to how we want our hitters to be selectively aggressive at the plate," Epstein says, "to what requirements we have to be a starting pitcher to how you throw your bullpens—every fundamental and every philosophical idea." They also wrote a companion manual, on scouting, because "what the scouts look for has to match up with your development philosophy."

[R-V]

Once Chuck posts the data he used to determine Friedman did a better job than Epstein of drafting & developing players, this will all be settled.

Epstein developed Jon Lester and Clay Bucholz and Jacoby Ellsbury and Dustin Pedroia and signed Josh Beckett and John Lackey.

Friedman developed Carl Crawford.

Carl Crawford was not implicated in the fried chicken, beer and video game scandal that sunk New England, so Friedman wins.

Grittygutty'd.

I realize he was drafted the year before Epstein got there, but does Epstein get any credit for "developing" Kevin Youkilis?

I'm pretty sure that GMs don't ever develop players.

They just acquire them. 

Unless you're talking about Hendry and Scott Servais.

Well, they also acquire the people that do develop the players, so they play a role.

Like Rudy Jaramillo?

Rudy's also a minor league coach/instructor? The guy can do it all.

Development stops once players get to the pros?

Maybe that's why the organization has been so shitty.

I'll be honest, I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

Having a GM with a philosophy that he has his guys implement throughout the minors is far more important that giving a player to a major league hitting coach and asking that hitting coach to straighten out years of bad habits.  The part in bold is how a GM "develops" a player.

That.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

Relatedly, from an interesting internet Q&A with Theo from back in 2003...

http://bostondirtdogs.com/2003/theo_chat_2.6.03.html

It starts with the draft. We are committed to finding the best available talent every year (sorry, I know that means nothing, but I have to say it... it's in the GM manual). In general, we look for low-risk, high-reward players. We make no secret about our belief that college players represent lower risks than high school players while offering comparable rewards. That said, we will not shy away from taking the right high school players, especially position players, in the appropriate round. In general, we want college players with tools, but we also want to find the college players who have good make-ups and those who have track records of consistent quality performance.

In an ideal world, we would love middle-of-the-diamond athletes who have plate discipline and power as well as power pitchers with pitchability, command and clean arm action. Usually, these players are only available at the top of the draft. As the draft develops, we make judgment calls, balancing tools, track records, projectability, makeup and signability. I shouldn't go into further detail, except to say that we have a game plan and we know what we're looking for. All of our scouts came to Boston for our organizational meetings in December and we developed a game-plan, a philosophy on how we were going to scout and how we were going to attack the draft. Now it's just a matter of doing it. We were disciplined this off-season and are thrilled to have four picks in the first 54. If we draft well, two or three of our top college picks could be at AA as soon as 2004, making a real impact on our system.

Their second pick in 2003 (32nd overall, a supplemental first rounder): Matthew Murton of Georgia Tech.

They went on to take Papelbon with their sixth pick (114th overall).

Meanwhile... RYAN HARVEY! JAY KVOX! CASEY MCGEHEE! So many wrongs to right.

With our emphasis on college players in the draft, we will rely on our international program to supply the best 17-year-old talent available... and lots of it. There is so much talent concentrated in the Dominican Republic and Venezuela that it is possible to get both quantity and quality at a reasonable price. (Scouting 17-year-olds is fairly imprecise, so volume is important). If you sign enough promising players, you'll find a Hanley Ramirez for $22,000 or a Denny Tussen for $16,000 or a Juan Cedeno for $30,000. We also will pursue the higher profile players when appropriate (Aneudis Mateo for $400,000), but our emphasis will be on signing lots of promising players to turn over to development. We will also pursue the right talent in other markets, including Asia, although our focus is in Latin America.

I should make another quick point. When we talk about risk-aversion and prudent spending and $22,000 investments instead of $2,200,000 investments, the point isn't to be cheap or pocket the money. The point is to produce players and get value for our dollars where we can, so that when it's time to let it fly for the big investment at the top of the draft or the high-profile international stud, we have the money available. We spend a lot of money on the draft and a lot of money internationally, but it only works if you make wise investments. If you draft high-risk players year-in and year-out or throw all your international money into one multi-million dollar signing, the results usually are not good. For us, the preferred approach is to focus on the best talent and the best investments to get the most out of our considerable resources, allowing us to go "all in" when the right opportunity presents itself. This is our approach to talent acquisition and we are committed to it.

I'm running low on time, so I'll be more general with respect to player development. All I will say is that we finally have an organizational philosophy -- a Red Sox way of doing things -- and, after a major overhaul of the field staff, we finally have the right people in place for implementation. I'll protect the company secrets, but I think it's well known that we care a lot about the strike zone, both for hitters and pitchers. One of the keys to unlocking a player's potential is helping him to control the strike zone. We will work long and hard to get the best out our minor league players and turn out as many prospects as possible. We will be not be afraid to try new methods, nor will we abandon proven methods. If there's someone out there who will help us develop a player, we will hire him. If there's something out there that will help us develop a player, we will buy it. Period. It's that important.

