How would you rate John Henry's impact at Red Sox over the last 14 years?

[Red Scouser]

As title.

[moonslav59]

A++

[sk7326]

Best era in Red Sox history that involved non-white players being eligible. Anything else?

[Bellhorn04]

Couldn't be much better.

[oldtimer]

Couldn't be much better.

 

Those of us who remember Tom Yawkey have to rate John Henry very highly.

[moonslav59]

Those of us who remember Tom Yawkey have to rate John Henry very highly.

 

Very true, but even those who don't should look around and see how many teams have won 3 championships in 15 years and currently have a great farm system.

 

He's the best, even by modern standards.

[mvp 78]

Very true, but even those who don't should look around and see how many teams have won 3 championships in 15 years and currently have a great farm system.

 

He's the best, even by modern standards.

 

So "the best" but not as good as the Yankees, but may as good as the Giants?

[sk7326]

Best in post-integration Red Sox history

 

Now, big picture ... over the time frame, you probably have to put Cardinals #1. But the Sox are probably there with the Yankees and Giants and a step ahead of the Royals (whose recent success clearly is changing the trajectory) ... Giants have won 3 times, but have not qualified nearly as frequently.

[Maxbialystock]

Best Sox owner ever and it isn't even close. With 30 teams and long playoffs, winning it all is much harder than during most of the 86 year drought and the Sox have won 3 WS in the John Henry era. My guess is he isn't that personable or close to the players, which is fine with me. His brain seems to work pretty good.

[moonslav59]

So "the best" but not as good as the Yankees, but may as good as the Giants?

 

Since Henry took over the Sox, we've been better than the Yankees. Only the Giants and cardinals can compete.

[sk7326]

Since Henry took over the Sox, we've been better than the Yankees. Only the Giants and cardinals can compete.

 

the Yankees won fewer titles, but were never bad ... which is the interesting contrast. It is what makes the Giants comp interesting - Giants have won 3 times, but have generally missed the playoffs otherwise ... Cards to me at the clear #1 - won twice (the edge over the Yankees) and have basically never been bad (the edge over us)

[Maxbialystock]

sk7326, to me bad is a relative term when talking about baseball, especially MLB.

 

In the movie Bull Durham Costner's character points out that the difference between a solid hitter, maybe even an all-star, and a guy just making it is 1 hit per week. Assuming 26 weeks in a season, that's 26 hits, or the difference between hitting .300 and .250.

 

Right now the Sox are fun to watch and definitely in the hunt for the playoffs. They are in your words "not bad." Their winning percentage right now is 56%. Last year in your words they were unquestionably bad. Their winning percentage was a disgusting 48%. If last year's team bad team played this year's competitive, not bad team ten games, last year's team would win 5 out of 10 and this year's team would win 5 1/2 out of ten. The year before our percentage was 44%, which still means this year's team would only have a 1 game margin in a 10 game series over the 2014 team.

 

I happen to agree the Cardinals are the gold standard for MLB, but mostly because they have a terrific fan base for a smallish metropolitan area and because they don't try to outspend everyone else to get the best players. Instead, they seem to be very good at getting the right players, effective players who fit in. They come closer to achieving what Billie Beane is trying to achieve in the movie Moneyball than Billy Beane actually does in real life--these days, anyway.

 

I would also agree that under John Henry the Sox have only been the 2d or 3d best franchise in MLB. To me that's fantastic, especially when the Sox are always going nose to nose--including losing players to--with the wealthiest team in MLB.

[moonslav59]

the Yankees won fewer titles, but were never bad ... which is the interesting contrast. It is what makes the Giants comp interesting - Giants have won 3 times, but have generally missed the playoffs otherwise ... Cards to me at the clear #1 - won twice (the edge over the Yankees) and have basically never been bad (the edge over us)

 

For years and years we heard from Yankee fans, "look at the rings". Now, it's look how few times they finished last or with a losing record.

