Trades?

[Old Red]

At least he names the posters.

 

🙈🤭🤮.

[Maxbialystock]

there is no doubt Henry has made some brilliant moves since he took over, but as you pointed out, he decided to take a different route after 2019. i think that route is due to his ego, greed and incredibly poor front office decisions have made this team into a perennial cellar dweller.

 

This is actually John Henry's 2d venture into MLB. He was also a co-owner of the Florida Marlins when DD was the GM.

 

As for "ego and greed," I would agree that it's just about impossible for the owner of a MLB team not to have a pretty big ego. The simple act of acquiring ownership is ego-driven. To a degree, those 4 WS wins were also driven by ego. Not only John Henry's, but those of his CBO's, brain trust, managers, et al.

 

But I'm not buying the greed argument for the simple reason that for 17 (2003-2019) of his 22 years of ownership John Henry seemed to have little hesitation in supporting large Sox payrolls. If greed were his primary motive these days, selling the Sox for billions of dollars would make the most sense because I do not think the Sox are hugely profitable.

[Duran Is The Man]

This is actually John Henry's 2d venture into MLB. He was also a co-owner of the Florida Marlins when DD was the GM.

 

As for "ego and greed," I would agree that it's just about impossible for the owner of a MLB team not to have a pretty big ego. The simple act of acquiring ownership is ego-driven. To a degree, those 4 WS wins were also driven by ego. Not only John Henry's, but those of his CBO's, brain trust, managers, et al.

 

But I'm not buying the greed argument for the simple reason that for 17 (2003-2019) of his 22 years of ownership John Henry seemed to have little hesitation in supporting large Sox payrolls. If greed were his primary motive these days, selling the Sox for billions of dollars would make the most sense because I do not think the Sox are hugely profitable.

 

not greedy? then why does he seem to be hell bent on winning with as little payroll as necessary? he was extremely successful with DD and his big spending. why not carry on? why? because a greedy gotdamn BILLIONAIRE. why the f*** does he have FSG? because he's got a huge ego. and he's greedy as f***. i used to love Henry but he can go f*** himself as far as i'm concerned. getting rid of Mookie and trying to copy the Rays and A's is ********. sorry if i'm a little mroe pissed a JH than usual but the Woodford reserve has me a little less than reserved.

[Fan_since_Boggs]

I'm hoping John Henry will spend big in the off-season on at least one SP, either Fried or Burnes. He has gone the cheap route lately, but now that the next wave of stud position player prospects are almost ready, it will be time to spend on the pitching staff. Perhaps that is the strategy?

[moonslav59]

This is not the first, second or third time JH has significantly cut the budget over the last 20+ years.

 

On the flip side, he has also significantly raised the budget, several times?

 

Will he again? If yes, when?

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

I'm hoping John Henry will spend big in the off-season on at least one SP, either Fried or Burnes. He has gone the cheap route lately, but now that the next wave of stud position player prospects are almost ready, it will be time to spend on the pitching staff. Perhaps that is the strategy?

 

The old younger Henry would splurge on an ace, but if they stick to the new business plan, the only significant acquisitions will come from a trade.

 

He's got to be especially resentful about Giolito, the most expensive free agent signing of the new regime -- who convinced Henry he was worth it, despite the past two years of suckitude, and who never even threw a pitch in his first regular season in Boston. The Sox have to pay him ace money next year, too, no matter how or if he comes back.

 

Intriguing questions: can Breslow pull off a blockbuster, and who will he part with that he promised would be "painful?"

[Duran Is The Man]

This is not the first, second or third time JH has significantly cut the budget over the last 20+ years.

 

On the flip side, he has also significantly raised the budget, several times?

 

Will he again? If yes, when?

 

he should be spending up to the tax line or nearly so very year. this isn't a small or mid-market organization.

[Hugh2]

he should be spending up to the tax line or nearly so very year. this isn't a small or mid-market organization.

 

I don’t disagree.