[Eli]

With our emphasis on college players in the draft, we will rely on our international program to supply the best 17-year-old talent available... and lots of it. There is so much talent concentrated in the Dominican Republic and Venezuela that it is possible to get both quantity and quality at a reasonable price. (Scouting 17-year-olds is fairly imprecise, so volume is important). If you sign enough promising players, you'll find a Hanley Ramirez for $22,000 or a Denny Tussen for $16,000 or a Juan Cedeno for $30,000. We also will pursue the higher profile players when appropriate (Aneudis Mateo for $400,000), but our emphasis will be on signing lots of promising players to turn over to development. We will also pursue the right talent in other markets, including Asia, although our focus is in Latin America.

I should make another quick point. When we talk about risk-aversion and prudent spending and $22,000 investments instead of $2,200,000 investments, the point isn't to be cheap or pocket the money. The point is to produce players and get value for our dollars where we can, so that when it's time to let it fly for the big investment at the top of the draft or the high-profile international stud, we have the money available. We spend a lot of money on the draft and a lot of money internationally, but it only works if you make wise investments. If you draft high-risk players year-in and year-out or throw all your international money into one multi-million dollar signing, the results usually are not good. For us, the preferred approach is to focus on the best talent and the best investments to get the most out of our considerable resources, allowing us to go "all in" when the right opportunity presents itself. This is our approach to talent acquisition and we are committed to it.

I'm running low on time, so I'll be more general with respect to player development. All I will say is that we finally have an organizational philosophy -- a Red Sox way of doing things -- and, after a major overhaul of the field staff, we finally have the right people in place for implementation. I'll protect the company secrets, but I think it's well known that we care a lot about the strike zone, both for hitters and pitchers. One of the keys to unlocking a player's potential is helping him to control the strike zone. We will work long and hard to get the best out our minor league players and turn out as many prospects as possible. We will be not be afraid to try new methods, nor will we abandon proven methods. If there's someone out there who will help us develop a player, we will hire him. If there's something out there that will help us develop a player, we will buy it. Period. It's that important.

This is going to be fun.

[flannj]

With our emphasis on college players in the draft, we will rely on our international program to supply the best 17-year-old talent available... and lots of it. There is so much talent concentrated in the Dominican Republic and Venezuela that it is possible to get both quantity and quality at a reasonable price. (Scouting 17-year-olds is fairly imprecise, so volume is important). If you sign enough promising players, you'll find a Hanley Ramirez for $22,000 or a Denny Tussen for $16,000 or a Juan Cedeno for $30,000. We also will pursue the higher profile players when appropriate (Aneudis Mateo for $400,000), but our emphasis will be on signing lots of promising players to turn over to development. We will also pursue the right talent in other markets, including Asia, although our focus is in Latin America.

I should make another quick point. When we talk about risk-aversion and prudent spending and $22,000 investments instead of $2,200,000 investments, the point isn't to be cheap or pocket the money. The point is to produce players and get value for our dollars where we can, so that when it's time to let it fly for the big investment at the top of the draft or the high-profile international stud, we have the money available. We spend a lot of money on the draft and a lot of money internationally, but it only works if you make wise investments. If you draft high-risk players year-in and year-out or throw all your international money into one multi-million dollar signing, the results usually are not good. For us, the preferred approach is to focus on the best talent and the best investments to get the most out of our considerable resources, allowing us to go "all in" when the right opportunity presents itself. This is our approach to talent acquisition and we are committed to it.

I'm running low on time, so I'll be more general with respect to player development. All I will say is that we finally have an organizational philosophy -- a Red Sox way of doing things -- and, after a major overhaul of the field staff, we finally have the right people in place for implementation. I'll protect the company secrets, but I think it's well known that we care a lot about the strike zone, both for hitters and pitchers. One of the keys to unlocking a player's potential is helping him to control the strike zone. We will work long and hard to get the best out our minor league players and turn out as many prospects as possible. We will be not be afraid to try new methods, nor will we abandon proven methods. If there's someone out there who will help us develop a player, we will hire him. If there's something out there that will help us develop a player, we will buy it. Period. It's that important.

This is going to be fun.

I want the contract for cleaning up the bits of exploded brain on office walls throughout all the levels of the Cubs organization.

[BH]

Relatedly, from an interesting internet Q&A with Oneri from back in 2007...

http://mlb-rumors.blogspot.com/2007/09/interview-with-oneri-fleita.html

ELI: What are the main things you look for when scouting a player?

ONERI: For pitchers, they have got to have a loose arm. More importantly though, they need to be able to throw a fastball for strikes. Personally, I like guys that throw a good curveball because I believe you can't learn how to throw a curveball, you are born to throw a curveball.

ELI: In your opinion, what is the most important trait a ballplayer needs to be successful?

ONERI: They need to be athletic, have a good makeup. They also need to be tough, and coach able. You may have the ability to make it to the pros, but to stay, you need to tough, coach able, and athletic.

ELI: Who would you say is the best pitching prospect and best hitting prospect AAA and below?

ONERI: Oh, that is a good question-Hmm. That is tough. I'd have to say for pitching it is Jeff Samardzija. He pitches in the upper ninties with good sink action. Has a great curveball and is very durable and athletic. For best hitter, it has to be Tyler Colvin. He has proved that he can hit at all the levels, especially when it counts. He now has even more playoff experience and is very athletic for an outfielder.

