The Grissom Watch

[Randy Red Sox]

So, the Devers extension, that kicked in this year and broke all records of Sox signings by nearly 50%, is the last big splurge by JH?

 

We all know that extension was simply to placate RSN after letting Mookie get away. If you want to go on defending the miser go right ahead but count me out. UPp to 2018 Henry was a great owner. Since then he has lost total interest in the team as far as I am concerned.

[Randy Red Sox]

Just so we're straight on what spending big entails--

 

Biggest payroll, $308M, is the Mets, who are 21-30.

3d biggest, $249M, is the Astros, 23-29.

5th biggest, $233M, is the Rangers, 24-29.

9th biggest, $226M, is the Jays, 23-38.

 

11th biggest, $182M, is the sox, 27-26.

 

26th biggest, $100M, is the Orioles, 32-18.

25th biggest, $101M, is the Guardians, 35-17.

22d biggest, $108M, is the Brewers, 30-22.

20th biggest, $115M, is the Royals, 34-19.

 

so you are saying we should cut the payroll even further? How did the Rangers, Astros, and even the Blue Jays do last year with those payrolls?? Nice cherrypicking though.

[cp176]

Well, sad. It was a good and accurate name.

 

I want wild about the extension when it was signed, but it couldn’t have gone any worse…

 

I was elated that he was signed and resigned. I like real winners even if they are just sitting in the dugout.

[Hugh2]

so you are saying we should cut the payroll even further? How did the Rangers, Astros, and even the Blue Jays do last year with those payrolls?? Nice cherrypicking though.

 

Do you actually believe that's what he's saying?

 

I took it as there's not as strong a correlation between spending money and success as people think. You can't just throw money at the best players available and expect to get better.

 

The Mets are a prime example of that now.

 

This doesn't mean how the Sox have spent their money isn't open to critque either.

[Bellhorn04]

Do you actually believe that's what he's saying?

 

I took it as there's not as strong a correlation between spending money and success as people think. You can't just throw money at the best players available and expect to get better.

 

The Mets are a prime example of that now.

 

This doesn't mean how the Sox have spent their money isn't open to critque either.

 

Spending doesn't guarantee anything, it also takes smarts and luck.

 

But when was the last time a bottom 5 payroll team won a ring?

 

The Yankees and Dodgers are the 2 richest teams and they've been making the playoffs just about every year.

 

The correlation is real, it's just not guaranteed.

[Hugh2]

Spending doesn't guarantee anything, it also takes smarts and luck.

 

But when was the last time a bottom 5 payroll team won a ring?

 

The Yankees and Dodgers are the 2 richest teams and they've been making the playoffs just about every year.

 

The correlation is real, it's just not guaranteed.

 

I never said otherwise either, rather I understood the point Max was trying to make that seems to elude Randy.

 

Yes the correlation is real, but as been proven around here it's not as strong as some would make you think either.

[Bellhorn04]

I never said otherwise either, rather I understood the point Max was trying to make that seems to elude Randy.

 

Yes the correlation is real, but as been proven around here it's not as strong as some would make you think either.

 

The truth is usually somewhere in between.

[notin]

Spending doesn't guarantee anything, it also takes smarts and luck.

 

But when was the last time a bottom 5 payroll team won a ring?

 

The Yankees and Dodgers are the 2 richest teams and they've been making the playoffs just about every year.

 

The correlation is real, it's just not guaranteed.

 

There are bottom 5 teams that make the postseason nearly every year…

[Bellhorn04]

There are bottom 5 teams that make the postseason nearly every year…

 

Any reply on the Yankees and Dodgers point?

[notin]

Any reply on the Yankees and Dodgers point?

 

That was.

 

You asked about bottom 5 teams winning rings, but set the bar for the Yankees and Dodgers at merely making the postseason.

 

But the Rays have been spending nothing and gone to the last 5 postseasons, which is more than the Yankees in that stretch.

[Bellhorn04]

That was.

 

You asked about bottom 5 teams winning rings, but set the bar for the Yankees and Dodgers at merely making the postseason.

 

But the Rays have been spending nothing and gone to the last 5 postseasons, which is more than the Yankees in that stretch.

 

There are also teams like the A's and Pirates and Marlins that haven't made many postseasons in a while.

 

The Rays are basically the one exception.

