Red Sox Have "Aggressive" Offer On Table For Alex Bregman

11 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

NO

2022: 240M 

Devers signs extension

2023: 214M

2024: 222M

2025: 243M

2026: 234M+?

How is the Devers extension the demarcation line? '23 and '24 were both lower than '22? '25 was basically flat from '22. 

 

The Devers extension kicked in in 2024. It marked a change in spending big to keep young stars, but not so much on the budget. The $8M gain from 2023 to 2024 is not all that noteworthy, but it was significantly higher than 2021.

The jump from 2024 to 2025 was one of the largest jumps under JH, and if he hadn't dumped Devers, it would have been more. (Note: I made a point of saying much of the uptick seen from JH was "undone by the Devers dump," and this offseason is not over, so that undoing might not be rectified.)

I'm not making a prediction on 2026. I'm just saying some highly significant changes in spending philosophies have occurred since the Devers signing. Do you disagree with that?

Linking the start of the devers extension period in 2024 to the 2019-2023 period seems as off as linking 2025-2026 to 2003.

4 hours ago, mvp 78 said:

The problem even with that whole issue is that Werner said "full throttle" and he doesn't have the final say. Werner probably wants to spend more than Henry does. Werner wants the tv stars. Werner wants the ratings. Werner wants the FA signings. Henry is more the guy that we see at the end of Moneyball no matter how truthy it is or not. We all know in our hearts, the bottom line is more important to Henry than the rings at this point. Back when he first bought the Red Sox, he was convinced otherwise. He needs a guy like Lucchino or Dombrowski who can convince him to spend. Instead, he's surrounding himself with yes men. 

Yes we feel the bottom line is more important to JH than the rings at this point, and yes back when JH first bought the Red Sox he was convinced otherwise, and that is why JH is not the same guy today as when he first bought the Red Sox. Simple as that, and nothing more, and nothing less all IMO.👋

1 minute ago, Old Red said:

Yes we feel the bottom line is more important to JH than the rings at this point, and yes back when JH first bought the Red Sox he was convinced otherwise, and that is why JH is not the same guy today as when he first bought the Red Sox. Simple as that, and nothing more, and nothing less all IMO.👋

Do you remember the budgets when JH took over? Was his spending really the major factor, early on?

The 2001 budget (pre JH) was $110M on opening day and $114M at the end.

JH's group took over that winter.

The 2002 budget, according to cots was $108M and $110M at the end of 2002.

The 2003 budget went down again to $100M and finished at $104M.

Maybe you are talking about a few years into his reign, not when he first started.

We did see a big jump for 2004, and Foulke was a big piece for the ring year. but do you remember he cut the budget the next two years ($127>123>120.) There was a massive drop from end of year 2004 ($131M) to the end of year 2005 ($117M). Was it really as rosy as you portray it to be? The big spending years (2018-2019)came closer to 2026 than 2003. Sounds shocking, doesn't it?

We jumped the spending for 2007, bigly. (Again, with my "cycle" talk you abhor and ridicule.) We won a ring and guess what? Cuts again. ($143>134>122.) That was pretty major, as in a 15% cut.

It was time to cycle up again for 2010, but it didn't work as planned. We jumped the spending by $47M from 2009 to 2010 and stayed close to the same for 3 years, as we transitioned from Theo to Ben. We cut by more than $20M for 2013, but somehow won a ring, that year. We can't really call that ring a "JH desire to kill the evil empire" season, can we? 2014 saw about the same budget, then the DD era began, and I think this is the time frame we seem to be linking to 2002-2014. To me, many years in the 2002-2014 era look very similar to 2021 to 2024 and 2025. Ups and downs. Of course the big difference is we were top 3-4 spenders for many of those years.

Note: our ranking pre-JH:

T6th in '98 ($6M from NYY at #2)

6th in '99 ($4M from #3 and $17M from #1 NYY)

7th in '00 ($4M from #4 and $15M from #1 NYY)

#2 in 2001 (The year before JH) just $200K from #1 NYY. That was the JH starting point- essentially tied with the Yanks. Then...

