Hugh2

It probably does but it’s certainly not the greatest ideal always. Business needs continuity and unless someone is doing something criminal or damaging to your business with malice it often makes sense to have a replacement first. I’m a business owner. There are certain positions that are very vital to my business and I can’t afford much down time. If I know I’m letting said person go, I’m looking for their replacement first. Then when I find them I’m firing.

I wonder if they’re looking for assistant to the regional manager?

That’s fine, I don’t think you can evaluate a draft strategy, a pick, who’s picking, who’s scouting etc etc etc based off of a few pics. That would be like judging a baseball player based off of one game. “What!!! Mookie Betts went 0-4” he sucks….trade him.

Imagine being hung up on the 2020 draft

Not sure if Kapler is a good choice, but he certainly isn’t a horrible one. A name I’m surprised we don’t see more of us Sig Mejdal. Haven’t even heard about him turning down an interview

That I agree with. A good plan that is poorly executed looks an awful lot like a bad plan. I think it’s important to make the distinction between the two. Because there are too many in here who would be ok throwing the baby out with the bath water

Why 67 million?

This is absurd. We should be firing (insert next hire here)

Blaze probably gets traded. It's a 5 round draft, and in a sense Blaze is no different than any guy who you allocate a large chunk of your bonus pool. I suppose an alternative strategy is to go BPA and give them a big bonus and NOT throw the money around. This strategy doesn't always work out either. E.G. Jay Groome. My point was, I'm not going to judge a strategy in the draft based on one draft. I can't argue against anyone saying they may have had a bad draft any year.

Nope, and now we've just created another thread talking about the same s*** we're arguing about everywhere. I should have figured this would happen. My bad everyone.

If that's the methodology for evaluation, then how is Yorke any different than any other pick?

Not really, people who are executive vice presidents and assistant gms interview and move up to these positions all the time. I find it hilarious when things that are normal happen and people go "ah haaaaa what's going on here"

Well that didn't take long. It was a nice thought.

Front office executives' compensation has zero bearing on luxury tax implications.

That's absolutely 100% correct, good post, I fully agree here. I think if anything John Henry needs more scrutiny going forward as well. But, I still wonder, what's normal here? I don't have anything to compare it to. 8 out of 18 or 20 guys have said yes to an interview. That's roughly 1/2 maybe a little less. Is that normal, below average, or above average when looking to hire someone from a pool of candidates whom many already have jobs??? The reason I ask this, and I don't expect any of us to truthfully be able to answer it is I wonder just how much trouble they actually are in here. If it's average, or even a little below I don't think they are. I don't truly know that though. I'd imagine guys who are already in positions of similar stature are going to be far and wide less interested. You're asking a guy to make a sideways move and move his family across the country for probably only marginally more money. This kind of answers 700a's question but this is why you see a lot of guys who have real front office experience but maybe in a lesser role take on these jobs are throw their hats in the ring for an interview because this is the job the dream about and have been working up the ladder for. If you're vice president, or assistant GM in another organization, the odds of you being interested in this job are a lot higher than they are if you're already the head guy. This is why guys like Kapler and Breslow are getting a look, they do have real F.O. experience and Breslow allegedly has a very good reputation in the industry and is considered to be on the rise. He might be a much better candidate than people realize.

Well, he has front-office experience. So, he fits the bill.

But that's my point, when has this ever become a huge media story? and how many people are going to turn you down when a large pool of candidates already have good jobs with family and careers on the other side of the country. There's a difference between putting out an ad to advertise a job to people who are looking for one, and an entirely different thing to go try and poach people away from other careers. Inherently it's obviously true you're going to get a LOT more no's from that latter concept, but how much is normal and how much of this is a concern? Whats a normal amount of people to say no? 1 out of 2, 1 out of 4? I have no ideal. I don't think any of us do. Last time the Sox went looking for a guy to fill this role they didn't even look, they had their guy in Bloom.

Does it negate the strategy overall? because a good strategy can fall short of expectations one year and exceed them the next. E.G. Ok maybe Jordan doesn't amount to much, but what if Roman Anthony becomes an absolute stud?

I'm not saying that the 3 guys in 12 years aren't having an impact on their search, as a matter of fact, my opinion is starting to be persuaded to buy that argument but I still think it hasn't been as bad as the media has hammered home about. At this point, it's probably not anything a few extra million and a little sweet talking couldn't cure for most people who would otherwise be interested in the job. But, you certainly do not want that reputation around town. Still, I can't help but contemplate how often a process like this has been so heavily reported on. I'm not sure what people should expect when you're trying to hire for a position and you're asking people who already have jobs to come to fill the position. How many of the people turning down interviews don't have gigs in 2024 and are actively looking for a job? Why would a guy from the southwest want to move his family AND leave an organization that is on the up and currently in the playoffs? Now, I know there are reasons to say yes. Very little incentive to make that move if it's not a promotion but these executives who are VPs and on their way up are the types of opportunities they wait for and many, not all, anticipate some kind of regional to national uprooting. Do any of us really have an ideal of what is a normal number of candidates to ask to interview and how many decline? I certainly do not.

He also gave out sizable contracts to Story and Yoshida as well. Not monster deals but, if that is the price range you have to work with he could of signed much better than Kluber.

People who have been interviewed include: Eddie Romero Paul Toboni Michael Groopman Neal Huntington Thad Levine Craig Breslow Am I missing anyone????

Let us throw our hats in the rings with some predictions. Let us not debate it there's plenty of that going on in the other threads. Let's see who gets it right. GM: Craig Breslow Head of Baseball Operations: Eddie Romero

Well I don't agree to that at all (slams fist into table)

That was my point. Zanatello is a short stop though, at least for now he primarily is.

It doesn't really matter, it's completely besides the point. There have been other players available the last several years. Bloom seemingly always got outbid, he was never willing to budge, and when you're NEVER willing to do so you will miss out on your guy almost every time. It's like having a crush on a pretty girl at school and being surprised when someone else is dancing with her.