Red Sox ownership

[moonslav59]

Seriously? In 2019, the year Mookie was traded to the Dodgers along with David Price, the Sox already had the biggest payroll in MLB. To keep Mookie away from the Dodgers, who I believe were fully prepared to outbid the Sox, That biggest payroll in MLB was going to get a lot bigger because the Sox also needed to fix their rotation given the collapse of their two aces, Price and Sale.

 

Yes, the team around Betts after the trade was better in LA, overall.

 

You disagree?

[dgalehouse]

Mookie Betts is a great player. He would make any team he was on better. Picking out a few, small sample, post season numbers to disparage his value is asinine. Let's not get ridiculous.

[dgalehouse]

In four years with the Sox, David Price went 17-9 , 6-3 , 16-7 and 7-5. I am not going to reopen the " wins are overrated" debate. Just saying that it would be nice if some of the jabronis we have been running out there since Price left were a little more like him and not just lovable losers.

[notin]

In four years with the Sox, David Price went 17-9 , 6-3 , 16-7 and 7-5. I am not going to reopen the " wins are overrated" debate. Just saying that it would be nice if some of the jabronis we have been running out there since Price left were a little more like him and not just lovable losers.

 

His first season was good. The other 3 were fairly pedestrian. They didn't get much for their $172mill...

[moonslav59]

In four years with the Sox, David Price went 17-9 , 6-3 , 16-7 and 7-5. I am not going to reopen the " wins are overrated" debate. Just saying that it would be nice if some of the jabronis we have been running out there since Price left were a little more like him and not just lovable losers.

 

Let's count the wins and losses in his starts with BOS

 

20-15 '16

6-5 '17

22-8 '18

10-12 '19

 

58-40 is very good, but in 3 of the 4 years, we went 36-32 in his starts (23 GS/season)

[Bellhorn04]

His first season was good. The other 3 were fairly pedestrian. They didn't get much for their $172mill...

 

$156 mill. He sat out 2020 and was not paid at all that year.

 

Per FanGraphs his value for the years 2016-2019 was about $85 mill.

 

There have been much worse busts.

[mvp 78]

$156 mill. He sat out 2020 and was not paid at all that year.

 

Per FanGraphs his value for the years 2016-2019 was about $85 mill.

 

There have been much worse busts.

 

If someone showed up in a time machine and said "you can sign this Price contract, but only the first 4 years will be ok. However, you will get a ring." I'm sure everyone signs up for it.

[moonslav59]

If someone showed up in a time machine and said "you can sign this Price contract, but only the first 4 years will be ok. However, you will get a ring." I'm sure everyone signs up for it.

 

I guess a lot depends on thinking we could or could not have won without him.

 

I think it's a close call, but I'd say we needed him.

 

$217M is a lot for 1 ring. One could probably find a cheaper pitcher that would have allowed us to win without him, but hye, a win is a win, and in that sense, it's seems okay.

 

Winning a ring with Rusney on the books does not carry the same weight.

 

Does no rings after the Nate signing mean the deal was bad? If not, why isn't the same standard applied?

 

I thought the Price signing was necessary, as it was also pre-Sale trade. I thought he was as good of a gamble as one could possibly hope for, at the time. He was not old. He was a proven winner. He had been durable. He checked all the boxes, as Scherzer did the previous season, when we signed Pablito & HRam, instead.

 

I get the "ring argument." I use it myself, sometimes. Price did help us win a ring and did well in the playoffs in 2018. I'm not sure that makes him worth $217M and his being a necessary part of the Betts trade makes his deal look worse, to me.

 

Without the ring argument, I think it seems clear he was not worth the money, especially with the Betts trade factored into it.

 

With the ring, it seems like a close call of "worth it," to me.

[mvp 78]

I guess a lot depends on thinking we could or could not have won without him.

 

I think it's a close call, but I'd say we needed him.

 

$217M is a lot for 1 ring. One could probably find a cheaper pitcher that would have allowed us to win without him, but hye, a win is a win, and in that sense, it's seems okay.

 

Winning a ring with Rusney on the books does not carry the same weight.

 

Does no rings after the Nate signing mean the deal was bad? If not, why isn't the same standard applied?

 

I thought the Price signing was necessary, as it was also pre-Sale trade. I thought he was as good of a gamble as one could possibly hope for, at the time. He was not old. He was a proven winner. He had been durable. He checked all the boxes, as Scherzer did the previous season, when we signed Pablito & HRam, instead.

 

I get the "ring argument." I use it myself, sometimes. Price did help us win a ring and did well in the playoffs in 2018. I'm not sure that makes him worth $217M and his being a necessary part of the Betts trade makes his deal look worse, to me.