[Quality Start Machine]

Once Chuck posts the data he used to determine Friedman did a better job than Epstein of drafting & developing players, this will all be settled.

Epstein developed Jon Lester and Clay Bucholz and Jacoby Ellsbury and Dustin Pedroia and signed Josh Beckett and John Lackey.

Friedman developed Carl Crawford.

Carl Crawford was not implicated in the fried chicken, beer and video game scandal that sunk New England, so Friedman wins.

Grittygutty'd.

I realize he was drafted the year before Epstein got there, but does Epstein get any credit for "developing" Kevin Youkilis?

I'm pretty sure that GMs don't ever develop players.

They just acquire them. 

Unless you're talking about Hendry and Scott Servais.

Well, they also acquire the people that do develop the players, so they play a role.

The GM also executes the organization's overall philosophy. Where a team like the Yankees place less emphasis on player development, figuring whatever they need can be adressed through free agency (or pending free agency for deadline deals), a team like the Cubs would probably be better served through more of a development of players though (one can only hope) a farm system where all coaches and managers are playing off the same sheet of music.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

Once Chuck posts the data he used to determine Friedman did a better job than Epstein of drafting & developing players, this will all be settled.

Epstein developed Jon Lester and Clay Bucholz and Jacoby Ellsbury and Dustin Pedroia and signed Josh Beckett and John Lackey.

Friedman developed Carl Crawford.

Carl Crawford was not implicated in the fried chicken, beer and video game scandal that sunk New England, so Friedman wins.

Grittygutty'd.

I realize he was drafted the year before Epstein got there, but does Epstein get any credit for "developing" Kevin Youkilis?

I'm pretty sure that GMs don't ever develop players.

They just acquire them. 

Unless you're talking about Hendry and Scott Servais.

Well, they also acquire the people that do develop the players, so they play a role.

The GM also executes the organization's overall philosophy. Where a team like the Yankees place less emphasis on player development, figuring whatever they need can be adressed through free agency (or pending free agency for deadline deals), a team like the Cubs would probably be better served through more of a development of players though (one can only hope) a farm system where all coaches and managers are playing off the same sheet of music.

Thanks, Fork. Someone really should have pointed this out sooner.

[BH]

Once Chuck posts the data he used to determine Friedman did a better job than Epstein of drafting & developing players, this will all be settled.

Epstein developed Jon Lester and Clay Bucholz and Jacoby Ellsbury and Dustin Pedroia and signed Josh Beckett and John Lackey.

Friedman developed Carl Crawford.

Carl Crawford was not implicated in the fried chicken, beer and video game scandal that sunk New England, so Friedman wins.

Grittygutty'd.

I realize he was drafted the year before Epstein got there, but does Epstein get any credit for "developing" Kevin Youkilis?

I'm pretty sure that GMs don't ever develop players.

They just acquire them. 

Unless you're talking about Hendry and Scott Servais.

Well, they also acquire the people that do develop the players, so they play a role.

The GM also executes the organization's overall philosophy. Where a team like the Yankees place less emphasis on player development, figuring whatever they need can be adressed through free agency (or pending free agency for deadline deals), a team like the Cubs would probably be better served through more of a development of players though (one can only hope) a farm system where all coaches and managers are playing off the same sheet of music.

That's not accurate, the Yankees focus on both player development and getting the best FAs.

[World's #1 Astros Fan]

Once Chuck posts the data he used to determine Friedman did a better job than Epstein of drafting & developing players, this will all be settled.

Epstein developed Jon Lester and Clay Bucholz and Jacoby Ellsbury and Dustin Pedroia and signed Josh Beckett and John Lackey.

Friedman developed Carl Crawford.

Carl Crawford was not implicated in the fried chicken, beer and video game scandal that sunk New England, so Friedman wins.

Grittygutty'd.

I realize he was drafted the year before Epstein got there, but does Epstein get any credit for "developing" Kevin Youkilis?

I'm pretty sure that GMs don't ever develop players.

They just acquire them.  

Unless you're talking about Hendry and Scott Servais.

Well, they also acquire the people that do develop the players, so they play a role.

The GM also executes the organization's overall philosophy. Where a team like the Yankees place less emphasis on player development, figuring whatever they need can be adressed through free agency (or pending free agency for deadline deals), a team like the Cubs would probably be better served through more of a development of players though (one can only hope) a farm system where all coaches and managers are playing off the same sheet of music.

That's not accurate, the Yankees focus on both player development and getting the best FAs.

They prolly don't win 4 titles between 1996 and 2000 without the homegrown nucelus of Derek Jeter, Bernie Williams, Mariano Rivera, Andy Pettite, and Jorge Posada.  Sure, having a cagey  veteran like Paul O'Neill and adding guys like Fat Cecil et.al down the stretch may have been equally important, but you can say that about any team.  The point remains that this was a legitmaite home-grown base from which they launched all those pennants.  They've been more of a fantasy team since 2000 (adding guys like Matsui, Giambi, Sabathia etc.) and have zero titles.