 

But if you figure a reset every 2-3 years it makes sense to leave some wiggle room. You can’t 100% predict your payroll on day one. Injuries, a larger than expected call up of Milb players can increase payroll. And it’s also useful to have 8-10 million in cap space to play around with at the trade deadline.

[Bellhorn04]

I don’t disagree.

 

But if you figure a reset every 2-3 years it makes sense to leave some wiggle room. You can’t 100% predict your payroll on day one. Injuries, a larger than expected call up of Milb players can increase payroll. And it’s also useful to have 8-10 million in cap space to play around with at the trade deadline.

 

They reset last year. Oddly enough, it had no impact on this year.

 

Much to everyone's surprise, Kennedy announced to the world in January, with plenty of offseason left, that the payroll would actually be lower this year.

[Hugh2]

They reset last year. Oddly enough, it had no impact on this year.

 

Much to everyone's surprise, Kennedy announced to the world in January, with plenty of offseason left, that the payroll would actually be lower this year.

 

I thought they would go over too, and I expect them too given the track record, market, and fan base. But I don think they should go over just foe the sake of going over; that’s how you get into trouble long term. I can believe in that and still be unhappy with the total body of work the last 5 years.

[notin]

They reset last year. Oddly enough, it had no impact on this year.

 

Much to everyone's surprise, Kennedy announced to the world in January, with plenty of offseason left, that the payroll would actually be lower this year.

 

… and that he would get to that lower payroll at full throttle…

[Bellhorn04]

I thought they would go over too, and I expect them too given the track record, market, and fan base. But I don think they should go over just foe the sake of going over; that’s how you get into trouble long term. I can believe in that and still be unhappy with the total body of work the last 5 years.

 

Signing more starting pitching would be "going over for the sake of going over" with these guys, it seems. It's not like it was an actual need or anything. It's not like the one guy they signed was immediately out for the season.

[Hugh2]

Signing more starting pitching would be "going over for the sake of going over" with these guys, it seems. It's not like it was an actual need or anything. It's not like the one guy they signed was immediately out for the season.

 

Well that’s precisely my point. I think you need to evaluate players and have convictions and stick to them. Maybe you like Yama and go over the cap for him but you miss out. You don’t just go over and sign Snell because you had the money to do so if you don’t like him long term.

 

Was pitching a need? Yes, but I think you blame the strategy over a long term horizon than one given offseason. Pitching was a need not because they didn’t invest this past offseason but rather because of the 6 years of decision making and roster construction leading up.

 

If you look to over correct in one offseason by just throwing money around you could dig a hole!!!!

 

Think of it this way.

 

How excited would some be if the Sox signed both Snell and Montgomery back in March?

 

Sure, there’d be some detractors, and those complaining about the money but nobody would think the rotation wouldn’t be improved. But we’d be so much worse off right now, and way over the cap.

[notin]

Signing more starting pitching would be "going over for the sake of going over" with these guys, it seems. It's not like it was an actual need or anything. It's not like the one guy they signed was immediately out for the season.

 

Before the season, I really liked Houck, Crawford and Bello in the rotation. I still do, although they’re not as fire as they were in April. But I hope they can extend Houck and keep those guys around.

 

I’ve never liked Whitlock as a starter, much like everyone on this forum. I’m not throwing any new, deep insight out there with that. But so far multiple CBOs appear to like him there. Certainly economics is part of that. But also at some point, I’m not so sure our view of the Sox starting pitching aligns with that of the people in the front office…

[Bellhorn04]

Well that’s precisely my point. I think you need to evaluate players and have convictions and stick to them. Maybe you like Yama and go over the cap for him but you miss out. You don’t just go over and sign Snell because you had the money to do so if you don’t like him long term.

 

Was pitching a need? Yes, but I think you blame the strategy over a long term horizon than one given offseason. Pitching was a need not because they didn’t invest this past offseason but rather because of the 6 years of decision making and roster construction leading up.

 

If you look to over correct in one offseason by just throwing money around you could dig a hole!!!!