 

I'll take 10 last p[lace finishes and 1 ring over 10 second place finishes.

 

I'm not saying being continuously competitive has no value, but the ultimate goal is winning the WS or at least getting there.

 

The Yankees have had a nice run of over .500 seasons. It is something that should be commended. They have the most wins since 2002 at 1394 with the Cards (1346) and Sox (1320) close behind. That's 5 more wins a year than the Sox.

 

They have made the playoffs 11 times in the 14 years since Henry became owner of the Sox for the 2002 season. They advanced to the ALCS 4 times but lost 3 of them. They just won 1 championship in 2009.

 

The Sox have made the playoffs 7 times in the last 14 seasons but might be at 8 this year. That's 3-4 less times than the Yanks. The Sox have made the ALCS 5 times, which is one more than the Yanks. they have won 3 rings, which is 2 more than the Yanks.

 

The Sox have had 3 losing seasons since 2002. the Yanks none. The Sox have nine 90 win seasons to the Yanks' 10. The Cards have 8.

 

the Cards have made the playoffs 10 times since 2002 and have had just one losing season. They advanced to the NLCS 8 times- winning 4 of them. They have 2 rings in those 4 trips. The Sox are 3 for 3 and the Yanks 1 for 1.

 

All-in-all, I'll take the Sox recent 15 year history. Maybe all the years of never winning a ring has caused me to over-value championships, but again, that's all I heard from Yankee fans for decades.

 

[S5Dewey]

 

I'll take 10 last place finishes and 1 ring over 10 second place finishes.

 

 

IMO this is one of those things that looks great in print, but in real life....not so much. After two last place finishes in succession being competitive looks very good to me. Yes, it's frustrating to be the bridesmaid but not as frustrating as watching "my" team play bad baseball year after year.

 

If those were the two choices - to finish second every year or to finish last 9 years out of ten and win a ring in year #10, I'll take the second place finishes. At least it's exciting and at least the team is playing good baseball.

[Bellhorn04]

IMO this is one of those things that looks great in print, but in real life....not so much. After two last place finishes in succession being competitive looks very good to me. Yes, it's frustrating to be the bridesmaid but not as frustrating as watching "my" team play bad baseball year after year.

 

If those were the two choices - to finish second every year or to finish last 9 years out of ten and win a ring in year #10, I'll take the second place finishes. At least it's exciting and at least the team is playing good baseball.

 

I have to agree. 9 years out of 10 in last place just doesn't work. This year has been fun, even though our chances of winning it all probably aren't great.

 

I hasten to add that my attitude is different now because we've won it 3 times.

 

Back before 2004 I probably would have taken the 9 last place finishes for a ring.

[SoxnCycles]

The current Red Sox ownership does what it takes to win. This is the best run Red Sox org, as far as spending money to keep the fanbase interested, that the team has ever had.

 

It's a shame that they're a bunch of f***ing weasels, otherwise.

[moonslav59]

IMO this is one of those things that looks great in print, but in real life....not so much. After two last place finishes in succession being competitive looks very good to me. Yes, it's frustrating to be the bridesmaid but not as frustrating as watching "my" team play bad baseball year after year.

 

If those were the two choices - to finish second every year or to finish last 9 years out of ten and win a ring in year #10, I'll take the second place finishes. At least it's exciting and at least the team is playing good baseball.

 

Being a Sox fan from 1970 to 2003 was tough. It was almost more heart-breaking to be so good and come close so many times than had we just stunk. I remember saying many times that we should go all out to win once, even if it was at the expense of being really bad for the next 9 years.

 

Once we won in 2004, I got spoiled and wanted more, more and MORE! I still do, but I no longer feel the urge to have to "win right now", if it feels like it's coming at the expense of winning in the future- and I don't mean just winning 85-90 games every year and barely making the playoffs here and there. I realize that sounds contradictory in some ways, but I think our core of young players and upcoming prospects makes us set up pretty well to seriously compete for a ring over the next 5 years. I even think that because the AL is so weak this year, we have a good shot at winning the AL pennant, and then anything can happen in the WS, even if it's against the snake-bitten Cubbies.