 

The overall correlation between spending and winning is real.

Edited May 28, 2024 by Bellhorn04

[Bellhorn04]

And that's what pisses me off about this trade - I think trimming some money had a lot to do with it. A big market team that wants to win would hold onto Sale and hope for the best, and they'd spend to get another right handed bat.

[Bellhorn04]

It does also seem like there is a correlation between spending and losing.

 

When you're cherry picking examples you can find both.

 

When you're doing a global evaluation it can't be both. I'm pretty sure you realize that.

[Nick]

Sometime a fatigue sits in when a player is injured often. I think that was the case for Red Sox when it came to Sale.

 

One more arm injury to Whitlock say in 2025 and he becomes Chris Sale #2.

[notin]

And that's what pisses me off about this trade - I think trimming some money had a lot to do with it. A big market team that wants to win would hold onto Sale and hope for the best, and they'd spend to get another right handed bat.

 

Nobody expected Sale to jump out of the gate like he was back in 2027 form. If Sale winds up with a 4.40 ERA, like he had in 2019 across 147 innings, does this trade still look so bad and deserve this much attention?

 

Yes it was about cutting salary, but that salary had done almost nothing since 2018. That year, know who Sale finished behind in Cy Young balloting?? COREY KLUBER!! And we are know what the next 5 years did to him.

 

And Sox fans frequently cite Kluber as a huge waste at $10mill, but you think Sale at $27mill was worth the risk?

[Randy Red Sox]

Nobody expected Sale to jump out of the gate like he was back in 2027 form. If Sale winds up with a 4.40 ERA, like he had in 2019 across 147 innings, does this trade still look so bad and deserve this much attention?

 

Yes it was about cutting salary, but that salary had done almost nothing since 2018. That year, know who Sale finished behind in Cy Young balloting?? COREY KLUBER!! And we are know what the next 5 years did to him.

 

And Sox fans frequently cite Kluber as a huge waste at $10mill, but you think Sale at $27mill was worth the risk?

 

when Saler collects his CY Award will we still say we won this trade?

[Randy Red Sox]

Do you actually believe that's what he's saying?

 

I took it as there's not as strong a correlation between spending money and success as people think. You can't just throw money at the best players available and expect to get better.

 

The Mets are a prime example of that now.

 

This doesn't mean how the Sox have spent their money isn't open to critque either.

 

trust me I got his point.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

The sense the past half decade isn't so much that the Red Sox don't spend, but they make bad decisions on who they blow money on. Then, in what always looks like an insult to players, coaches and fans, the front office spites itself by refusing to rectify roster mistakes with needed reinforcements at pivotal periods (ex: Bloom Springs, when the club was missing a legit first baseman or shortstop; or at the deadline, with obvious holes in the rotation or bullpen).

 

Some suspect the owner, horrified by winter signing flops (many who were just injured), closes the books during the summer. The Red Sox are the third-richest MLB team in franchise value, so there's no doubt they could choose to move on from costly mistakes every year, but here's the difference with the top two richest clubs:

 

The Yankees or Dodgers NEVER give up on a season mid-season, or refuse to make big-money moves to constantly try to improve their chances.

[mvp 78]

Orioles look good now, but they went 6 straight years under .500 very recently. This just may be them reaping a great farm system as they did from 12-16. Boom bust period? From 98-11, they were under 500 every single season.

[Randy Red Sox]

There are also teams like the A's and Pirates and Marlins that haven't made many postseasons in a while.

 

The Rays are basically the one exception.

 

The overall correlation between spending and winning is real.

 

all I know is when I want a new pair of running shoes I go to the Nike store not the bargain shop

[Bellhorn04]

Nobody expected Sale to jump out of the gate like he was back in 2027 form. If Sale winds up with a 4.40 ERA, like he had in 2019 across 147 innings, does this trade still look so bad and deserve this much attention?

 

Yes it was about cutting salary, but that salary had done almost nothing since 2018. That year, know who Sale finished behind in Cy Young balloting?? COREY KLUBER!! And we are know what the next 5 years did to him.

 

And Sox fans frequently cite Kluber as a huge waste at $10mill, but you think Sale at $27mill was worth the risk?

 

Nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition, either.

 

Sale had a 2.1 fWAR last year in 102 innings. You knew that, right?