 

Without the ring argument, I think it seems clear he was not worth the money, especially with the Betts trade factored into it.

 

With the ring, it seems like a close call of "worth it," to me.

 

1. Rusney was on the books, but didn't play a role at all in the 2018 championship.

 

2. The Nate deal after the fact has no relation to the championship that was already won. If they went to the WS in 21, it would have put a nicer shine to Nate's deal. Otherwise, it's one very good year and not much else IMO.

 

3. I thought Scherzer was a better signing than Lester at the time. He was a much better signing than the confusing double 3b signing of Pablo and Hanley that made zero sense at all. Bloom really fumbled the bag after 2013.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Where I think players like Ruth and Ted Williams and just maybe Bryce Harper of the Phillies have their greatest value is putting butts in seats--attendance.

 

Would you agree, then, that for owners who are all in, that specific value of one great star can generate enough interest -- and therefore tickets sales, concessions and souvenir sales, and increased advertising dollars -- that they can attract and afford additional top talent to surround that initial big money investment, with the ultimate goal of extending profits deep into every October?

[Bellhorn04]

I get the "ring argument." I use it myself, sometimes. Price did help us win a ring and did well in the playoffs in 2018. I'm not sure that makes him worth $217M and his being a necessary part of the Betts trade makes his deal look worse, to me.

 

Link please on the "necessary part". You're convinced they don't trade Betts unless Price is in the deal?

[dgalehouse]

Pretty sure the Dodgers would have gladly done the Betts trade without Price being a part of it. The Sox motivation was strictly to drop half of Price's contract.

[moonslav59]

Link please on the "necessary part". You're convinced they don't trade Betts unless Price is in the deal?

 

In terms of the return, yes.

 

I do not think LA wanted Price.

 

The way the trade worked out, had they not given Downs if Price was not in the deal, then not much changes, but we’d have theoretically spent less on other players in the following years other than 2020.

 

I do think we’d have traded Betts without Price if nobody took half his contract, but who knows the return.

[moonslav59]

Pretty sure the Dodgers would have gladly done the Betts trade without Price being a part of it. The Sox motivation was strictly to drop half of Price's contract.

 

Indeed.

[mvp 78]

Pretty sure the Dodgers would have gladly done the Betts trade without Price being a part of it. The Sox motivation was strictly to drop half of Price's contract.

 

Yup. The Sox added Price because they wanted to get under the cap. They didn't need to. He ended up opting out of 2020 anyway and the Sox would have reset.

[Bellhorn04]

Pretty sure the Dodgers would have gladly done the Betts trade without Price being a part of it. The Sox motivation was strictly to drop half of Price's contract.

 

And taking Price probably factored into the quality of the prospects the Dodgers were willing to give up.

 

But yeah, Betts was obviously going to the Dodgers with or without Price. Price was just a side piece.

[Bellhorn04]

In terms of the return, yes.

 

I do not think LA wanted Price.

 

The way the trade worked out, had they not given Downs if Price was not in the deal, then not much changes, but we’d have theoretically spent less on other players in the following years other than 2020.

 

I do think we’d have traded Betts without Price if nobody took half his contract, but who knows the return.

 

All you're saying is that in return for the $45 million salary relief on Price we got lesser prospects. That's pretty clear, but it has nothing to do with Betts.

[dgalehouse]

And taking Price probably factored into the quality of the prospects the Dodgers were willing to give up.

 

But yeah, Betts was obviously going to the Dodgers with or without Price. Price was just a side piece.

 

Exactly. The Sox decided that they were going to move Mookie before he hit free agency. They didn't trade him just so they could include Price. Apparently, the Dodgers were not willing to take Price's full contract. Maybe Bloom should have insisted they do .

Edited June 4, 2024 by dgalehouse

[Old Red]

I guess a lot depends on thinking we could or could not have won without him.

 

I think it's a close call, but I'd say we needed him.

 

$217M is a lot for 1 ring. One could probably find a cheaper pitcher that would have allowed us to win without him, but hye, a win is a win, and in that sense, it's seems okay.

 

Winning a ring with Rusney on the books does not carry the same weight.

 

Does no rings after the Nate signing mean the deal was bad? If not, why isn't the same standard applied?

 

I thought the Price signing was necessary, as it was also pre-Sale trade. I thought he was as good of a gamble as one could possibly hope for, at the time. He was not old. He was a proven winner. He had been durable. He checked all the boxes, as Scherzer did the previous season, when we signed Pablito & HRam, instead.

 

I get the "ring argument." I use it myself, sometimes. Price did help us win a ring and did well in the playoffs in 2018. I'm not sure that makes him worth $217M and his being a necessary part of the Betts trade makes his deal look worse, to me.