 

I want to win now.I think, so far, DD has balanced the now with the future pretty well. While I may disagree with most of his individual deals, his overall plan and execution have been okay. Had Carson Smith not gotten hurt and done as well as 2015, we'd be in first place right now, but blaming injuries is something every team can do. We've actually had less major injuries than other teams and other years.

 

I can see how after winning 3 rings since Henry's take-over has made winning a ring less desperate, I still think that's the ultimate goal for me. I hated finishing second to the Yanks for over 30 years.

 

[moonslav59]

I have to agree. 9 years out of 10 in last place just doesn't work. This year has been fun, even though our chances of winning it all probably aren't great.

 

I hasten to add that my attitude is different now because we've won it 3 times.

 

Back before 2004 I probably would have taken the 9 last place finishes for a ring.

 

Would you be happier right now if the Sox had the record of the Yanks over the last 15 years?

 

You'd have your one ring (2009) and a lot of highly competitive teams the other years (no losing records).

 

How about the Cards? 2 rings and 4 trips to the big dance.

 

To me, the Cards are really close to us and the Yanks are behind, but not by a whole lot.

[Nick]

John Henry has done okay by me....how's his soccer team doing by the way?

[mvp 78]

John Henry has done okay by me....how's his soccer team doing by the way?

 

John W. Henry, owner of the Boston Red Sox and of Fenway Sports Group, bid successfully for the club and took ownership in October 2010.[35] Poor results during the start of that season led to Hodgson leaving the club by mutual consent and former player & manager Kenny Dalglish taking over.[36] Despite a record 8th League Cup success against Cardiff and an FA Cup final defeat to Chelsea, Liverpool finished in eighth position in the 2011–12 season, the worst league finish in 18 years and led to the sacking of Dalglish.[37][38] He was replaced by Brendan Rodgers.[39] In Rodgers' first season, Liverpool finished in seventh. In the 2013–14 season, Liverpool mounted an unexpected title charge to finish second behind champions Manchester City and subsequently return to the Champions League, scoring 101 goals in the process, the most since the 106 scored in the 1895–96 season.[40][41] Following a disappointing 2014–15 season, where Liverpool finished sixth in the league, and a poor start to the 2015–16 season, Brendan Rodgers was sacked in October 2015.[42] He was replaced by Jürgen Klopp,[43] who became the third foreign manager in Liverpool's history.[44] In Klopp's first season at Liverpool, he took the club to the finals of both the Football League Cup and UEFA Europa League, finishing as runner-up in both competitions.[45]

 

It's been up and down, pretty much like the Sox have been recently.

[mvp 78]

Roush Fenway Racing has been s*****, but who cares about that...

[Hitch]

I'm guessing Red Scouser started this thread because he isn't overly happy with how FSG (Henry) is running Liverpool.

 

As a Liverpool fan I can confirm it's been a bumpy old ride under this ownership. They saved the club from administration which we should all, always be thankful for(although lots aren't!).

 

We did come close to the title for the first time in decades but that was down to having one of the very best players in the world run into a vein of form not seen before or since.

 

The biggest grumble with Henry for the dissenters in the Liverpool crowd is that we don't spend much money on the team. In fact the club seems to make money on transfers most of the time and people are fed up that the money isn't being re-invested.

 

The fact we have just built a whole new stand worth a lot of money seems to have escaped their attention but the grumbles are getting louder. They certainly aren't throwing cash around.

 

As for success - we are where we were when they bought us. They made A LOT of stupid mistakes early doors just because they didn't understand football. We haven't moved forward much but we do have one of the best managers in the world at the helm at least.

 

Word is, they are selling out a large share of the ownership to a Chinese investment firm.