-$17M year 1 from NYY

-$53M year 2

-$57M year 3 (2004)

-$84M year 4 (man, facts hurt, don't they?)

-$75M in 2006

-$46M year 6 (ring year)

-$76M in 2008 (4th place in spending)

-$79M year 8

-$44M in year 9 and -$40 year 10. Was this the golden era you speak of?

We didn't pass the Yanks until 2018. That was year 17 out of 24 seasons under JH.

1 hour ago, JoeBrady said:

But we don't know that price.  Suppose AZ offered him $180M/6.  Does that mean we offer him $200M/6?

No. I'd say matching it would be good enough... but Boras wants us to beat it.

So: $180 million dollars and 99 cents.

1 hour ago, JoeBrady said:

But we don't know that price.  Suppose AZ offered him $180M/6.  Does that mean we offer him $200M/6?

I guess we could try just matching it and hope Breggie likes BOS more, or offer $181M/6.

I would not go that high.

20 minutes ago, Randy Red Sox said:

way too much-pass.  let someone else have him. he only cares about the $$$

So, we pass on 99% of all players, then.

25 minutes ago, Randy Red Sox said:

We do anyway as it is.  Fans like myself have been waiting {not so} patiently for 3 months now with nothing other than Sonny Gray  and Contreras as so called "players we are interested in" [Alonso, Schwarber, Marte and the Japanese guys and others}  have all come off the board. Now we likely have to overpay to bring Bregman back or he will be gone too. I very much doubt we are at all in on Bichette and Breslow is simply waiting to see who is the warm body standing he can snag on a 1 yr deal.  Tell me I am wrong.

Not sure what that has to do with wanting to pass on every player looking to make the most money they can. We'd never get anyone, even many 1 year guys.

On 1/7/2026 at 3:58 PM, mvp 78 said:

There's risk, but that's why you develop overall org depth. I don't think just adding another 2 fWAR to the projected rotation fixes a loss of Crochet. However, adding another 2 fWAR to the offense is more likely to be sustainable throughout the year IMO. You kind of just have to cross your fingers and hope for the health luck we had in the WS years. 

I agree that replacing the loss of Crochet would be a difficult fix.  He was our best player by almost 2 fWAR.  That loss would be difficult for just about any team to overcome.

I agree 100% on the importance of develop overall organizational depth.  

On 1/7/2026 at 5:28 PM, moonslav59 said:

Is $115M/4 better to you?

Moot point now, but yes, it would be.  I have always been in favor of a higher AAV for fewer years, rather than a longer contract at a lower AAV.  I know that a higher AAV hurts us more in terms of the luxury tax, but too many years has always been a deal breaker for me.

On 1/7/2026 at 5:35 PM, moonslav59 said:

While technically true, the key word is "improving." If you replace a 1.1 WAR rotation pitcher with a 2 WAR better one, how much does getting a 3.1 WAR pitcher going to cost? It might not be possible.

I look at it this way: if we have enough to trade for or sign a 2 WAR player, getting a 2 WAR pitcher might improve our 5 slot by 0.8 WAR. (Of course the guy he boots out might give us 1.2 WAR from the pen, but that is doubtful.)

Instead, we replace a 0.5 infielder with a 2.0 WAR guy and we gain 1.5 and not just 0.8 in the rotation. That's where choosing where to "improve" can make a difference. We have to look at who plays where, if we don't add, and what they project as value and try to maximize the gain accordingly.

This is surely oversimplifying a complex choice that needs to be made, and yes, maybe we fill 2 holes by opening day, but I agree: I doubt we go over the second line. We may even end up closer to the first line than the second.

I was not saying to simply add a 2 WAR pitcher or position player.  I am saying that improving the pitching by 2 WAR has the same effect as improving the offense by 2 WAR.  Net improvement.

Yes, trying to improve the starting pitching is probably going to cost more and is probably more difficult to do.