ORS

But, it's not arbitrary. They puposely assigned replacement level to reflect the type of player that is freely available in either AAA or on the waiver wire after the season has started for a reason. Commonly, that's all you are left with in terms of no cost options when a player goes down to injury. If you want better, you can get better than replacement level through trade, but that comes with a cost of either talent or salary absorbtion. It also allows you bottom out the scale of $/WAR. If you made the baseline average instead of replacement, you'd have to adjust the scale to start at average. For instance, a 6.0 WAR player becomes a 3.2 WAA player (hypothetical). His WAA salary would need a standard adjustment of the average players salary, and then his value would be.... Avg Salary + WAA Value ..... which would be about the same as his WAR Value. The current system allows a 0 WAR player to provide 0 WAR Salary value without an adjustment. It's just easier that way.

Right, but nobody is arguing that he did well with his big signings. As for me, I'm only pointing out the faulty methodology used by someone who tried to evaluate his FA signing performance as a whole, both big ticket and the small ticket finds. And I only critiqued the method. I had no idea what the result of the better method was, and in no way was I suggesting pumpsie was totally wrong, only that he arrived at a conclusion (assigment of final grade based on a bad $ FA ratio) using a flimsy analysis. If you are taking my posts as a defense of what Epstein did when he awarded big contracts, then you've missed the point of my posts.

This reasoning is a house of cards, built on a straw foundation....in a wind storm. This ratio of actual dollars for finds/busts is going to be bad for every GM due to the nature of the comparison. The "finds" are, by nature, players who had little track record to command a high salary and subsequently performed at a high level. The "busts" are, by nature, the polar opposite. Example1 kind of got the correction right when he showed you the WAR salary value added through the draft. That needs to be extended into his FA signings to accurately gauge his performance in the FA market. Yes, his finds only "cost" x, but what were they worth in terms of $/production value? Sames goes for his busts. The base dollars will always lead you to a faulty evaluation.

Hansen was the consensus "Most Ready to Contribute Immediately" player coming out of that draft, and the best pure reliever. It's easy to tear draft pick choices apart in hindsight. Not even 1/2 of the top 10 picks every year go on to become good everyday players. Based on the information at the time, Hansen looked like a good pick.

Yeah, but earlier you said Price. David Price was the consensus #1 pick in the draft by all evaluators in the year he came out, and Tampa picked him with the #1 pick in the draft. EDIT: And I don't think MLB GM's are doing that much actual talent evaluation, especially not of the college and HS players, there's no time for them to get into that. They have deep scouting teams for that. I do agree that Tampa seems to have better scouts than the Sox do, which is ultimately the GM's responsibilty, as he uses a scout's information to make personnel decisions.

You just railed a moment ago about the fact vs. opinion situation in this discussion. Are you sure this is the correct description of Showalter's statement?

Yeah, that's pretty bad.

Call me crazy, but I think it's a bit premature to put Jose Iglesias on any kind of list right now, positive or negative. It's great that he can field the SS position at the highest of levels already, but he hasn't proven he can hit well enough to contribute at the MLB level....yet.

As with most of the polarized arguments here, I think the "why" falls somewhere in the middle of these two extremes. As a700 states, they didn't move the world to keep him, so to some degree, they didn't want him. That's not the same as absolutely wanting to be rid of him, though. I don't think he'd be on his way out if there wasn't a better offer to leave to, which is to say, take away the opportunity with the Cubs, and I think he's still the GM. The FO didn't want him enough to increase his role with the team, in other words, they didn't evaluate his performance as good enough to continue the progression of his career with them. That does show some indication that they weren't totally pleased with his work. Ultimately, the Cubs offer provided a convenient means of separation. The FO could move on to the next thing....which really isn't bad timing for them, because if you are going to institute big changes, ie "clean house", it's best to get as many rooms as you can in one sweep....without the boat rocking caused by a firing.