 

Without the ring argument, I think it seems clear he was not worth the money, especially with the Betts trade factored into it.

 

With the ring, it seems like a close call of "worth it," to me.

 

The ONLY reason the Sox needed Price in the first place was because they didn’t want to sign Lester for half the price. I believe the 2018 would have come out the same way with Lester.

[notin]

And taking Price probably factored into the quality of the prospects the Dodgers were willing to give up.

 

But yeah, Betts was obviously going to the Dodgers with or without Price. Price was just a side piece.

 

There was also no other way to get rid any part of Price…

[Bellhorn04]

There was also no other way to get rid any part of Price…

 

It was a noble act of kindness by the Dodgers. John Henry may have even shed a tear.

[notin]

It was a noble act of kindness by the Dodgers. John Henry may have even shed a tear.

 

The Dodgers don’t seem to mind taking on our rubbish contracts. Last time they did it, the best player we got back was James Loney…

[Duran Is The Man]

It was a noble act of kindness by the Dodgers. John Henry may have even shed a tear.

 

amazing how the Dodgers can afford our stupid contracts AND all the high-priced superstars on their roster but Henry acts like he's down to his last million.

[moonslav59]

amazing how the Dodgers can afford our stupid contracts AND all the high-priced superstars on their roster but Henry acts like he's down to his last million.

 

Except for the $300M on Devers, the $100+ on Yoshida, the $140 on Story and a $36M, $18M and others thrown in just for giggles.

[moonslav59]

There was also no other way to get rid any part of Price…

 

I doubt anyone but the Dodgers would take him at half price. Look how everyone complained about paying Sale to pitch elsewhere, even before he did well, and Sale did not come close to what Price had done the 3-4 years before the trade.

 

We'd have had to pay $24M out of the $32M to find someone to take him. That's $8M less to spend for a few years on budgets already cut to the bare bone.

[notin]

amazing how the Dodgers can afford our stupid contracts AND all the high-priced superstars on their roster but Henry acts like he's down to his last million.

 

f*** comparing the Sox to the Dodgers when it comes to spending. I’m hoping in the very near future, we’re not comparing the Sox to the Reds. I’d greatly prefer being Tampa North over being Cincinnati East…

[moonslav59]

f*** comparing the Sox to the Dodgers when it comes to spending. I’m hoping in the very near future, we’re not comparing the Sox to the Reds. I’d greatly prefer being Tampa North over being Cincinnati East…

 

We will never spend like LAD.

 

Maybe the Mets might, someday.

 

I'd be happy with #4-6 in 2025.

[Duran Is The Man]

Except for the $300M on Devers, the $100+ on Yoshida, the $140 on Story and a $36M, $18M and others thrown in just for giggles.

 

what is payroll this year? about mid-pack and 50-60M under the tax line? remember kids, a million saved is a million more in Johnny's pocket.

[moonslav59]

what is payroll this year? about mid-pack and 50-60M under the tax line? remember kids, a million saved is a million more in Johnny's pocket.

 

I'm not happy being even $10M under the tax line.

 

It sucks, and it shouldn't be this way.

 

That being said, if just half of our biggest contracts worked out fine, we'd be knocking on the playoff door, loudly.

[vegasbob]

what is payroll this year? about mid-pack and 50-60M under the tax line? remember kids, a million saved is a million more in Johnny's pocket.

 

The actual payroll for Lux Tax is not especially relevant in terms of equivalent or potential talent on the field ( 26 man roster) . Jansen earns more than most of the active bullpen combined, as pointed out by several others. Devers is the only "Big Bucks" actually playing a position. Rafaela's and Bello's new extensions are cheap if they perform and movable if they are only average MLB'ers . Yoshida still has some usefulness if he can get on base, although at a stupid price. Giolito will suck the juice out of a new battery before he ever performs , wasting money. Story will need to get out of the way in a couple years unless he magically becomes a healthy wallbanger. Houck will likely cost the Sox some bucks going forward but good for him if he make an entire season with 30+ starts.

 

The current roster is on the edge of a very young, possibly much better and certainly cheap team , among those active, who could have some success before reaching arb years. There is depth and young talent , mostly for 2026 currently in MiLB (Woo/Portland).

 

For long time Sox fans the 8 year transition from the 2018 type squad to a 2026 ready to win team was never well expressed by ownership or FO . In fact , they concealed it , lying that the free beer was alway tomorrow's reward. Bloom was a foil, making fans think his intellect concealed a sneaky good 3 or 4 year plan. Breslow may be better or be another Yale educated idiot too. We'll see at the deadline where the team stands and what the fO does about it, and 2025/26.