[Red Scouser]

I'm guessing Red Scouser started this thread because he isn't overly happy with how FSG (Henry) is running Liverpool.

 

As a Liverpool fan I can confirm it's been a bumpy old ride under this ownership. They saved the club from administration which we should all, always be thankful for(although lots aren't!).

 

We did come close to the title for the first time in decades but that was down to having one of the very best players in the world run into a vein of form not seen before or since.

 

The biggest grumble with Henry for the dissenters in the Liverpool crowd is that we don't spend much money on the team. In fact the club seems to make money on transfers most of the time and people are fed up that the money isn't being re-invested.

 

The fact we have just built a whole new stand worth a lot of money seems to have escaped their attention but the grumbles are getting louder. They certainly aren't throwing cash around.

 

As for success - we are where we were when they bought us. They made A LOT of stupid mistakes early doors just because they didn't understand football. We haven't moved forward much but we do have one of the best managers in the world at the helm at least.

 

Word is, they are selling out a large share of the ownership to a Chinese investment firm.

 

 

 

Yes it seems like FSG for Liverpool do the absolute minimum every time to just about keep fans on side. They're always looking to keep the wage bill as low as possible, even the fact that they chose to expand the stadium as oppose to building a new one and raise the price of tickets. Liverpool tend to recruit young, promising but unproven players to come in on lesser wages and try and develop them up to become top players and then sell them for big money, and then the cycle repeats itself. So just when we think we're making progress we will lose one of our top players who we've built the team around (e.g. Suarez) and we're back where we started.

 

Is this similar at Red Sox?

[mvp 78]

Yes it seems like FSG for Liverpool do the absolute minimum every time to just about keep fans on side. They're always looking to keep the wage bill as low as possible, even the fact that they chose to expand the stadium as oppose to building a new one and raise the price of tickets. Liverpool tend to recruit young, promising but unproven players to come in on lesser wages and try and develop them up to become top players and then sell them for big money, and then the cycle repeats itself. So just when we think we're making progress we will lose one of our top players who we've built the team around (e.g. Suarez) and we're back where we started.

 

Is this similar at Red Sox?

 

No, the Sox throw a lot of money at payroll. They have let some large fish go because of analytics and foolishness, but overall they have no problem opening their wallets.

 

They have redesigned and expanded an old, broken stadium, but that's because it is genuinely loved by the fanbase.

 

The biggest issue the Sox have had is that there were too many cooks in the kitchen when it came time to bring in new players. Ownership seemed to want to have a hand in every decision for better or worse. That seems to have changed somewhat since they brought in the new GM.

[sk7326]

For years and years we heard from Yankee fans, "look at the rings". Now, it's look how few times they finished last or with a losing record.

 

I'll take 10 last p[lace finishes and 1 ring over 10 second place finishes.

 

I'm not saying being continuously competitive has no value, but the ultimate goal is winning the WS or at least getting there.

 

The Yankees have had a nice run of over .500 seasons. It is something that should be commended. They have the most wins since 2002 at 1394 with the Cards (1346) and Sox (1320) close behind. That's 5 more wins a year than the Sox.

 

They have made the playoffs 11 times in the 14 years since Henry became owner of the Sox for the 2002 season. They advanced to the ALCS 4 times but lost 3 of them. They just won 1 championship in 2009.

 

The Sox have made the playoffs 7 times in the last 14 seasons but might be at 8 this year. That's 3-4 less times than the Yanks. The Sox have made the ALCS 5 times, which is one more than the Yanks. they have won 3 rings, which is 2 more than the Yanks.

 

The Sox have had 3 losing seasons since 2002. the Yanks none. The Sox have nine 90 win seasons to the Yanks' 10. The Cards have 8.

 

the Cards have made the playoffs 10 times since 2002 and have had just one losing season. They advanced to the NLCS 8 times- winning 4 of them. They have 2 rings in those 4 trips. The Sox are 3 for 3 and the Yanks 1 for 1.