He signed the perpetual option contract prior to the '06 season. Prior to that, he was coming off of a 3 yr/$13.5 M deal for '03 - '05. During those 3 years he made 66 starts, pitching 616 innings with a 4.20-ish ERA. Keep in mind this is during an era where the AL average team ERA was in the 4.60-ish range. Matt Morris got a 3 yr / $9M per year deal after putting up similar numbers when you adjust for the fact that he pitched in the NL, Paul Byrd got 2 yr / $7.5M per year going from LA to Cleveland, Esteban Loaiza got 3 yr / $7M per going to Oakland. Maybe $10M+ is pushing it, but he was better than all these guys, and he could have easily doubled his annual salary, and easily received an offer of at least 3 years. He left a lot of money on the table. I won't get into speculation about his motives, but regardless, that a selfless act, IMO (regardless of whatever comments he made regarding his legacy this year).

But, if they had that much control over the media, why are the complicit in letting it come out at all, even after the departure, when the public perception will be that they are engaged in a smear campaign? How do they benefit from that? They don't, which leads me to believe they don't have the control you suggest.

No, the sky is falling. Take cover. Of course, you are absolutely right. However, it will be interesting. It's not just a matter of making the right player acquisitions this offseason. They also need to address the clubhouse culture, which should be priority #1 IMO. Just having the current talent under contract onboard and committed makes them a contender. Addressing the closer, some other BP arms, the back end of the rotation, and the 3B/C/DH combination can come later in the offseason.

This is only true if one buys into your hypothetical scneario that this was known by the media for quite some time. Personally, I think you are grasping at straws looking for a silver lining. I don't buy it. I think this stuff came out after the collapse. As for the smear job, it takes two to tango. What I mean is, it takes a source, and recent history is chock full of examples of negative behavior coming to light as a member of the team or staff is on the way out. It's seems pretty clear that someone in this front office believes post-action posturing is of high importance. It also takes a willing press. The Boston media has a long history of tearing down former heros on the way out. It's in the blood of the Boston media. It's part of the regional culture.

You must remember a fundamental fact of human nature, my friend. Whenever the media reports contradict someone's opinion, it's always because the media is either lying or has been duped by their sources. The media is only right when it can be used for confirmation. Carry on.

Expectations: The entire 2012 season for the Sox players will be the most intense fishbowl, where every comment, gesture, and facial expression leads to obscene speculation about the clubhouse chemistry/atmosphere, ever seen in the history of professional sports.

Yes, you did, it's right there in the quotes for all to see. Something you have refrained from sharing in your phony accusation against me. Nice try to take the attention off yourself. I know you are but what am I?

It's funny because he soapboxes about something, and in the same post engages in the behavior he soapboxed against. It's ok, though. I'm sure this is my fault somehow.

This is hysterical.

FTR, the problems for this team is starting pitching, and he did go get a starter.

They don't play in NY tonight.

It's not interesting, it's been explained in writing ad nauseum that the nature of fielding (number and quality of opportunities, etc) requires data from at least 3 years to be particularly meaningful in terms of determining overall fielding talent. There's no smoke to cry "fire" about. However, I think the real gist of your point is to attempt to shoehorn a Granderson for MVP line of discussion in here. While those stats require more than one year to be an accurate gauge of talent, they do work just fine in determining actual contribution for one year. So, that dog won't hunt here if that is your intent.

Probably so, but only after you investigated if he had any involvement in the accident.

No, you are right, however Wheeler turns out for the Mets will not improve the 2011 Red Sox in RF. That said, I would think the failure of the Beltran trade for the Giants would at least provide some reasonable restraint of those criticisms. Right now, it's a zero sum game, Theo's move to play Reddick hasn't worked out, acquiring Beltran, the move you supported, hasn't worked out for the team that got him, which just goes to show that there aren't any hard/fast right courses of action in these things. The potential for failure dominates these personnel decisions, and, as such, should mitigate some of the criticisms.