Look at Ray Ray Run

Did you use WAR to evaluate David Ortiz as well?

I'll go ahead an take an elite hitter on the team.

People may not think they matter but name the last batting champion in the AL who was not a good baseball player. Bill Mueller the worst winner in the past 25 years. If you remove him, every player since about 1980 was a star with 1/2 of them being HOF'ers. Everyone else is a star. Getting hits still matters and matters even more for a guy like Tim Anderson.

Yes, which also means the first two WAR should almost be removed from the calculation as people will pay about 8-10 million for a 2 WAR talent. You can builed a scaled distribution with weights attached to each WAR that better tells what every dollar is worth. Also, when evaluating the value of 1 WAR you should use what teams paid based on a projected value and not what teams ended up paying based on the actual outcomes of the contract. Pujols stinks, but when assessing what teams pay for 1 WAR, you cannot use what he has become because the Angels did not intend to pay him all that money to be complete trash.

That means only 30% of his contract falls within his prime years of projection. That means 7 years of the contract fall outside of that.

In the modern game, yes it is. Primes are no longer 28-33 as they spiked too in the steroid er. Primes are 24/25-29/30 post steroid boom. You see significant and rapid aging impacts post 30 in baseball for many players. This is why free agency is dangerous and it's why players need to hit the market sooner to maximize their value.

Gains from free agency - in revenue and attendance - are short lived in baseball and rarely will pay for the enitirity of the contract. You really only see gains in year one and then you're back to having to win to draw. No one is paying extra to go watch Machado or bryce if their teams arent competitive. If those contracts hamper your abilities to be competitive, then in the long run they'll cost you just as much revenue as they earn you in year 1.

Those 5 years encompassed much of his prime years while the back end of this contract will encompass the post-prime aspect of his career. I think 30 is a decent precedent - assuming he puts in a couple 5+ WAR seasons. 3, 5, 4.4, 4, 3.5, 3, 2.6, 2.3, 2, 1.8 That is a back of a napkin calculation for his aging and giving him the benefit of first year pressures and no first year relaxation. For 300 million I'd want some 6+ WAR years to compensate for that age regression. Manny is no guarantee to get there. 28.6 come the duration above. I think I'd probably take the under based on that but 30 is a realistic goal for Manny and if he ages like Beltre (defense maintains its value and power plays up) he blows by the projection. I think the Padres found the most likely outcome to be 25-30 WAR while 30+ was much more likely than less than 25 which weighed heavily on their evaluation. Say 1 SD for them fell between 25-35, now you see what SD was thinking. For the Sox, maybe they valued him on the lower side being 22-30 being 1SD for their evaluation.

Once again, that is not what teams pay for 1 WAR it's what 1 WAR was worth in FA. There is a very big difference. Teams aren't paying guys to suck but guys who suck drag down the $/WAR number. Teams likely pay a good amount less, based on their internal projections, than that figure. WAR/$ also does not scale the same way - 1 WAR is worth about 4 million, while 4 WAR may be worth 30 million to a team. Depending on your value and rarity compared to your peers, you will make more. A 4 WAR catcher may make more than a 4 WAR LF.

Your arbitrary cut offs, absolutes and exaggerations are always interesting.

Dombrowski is awful.

You're mistaken.

So the only scouting that counts is scouting of unknown people? Good take.

I'll bet you that the bears hold at least one opponent (I'd argue 2+) under 10 points. The Bears defense is better than last year. It's a historically good unit. Injuries can destroy a team in the NFL - just adding that disclaimer as they need to stay healthy to be that good.

I'll bet you the packers dont give up less than 7 points to a single opponent the rest of the year.

Eat crow? Lol He was trash vs good defenses and was the worst player on the field in the first half vs the eagles. If you think trubisky was anything above serviceable last year you are nuts.

So everyone that said same old mitch yesterday was, in fact, correct and didn't deserve the bizarre blowback from trubisky apologists? The best predictor of the future is past success in sports. Mitch was this way last year and continued to be the same way yesterday. So... until mitch shows something, anything, that says he's improved in any of those areas it should be not only safe to assume, but logical to assume that he is the same guy he was. It doesn't mean its physically impossible for him to change... it means it's less likely he will than not based on the fact that he hasnt. The packers themselves told you mitch isnt a good qb and their game plan was to make him play qb.

So, he wasn't the same old mitch yesterday? Is that what you're saying?

What???!?!?!! Drafting a guy 2nd overall doesnt mean he should be ready in less than 3 years? What world do you live in? Mahomes set NFL records in his second year and Watson has been a star. In what world do you expect the 2nd overall pick to take 3+ years just to become average? My goodness. What has mitch shown progress in? Let's review his weaknesses: 1. Happy feet 2. Stares down his primary target 3. Too quick to run 4. Poor awareness 5. Cant get through progressions What has he improved in any of those since his first year?

It doesn't matter when you draft a guy fucking THIRD overall. You cant say oh he was a 3+ year project as a QB drafted 3rd overall. That excuse is hilarious and nonsensical. He wasn't some 5th round pick with tools. The expectations for him when drafted, and frankly now, was/is to be ready to win. The multiple system excuse was my favorite Cutler excuse and now I guess we use it on mitch too!

Yes, only certain teams want to pay significantky less than an elite player is worth. You go ahead and continue to state that they deserve no credit for their successful scouting/signings.

Cool, Castillo got 25 million more if you include the tax. This portrayal of robert as if he was ohtani (who would have netted about 150 million if he waited) is pretty comical. So everyone knew robert was elite and going to be amazing but no MLB team wanted to pay him 50+ plus arbitration for 7 years of service? Yeah, ok bud.

Beat me to the castillo thing. The sox outbid all of baseball for his services and they deserve no credit if he becomes great ha.

So the entire baseball world new he was an elite talent but only one team would give him 50 million while other international signings have netted 3 times as much? Weird take. Amazing that everyone knew he was an ELITE talent and he got 1/3 the money that Rusney Castillo got when he signed our of Cuba with the Red Sox.

Your last paragraph is hilarious. Gannon and Warner were statues with GREAT accuracy that fit their offenses perfectly. Mitch is a run first qb who doesnt understand defenses or reads, who has poor accuracy. People citing the p/r rate have no idea how many RPO's nagy called and how many Mitch misread and turned into a pass when it should have been a run. And the inexperience excuse for the 3rd overall pick in the NFL in his third season is just laughable. He wasn't a three year+ project when they traded a ton to move up one spot to get him. That excuse worked for one season. The third overall pick as a QB doesnt need three years to develop and gain experience.