Look at Ray Ray Run

This is my hope as well. They were clearly upset about it, but the question is... upset enough to change your ways? Or upset that they couldn't convince others to conform to their ways.

All he said is we're going to be active. Theres nothing wrong with that.

Lol people just love to hate Kenny. I am one of them, but I see nothing wrong with this quote.

Even his advantages in the draft were tied to outspending and overspending other teams. I've always thought Friedman and Beane were better than Theo because they could do it on a budget. That said, even with the advantages of overspending in the draft Theo was a great drafter of offensive talent. Him and his teams have excelled in identifying that talent.

1. I am in no way implying he has no power. All positions require some deferal of power unless you're the owner. 2. Having confidence in yourself does not equal ignoring industry turnover trends. 3. I am not arguing he does not deserve blame for failures - he absolutely does. I'm stating that his successes do not dictate his job security which is a hell of a job to have.

I'm not sure what this means, but most people in life would take job security (especially in their "dream job") over more perceived power. If the titles are the same, the pay is the same, but one job will hold onto you for decades while the other will throw you out at first sign of struggle... I think it's obvious which job I'd take.

He's paid well, and has great job security. I have no idea why people think it's a bad job or that he should move on. He doesnt have to succeed to maintain his job title - that's a dream job in that industry with inflated turnover rates. Edit: I wish jerry was my boss ha

Yes, but most interested teams are interested up to a value I dont think wheeler signs for. Once the number begins to approach 100 million, the interested teams dwindle.

I dont think he is emphasizing he is right, ftr. I am saying when he claims the organization is shaking stigmas, it's due to those changes being deemed neccessary by him.

An executive still has a direct report. The reason I think my example makes sense is because Rick spends a lot of time patting himself on the back for any "change" the organization makes - this leads me to believe that these are battles he is fighting behind closed doors. His emphasis on the organization being different leads me to believe these have been his biggest battles. That said, the easiest way to show your boss that you know what you're doing and to get him to change is to succeed somewhere - rick has not exactly shown that ability in FA, that's for sure. You usually dont ask for more when you arent maximizing what you already get.

I look at it like any other job. I have a boss. My boss has been with the company a long time. He has a structure that has worked, and a belief system that has got him here. I have my own opinions. I can validate my thoughts and changes with stastical evidence supporting my claim. At the end of the day, something's wont change regardless of my efforts. All I can continue to do is quantify decisions, evaluate their monetary impact, and relay those conclusions and opinions to my superior. If my superior doesn't want to change a process, or change the way we execute a certain aspect of our business then so be it - I get back to the drawing board analyzing another area of opportunity in hope of getting him to sign off. As an employee I can become frustrated believing my thoughts arent valued enough and leave, or I can be happy that my boss treats me respectfully, pays me competitively, and only holds me accountable for the things I can impact and change.

Again, my post history is readily available. Review it and show my "support of Hahn." Again I'm not debating anything; you are. I am stating that you can't remove successes when analyzing outcomes. I also stated you dont even have too - he grades out poorly without doing such. By slanting your statistics to better suit your opinion, all you do is take away from the valid point you are making - you discredit yourself as bias. I can analyze hahns job sans bias - it hasn't been good - but by maintaining data integrity I have been accused of defending him. Being a GM is no different than running an investment portfolio. One or two diamonds in the rough can drive the success of your portfolio - no one when analyzing you says, yes but if you remove these two calls you're awful. Why? Because samples need to include all data points, not just the good or bad ones.

When the majority of your signings are small, you're going to have a lot of variance regarding who produces what. For example, in 2016 he signed 5 guys for 16.5 million - a little over 3 million per player. They generated negative WAR but is that far from what was expected? Not really. 3 million dollar players perform negatively as frequently as positively. The sox have invested in the dumpster aisle in FA so expecting consistent results just doesnt seem logical. Have they wasted money by being risk averse? Obviously that appears to be the case, but you cant remove successes to evaluate an overall outcome. I also want to ask why James McCann gets only 1 WAR in soxmachien piece when he was 2.3 WAR against FG and 3.8 WAR a bref.

