Look at Ray Ray Run

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.

What? Youd trade 6 years of Madrigal for 3 years of Benetendi? No way.

Non-closers do not get rewarded in arbitration the same way. Bummer has a lot of surplus value given his role. His arb years will likely pay him about 50% of what he's worth.

The team turned from non-competitce the years prior to being a team competing every year. The results the year immediately following isnt the only one that matter - the duration of those contracts. The dodgers ate a lot of money but they also acquired three pieces that were a part of the beginning of their competitive run.

Sox would be getting destroyed. Bummer is probably worth about 30 million himself (expected arbitration salaries for non-closers vs FA value for a Sub 3 reliever on FA market. Steiver, probably around 10 million. Sox would be paying an additional 40 million in addition to Price contract. I think Price has a negative surplus of about 35 million. Benetendi is worth, let's say, 45 million over the next three years. He'll get paid somewhere around 22-25 million in arbitration. His surplus is around 20 million which is less than Prices negative value. Therefore I think the Sox would be losing that deal by about 50 million.

They're problem is they really dont have any non-MLB assets; Dombrowski was their fearless leader so its always safe to say that dealing Dave traded every young asset they had.

Yes, and it ended up turning the entire Dodgers organization around. Crawford was fine for them and A gone had a couple really nice years.

Obviously Price would just be one of two acquisitions. Youd kill two birds with one stone, youd be acquiring a young cost controlled asset for 4 years. In reality youd be spending about 17/per on price and 17/per for benetendi. Those are fair rates and the team fills two holes without giving up anything of value. I would still assume the Sox would sign another starter in the middle tier; therefore they'd enter the year with 6 starters. That would allow you to not only control kopech and ceased innings, but also Price.

I think they'd rather move Price. Rates are not hypothetical. They are based on outcomes. Yes, they can absolutely spend 70 million in one offseason. that would only out their payroll around 130 million.

WAR is a rate base statistic. Stating someone is a 2 WAR player is discussing their talent level being of 2 WAR caliber. Prices talent level was that of a 4.5 WAR player, not a 2 WAR player. Someone would replace Price when he was hurt - if that happens. Yes, injuries would be a concern but you're trading for his talent level. His talent level is that of an above average MLB starter. If he gets hurt hes not being replaced by nobody. I understand why sox fans could fear his replacement being a Dylan covey level bad but if the sox go into next season with 6 starters they'd be replacing Price with a reynaldo lopez/michael kopech - not a Dylan Covey. This means prices WAR rate is more important than his total WAR through 106 innings.

It will be more fun for all of us to watch you make an excuse and complain about all of Nick Madrigals successes at the MLB level. Remember when he went 4-5 or 5-5 in Triple A and you said they would have all been outs in the big leagues? That was funny. The Sox should have no interest in moving Madrigal. He is what this team desperately needs - an elite defensive player who never strikes out, works counts and is as smart of a baseball player as you'll find. He is one of the key pieces this team was missing this year.

Price was no where near a 2 WAR pitcher this year. He accumulated 2.3 WAR in just 100 IP. Price has never had a FIP above 4.02. The demise of David Price has been greatly exaggerated because of his market and contract. Price and Benetendi for 32 million is more valuable than Cole for 32 million imo. I don't think it straps the Sox at all.