 

Think of it this way.

 

How excited would some be if the Sox signed both Snell and Montgomery back in March?

 

Sure, there’d be some detractors, and those complaining about the money but nobody would think the rotation wouldn’t be improved. But we’d be so much worse off right now, and way over the cap.

 

And of course we always cherry pick the examples that suit our bias. There are other starting pitcher signings that are doing well.

 

But yes, every pitcher signing is risky.

[notin]

Well that’s precisely my point. I think you need to evaluate players and have convictions and stick to them. Maybe you like Yama and go over the cap for him but you miss out. You don’t just go over and sign Snell because you had the money to do so if you don’t like him long term.

 

Was pitching a need? Yes, but I think you blame the strategy over a long term horizon than one given offseason. Pitching was a need not because they didn’t invest this past offseason but rather because of the 6 years of decision making and roster construction leading up.

 

If you look to over correct in one offseason by just throwing money around you could dig a hole!!!!

 

Think of it this way.

 

How excited would some be if the Sox signed both Snell and Montgomery back in March?

 

Sure, there’d be some detractors, and those complaining about the money but nobody would think the rotation wouldn’t be improved. But we’d be so much worse off right now, and way over the cap.

 

Appropriately timed example, because according to Lou Merloni, this is essentially how the Padres got Bogaerts. Apparently he was not their prime target, but Trea Turner was. However, Turner’s wife is from Philadelphia, and after they offered him $400mill, Turner all but begged the Padres not to counter. The Padres took their unspent capital and then offered the bulk of it to Bogaerts.

 

So, this does happen….

[Hugh2]

And of course we always cherry pick the examples that suit our bias. There are other starting pitcher signings that are doing well.

 

But yes, every pitcher signing is risky.

 

Agreed, but not my point here.

 

You neither I don’t know what the Sox internal evaluations of said pitchers were.

 

You don’t just spend money to spend money.

 

It can both be true that that statement is accurate and Henry has gone soft and is unwilling to open up the purse.

[moonslav59]

he should be spending up to the tax line or nearly so very year. this isn't a small or mid-market organization.

 

I agree, but my point was that JH is not doing anything new, here.

 

The bigger change over the last 5 years is that 5-6 other teams decided to go nutty on spending.

[moonslav59]

And of course we always cherry pick the examples that suit our bias. There are other starting pitcher signings that are doing well.

 

But yes, every pitcher signing is risky.

 

IMO, last winter produced some very good SPer signings, many the under the radar types, like Lugo, Imanaga and several others. Some had lower AAVs than Gio.

 

Of course this is hindsight, but many of us advocated for some of the mid level deals that could have been made while keeping us under the tax line.

 

These lost chances may have also brightened the next season or two, as well. It didn’t have to be all about 2024.

[Old Red]

A pretty good month of June going 15-10, and right in the think of things for a wildcard spot. What is holding the Red Sox back somewhat is their play at Fenway where they have a losing record. Have a month in July like they did in June, and that Wildcard spot could be theirs, and yes I know it would be a disappointment to some to not be sellers, and bring back some more suspects, but to actually do some buying. That would really put Brez in a tough spot on what to do, but wheel, and deal to me would be a lot more fun than to do nothing, or worst sell. I know on here prying away some prospects would be like pulling teeth, and real painful to some, but if the Red Sox play winning ball in July you’ll just have to endure the pain, because playing in October would be fun for a change, and most important the here, and now is what it’s all about.

[Old Red]

Let’s get some good trade talk going. Vlad JR is rumored to be on the block. Let’s go big, and get him. Casas, and a high draft pick, or two. No sense in playing around with rentals. Get JH to open up his checkbook to extend him, and watch him, and Raffy hit back to back, and hammer away. Now that sounds like fun.

[Nick]

Let’s get some good trade talk going. Vlad JR is rumored to be on the block. Let’s go big, and get him. Casas, and a high draft pick, or two. No sense in playing around with rentals. Get JH to open up his checkbook to extend him, and watch him, and Raffy hit back to back, and hammer away. Now that sounds like fun.