 

If the Red Sox didn't think there was any chance of him coming back like this, they're idiots.

[Old Red]

And that's what pisses me off about this trade - I think trimming some money had a lot to do with it. A big market team that wants to win would hold onto Sale and hope for the best, and they'd spend to get another right handed bat.

 

I keep hearing how trimming money had something to do with the Sale trade, and maybe it did, but I keep having trouble to figure that still paying $17M for Sale, and signing Gio for $18M was saving money. They could have just kept Sale, and not signed Gio.

[Old Red]

Orioles look good now, but they went 6 straight years under .500 very recently. This just may be them reaping a great farm system as they did from 12-16. Boom bust period? From 98-11, they were under 500 every single season.

 

110 loss team in 2021, which isn’t that long ago.

[Bellhorn04]

I keep hearing how trimming money had something to do with the Sale trade, and maybe it did, but I keep having trouble to figure that still paying $17M for Sale, and signing Gio for $18M was saving money. They could have just kept Sale, and not signed Gio.

 

Correct. I assume they had already decided to sign Gioloto. The $10 million reduction on Sale made it fit into the payroll budget.

 

Slammin' Sam Kennedy told us the payroll would be lower this year. It was one of the times he was being honest.

[mvp 78]

The sense the past half decade isn't so much that the Red Sox don't spend, but they make bad decisions on who they blow money on. Then, in what always looks like an insult to players, coaches and fans, the front office spites itself by refusing to rectify roster mistakes with needed reinforcements at pivotal periods (ex: Bloom Springs, when the club was missing a legit first baseman or shortstop; or at the deadline, with obvious holes in the rotation or bullpen).

 

Some suspect the owner, horrified by winter signing flops (many who were just injured), closes the books during the summer. The Red Sox are the third-richest MLB team in franchise value, so there's no doubt they could choose to move on from costly mistakes every year, but here's the difference with the top two richest clubs:

 

The Yankees or Dodgers NEVER give up on a season mid-season, or refuse to make big-money moves to constantly try to improve their chances.

 

Yeah, they've really just chosen the wrong players to spend on. First, they should have spent on Mookie. Duh. Sale, not a great investment. Story was injured when they signed him. Most other franchises valued Masa much lower and seem to be correct. Bringing JBJ back. Kluber. Extending Rafaela and Bello too early. Devers overpaid?

[Old Red]

Yeah, they've really just chosen the wrong players to spend on. First, they should have spent on Mookie. Duh. Sale, not a great investment. Story was injured when they signed him. Most other franchises valued Masa much lower and seem to be correct. Bringing JBJ back. Kluber. Extending Rafaela and Bello too early. Devers overpaid?

 

This sums things up pretty well. Nobody else was knocking on Gio’s door either.

[notin]

This sums things up pretty well. Nobody else was knocking on Gio’s door either.

 

Nobody was knocking on the doors of Snell and Montgomery at that time either. The Sox tried to be aggressive for once and sign a guy before he was the best option left. It didn’t work out this time, but that’s probably not a behavior they should be called out for…

[moonslav59]

We all know that extension was simply to placate RSN after letting Mookie get away. If you want to go on defending the miser go right ahead but count me out. UPp to 2018 Henry was a great owner. Since then he has lost total interest in the team as far as I am concerned.

 

I asked a question.

 

I'm not defending JH.

 

Nobody knows if he will spend bigly, again, and I am not counting on it or expe cting it. I just have not discounted the possibility.

[moonslav59]

There are bottom 5 teams that make the postseason nearly every year…

 

...and once in it's a crapshoot, right?

[moonslav59]

There are also teams like the A's and Pirates and Marlins that haven't made many postseasons in a while.

 

The Rays are basically the one exception.

 

The overall correlation between spending and winning is real.

 

The 2015 Royals were not "bottom 5," but they spent about half as much as #2 NYY and significantly less than half of the #1 LAD.

 

The spent $25M more than the top of the bottom 5 teams and almost $60M less than the bottom of the top 5 spenders.

 

Nobody is saying money doesn't matter. Spending does improve the odds, most seasons. The vast majority of playoff teams are top 10-15 spenders, over the years.

 

How a team spends seems to be more important than how much, and a healthy mix of low-cost, home-grown players on the team is just about as essential as spending wisely.