I'm not sure what led you to believe that I am defending Rick Hahn. I'm merely saying stastical integrity matters.

How is that disingenuous? It would be disingenuous if I said, Rick got 24.5 WAR out of 62 million - what a genius. Fact is, some of his FA dollars outperformed by a lot and some were awful. That's the nature of free agency. He got about 1 WAR for every 10.8 million spent which isn't great by any means, but tells the story of his free agent signings in general.

Distorting numbers to fit your narrative don't make it a good point. Hahn has paid 250 million go get 23.5 WAR - 10.6 million per WAR. While that is certainly less than the industry average (which is up to 9.8 million now) it's also not nearly as damning as the absurd 180 million for -1 WAR value you cite. If you remove all successes and only analyze a team based on their failures, they're all going to look bad. Hahn has failed enough that you dont have to play a disingenuous stats game.

None of this is news. Everyone knew the sox discussed things. Then they offered him the QO.

I don't, all this talk about guys actually has me thinking they're dabbling in the big boy market in silence this year. I actually take this as a good thing. Bruce is also a dope so almost everything he says turns out wrong which is exciting as well.

Hes not out at all. Not sure why people think otherwise.

Now we're getting closer. We are at a point, finally!, in which present value is as valuable to the Sox as future value. You throw in the 20 million, dropping Price down to a more reasonable 25 million a year and now I see some equality.

Bummers best pitch is one that has aged really well for relievers - a high velocity high movement sinker. Jace Frys best pitch is one he doesnt control all that well - his slider. If Jace could throw that pitch with more consistency I think he'd be fine. I do agree that volatility in relievers needs to be accounted for and one year of success does not make bummer a guarantee. His K numbers also need to increase a bit because his FIP puts him more in the middle than at the top.

I valued bummer at the same rate other high leverage relievers are being paid. I think you're right that I valued him too highly because he hasnt duplicated his performance yet so the volatility is still there. I think you're right that I'm valuing him at his peak market value opposed to the potential demise or regression of his talents. Even if we cut the figure in half to 15 million, and reduce steiver to about 5, the sox are still negative 30 million in surplus at that trade.

Surplus value is determined by what teams project to pay, not what they pay because some dumb teams give Pujols a 30 year offer at 31 years old. I'm not discounting anything. That's what benetendi is worth. If the markets pays castellanos 16 million I have no idea how you can argue that Benetendi is worth 23 million a season. Relievers are not paid on a WAR basis so I'm not sure what I'm doing with bummer. I'm not sure how many times it can be said that 1 WAR is not worth 9 million.

How did I discount him? Again, teams are not paying 9 million per WAR. I have no idea why people continue to cite a number that isnt based on what teams are paying for WAR but what teams are getting out of their dollars. Those are two dramatically different things. Do you notice that Castellanos isnt projected to earn 25 million a year? Do you notice how his contracts forecasts are coming in at the 15-17 million a year a year? Thats because 2-3 WAR players are worth about 6 million per WAR in free agency. Now pair that with the fact that defensive value is not paid as equally as offensive value and benetendi is worth even less. I'm not making the number up; I'm basing my forecasts based on what teams pays for projections not outcomes. I'm using 10+ years of data to determine a 6-7 million dollar number. 1 is worth about 5 million, 2 WAR is worth 12 million, 3 WAR is worth 18-20 million. It does not scale equally as you scale upward.

Based on what? You cant use the FA/WAR/$ figure. That number, once again, is not how teams value their signings. Benetendi has played 3 full years in the big leagues - two years were at a 2 WAR rate. One year was at a 4 WAR rate. He's averaging 2.8 WAR a year over three years. That's about $15-$17 million a year. That's how I get to the 45-50 million number over the next three years.