 

Going big is good. Position players are less riskier than pitchers. It would be something to add Vlad to returning Casas. Vlad can DH and relieve lefty 1B bat. To think

 

Devers (10 yrs), Story (4+1), Yoshida (4), Rafaela (8), Casas (5), Duran (5), Wong (5), Abreu (6), Grissom (6), Valdez (6), Hamilton (6) and Gonzalez (5), all under team control for few years.

 

I don't want to trade Teel, Mayer or Anthony but with so many team controlled players on the book, I would think it's okay to trade everyone else to acquire established talent now........No?

 

Our pen has team controlled guys in Weissert (6), Bernardino (6), Slaten (6), Kelly (5) and now Horn (6). Throw in starters Josh W (5), Bello (6+1), Tanner (4) and Kutter (5). We need a top of the line guy both as a starter and another as a closer.

 

We don't have to decimate the farm. With so many controllable players in the majors, we have time to fill in prospects 11-30 or if you like 4-30.

[Hugh2]

Draft picks are not tradeable.

 

[Old Red]

Draft picks are not tradeable.

 

 

Already known, and I should have clarified, but I was talking about the big 3. Once again thanks for chipping in.

[Old Red]

Going big is good. Position players are less riskier than pitchers. It would be something to add Vlad to returning Casas. Vlad can DH and relieve lefty 1B bat. To think

 

Devers (10 yrs), Story (4+1), Yoshida (4), Rafaela (8), Casas (5), Duran (5), Wong (5), Abreu (6), Grissom (6), Valdez (6), Hamilton (6) and Gonzalez (5), all under team control for few years.

 

I don't want to trade Teel, Mayer or Anthony but with so many team controlled players on the book, I would think it's okay to trade everyone else to acquire established talent now........No?

 

Our pen has team controlled guys in Weissert (6), Bernardino (6), Slaten (6), Kelly (5) and now Horn (6). Throw in starters Josh W (5), Bello (6+1), Tanner (4) and Kutter (5). We need a top of the line guy both as a starter and another as a closer.

 

We don't have to decimate the farm. With so many controllable players in the majors, we have time to fill in prospects 11-30 or if you like 4-30.

 

Casas would be part of the Vlad JR trade.

[Hugh2]

Last 3 years Casas OPS .846 Guerrero Jr. .812

 

I'd keep Casas and two top prospects.

[Nick]

Casas would be part of the Vlad JR trade.

 

No to that....2025 is Vlad's final arbitration year. We have Casa for another 4 years. Not sure why we would give up any prospects in that deal. I wouldn't do it straight up.

 

4 years versus 1, no thanks.

[Old Red]

No to that....2025 is Vlad's final arbitration year. We have Casa for another 4 years. Not sure why we would give up any prospects in that deal. I wouldn't do it straight up.

 

4 years versus 1, no thanks.

 

If you read my original post I said JH would have to open up his checkbook to get JR extended, so it was never going to be a 4 years vs 1.

[Hugh2]

No to that....2025 is Vlad's final arbitration year. We have Casa for another 4 years. Not sure why we would give up any prospects in that deal. I wouldn't do it straight up.

 

4 years versus 1, no thanks.

 

I put in Mayer/Anthony/Casas for Vlad into BTV for hahaha's and my computer actually started laughing at me.

 

I kid, I actually think this is a good case for why BTV isn't reliable. They seem to be undervaluing Vlad. According to them Boston should not only reject Casas for Vlad straight up (which I would) but Toronto has to add significant value to make it work.

[Old Red]

Last 3 years Casas OPS .846 Guerrero Jr. .812

 

I'd keep Casas and two top prospects.

 

Just a thought, or suggestion, but thanks for responding. Just throwing things out there that to me is better than the usual constant selling off of Jansen, Martin, Pivetta, or O’Neill talk.