 

All-in-all, I'll take the Sox recent 15 year history. Maybe all the years of never winning a ring has caused me to over-value championships, but again, that's all I heard from Yankee fans for decades.

 

 

It is hard to make this theoretical because the Sox DID win it all. And besides, it is a bit of a false choice. But either way:

 

1. I like baseball. When the team I have cared about more than any other (across all sports) plays good baseball, I am happy.

2. There are not many other things to follow sports-wise during the summer. When the Sox stink, it's a real drag. (it infects my ability to give a crap about my roto team - or to even watch baseball)

3. The playoffs are a crapshoot - while you'd like to be able to invent a champ out of thin air, I can only remember that actually working out once (the 2009 Yankees). You need luck, the right bounces. The Red Sox three titles were sort of rare in that they were probably the best team in the league all three years. (and beat the 2nd best team in the league all three years) Get multiple bites of the apple and see what happens - after all one of the Cardinals titles came with the worst team to ever with a title.

 

That the Red Sox whiffed on getting a bite of the apple so badly in 2012, 2014-15 is a real black mark on their record - you can't unsee that. This does not mean I am ungrateful for the three titles. But it does mean that within the context of whether I'd rather be the Sox or the Cards of the last decade, the Cards could be argued quite easily.

 

Being a Red Sox fan from 1970 to 2003 was not difficult - the team was almost always good! There was heartbreak which stinks - and some years stunk even more. The reason it was so easy to yammer about a curse is that the Red Sox WERE good - the idea that they would get to Game 7 four different times and lose is mystifying. But I'd recommend that being an Expos fan was slightly harder during that time frame - the angst of the pre-curse Sox fan (let alone post) is why other fan bases hate us.

[sk7326]

Yes it seems like FSG for Liverpool do the absolute minimum every time to just about keep fans on side. They're always looking to keep the wage bill as low as possible, even the fact that they chose to expand the stadium as oppose to building a new one and raise the price of tickets. Liverpool tend to recruit young, promising but unproven players to come in on lesser wages and try and develop them up to become top players and then sell them for big money, and then the cycle repeats itself. So just when we think we're making progress we will lose one of our top players who we've built the team around (e.g. Suarez) and we're back where we started.

 

Is this similar at Red Sox?

 

With Liverpool - there is such a crazy arms race in England that it is possible that they might just not be able to keep up - I mean they are not poor, but they might not be City-Arsenal-United rich.

 

The Red Sox I think (relative to the peers) are positioned much better financially.

[Bellhorn04]

Would you be happier right now if the Sox had the record of the Yanks over the last 15 years?

 

You'd have your one ring (2009) and a lot of highly competitive teams the other years (no losing records).

 

How about the Cards? 2 rings and 4 trips to the big dance.

 

To me, the Cards are really close to us and the Yanks are behind, but not by a whole lot.

 

I wouldn't trade our last 15 years for anybody's.

[sk7326]

I wouldn't trade our last 15 years for anybody's.

 

Me neither ... even if I say that about the Cards ... if a team is going to win its first title (or first title in a billion years), 2004 is the way to do it

[User Name]

The current Red Sox ownership does what it takes to win. This is the best run Red Sox org, as far as spending money to keep the fanbase interested, that the team has ever had.

 

It's a shame that they're a bunch of f***ing weasels, otherwise.

 

Honest question: Why exactly are they "a bunch of f***ing weasels" in other aspects of their dealings?

 

Do you mean the way they run ex players/staff members out of town, or something else?

[sk7326]

Honest question: Why exactly are they "a bunch of f***ing weasels" in other aspects of their dealings?

 

Do you mean the way they run ex players/staff members out of town, or something else?

 

I think the occasional leaks to the Globe (like when Francona left) are in poor taste. And in some cases they were cheap for no special purpose (all of that 2003 ARod crap). And the mewling about the Evil Empire was in poor taste.

 

But any reading of the 15 years in total which was not seen as a major positive is just not being honest.