Red Sox: Off Season 2024-2025

[notin]

14 minutes ago, Old Red said:

New to online forums? Boy you’re really at it today. It’s always more acceptable to make the postseason. Teams in any sport with the best record don’t always win in the postseason, but teams with the worst record sometimes do. It shouldn’t even be a debate that getting into the postseason is better than not getting in . Teams with better records in the postseason does not guarantee success.

Nice yet incredibly obvious observation.  Also completely immaterial with regards to the question that was asked…

[notin]

4 minutes ago, 5GoldGlovesOF,75 said:

I never called myself en-titled -- even before the titles -- but for three decades plus, I was always en-tertained.

And yes, I expect a rich club that I help get richer every year to provide me with the entertainment of -- if not making the postseason -- doing everything it can to field a team that has a legitimate chance at making it.

I think this in general is one of the weirder aspects of baseball fandom.  Fans decry teams that use analytics and baseball acumen to make a better team, but love it when they exploit financial advantages.  I can hear their cries “stop thinking and learning and making smart decisions!! Just spend money!!”

 

I know lots of fans think analytics are boring.  But how exciting is outspending?

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

5 minutes ago, notin said:

I think this in general is one of the weirder aspects of baseball fandom.  Fans decry teams that use analytics and baseball acumen to make a better team, but love it when they exploit financial advantages.  I can hear their cries “stop thinking and learning and making smart decisions!! Just spend money!!”

Pro sports as a form of entertainment is kinda unique. If people don't like a movie or play, they might walk out; if they don't like a tv show or song, they just change the station. But most likely they won't pay or buy to watch or listen to the exact same movie, play, show or song -- because re-runs or replays always have the same endings.

But sports games always offer alternate endings, so we keep going back, hoping for something different.

And in the long season of baseball, most teams are actually battling to extend seasons... that's why it's so important for franchises to invest in rosters that give fans something to look forward to.

[notin]

3 minutes ago, 5GoldGlovesOF,75 said:

Pro sports as a form of entertainment is kinda unique. If people don't like a movie or play, they might walk out; if they don't like a tv show or song, they just change the station. But most likely they won't pay or buy to watch or listen to the exact same movie, play, show or song -- because re-runs or replays always have the same endings.

But sports games always offer alternate endings, so we keep going back, hoping for something different.

And in the long season of baseball, most teams are actually battling to extend seasons... that's why it's so important for franchises to invest in rosters that give fans something to look forward to.

And baseball especially where many fans like to fantasize themselves as superior GM/CBOs, or even equivalent ones.

I’ve never heard of anyone complaining about the job TV producers do and how they could do it better.  “Vincent D’Onofrio!!!?! Really!?!  Law and Order would have been much better if they took my suggestion and just sprung for Michael Madsen!!”

[Thunder]

3 hours ago, notin said:

Nothing screams “entitled fan” like calling a three year post-season drought “unacceptable”…

 

 

I LOL'd at this. I literally have no memory of anything before October 2004 but you don't hear me clamoring for a World Series title every year to go with the 4 others I've witnessed in my 20 years of fandom

[moonslav59]

5 hours ago, notin said:

Nothing screams “entitled fan” like calling a three year post-season drought “unacceptable”…

 

 

The same guy who criticizes Cora more than anyone else, also quotes him as if he speaks the Gospel truth on the only importance being October.

[Old Red]

11 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

The same guy who criticizes Cora more than anyone else, also quotes him as if he speaks the Gospel truth on the only importance being October.

Like I’ve said many times it’s what the coaches, and players in the clubhouse thinks that’s most important, and not what fans, or so called super fans thinks. It’s not just Cora who says the MOST IMPORTANT thing is what you do, or don’t do in October. Many other Managers, and players throughout MLB say the same thing. You disagreeing does not change any of that.🤭🙈

[dgalehouse]

Of the five highest payrolls in MLB, four of those teams are leading their division at the moment. That is not a coincidence. And the Red Sox decline coincides with John Henry's feeling that he was spending too much on the ballclub. That is not a coincidence either.

[Old Red]

11 minutes ago, dgalehouse said:

Of the five highest payrolls in MLB, four of those teams are leading their division at the moment. That is not a coincidence. And the Red Sox decline coincides with John Henry's feeling that he was spending too much on the ballclub. That is not a coincidence either.

I’m sure JH is not impressed with the active 26 man payroll compared to what the total payroll is either, which doesn’t help matters any.

[moonslav59]

8 minutes ago, dgalehouse said:

Of the five highest payrolls in MLB, four of those teams are leading their division at the moment. That is not a coincidence. And the Red Sox decline coincides with John Henry's feeling that he was spending too much on the ballclub. That is not a coincidence either.

We were at the top in spending in 2018 and 2019, and we had several big stars coming up on their big paydays. Our farm appeared more empty than it turned out to be, but the years going forward was going to cost a lot more than an already league leading point. 

Many of us felt a downturn was coming. I don't think anyone felt it would be so sudden and steep. JH's near complete divestment, which started slowly in 2019, when we let Kimbrell and Kelly go without replacing them in even half-kind. The rumor that DD nearly traded Betts in 2019 is more evidence that the budget cuts were coming, and comin sooner rather than later.

Surely, it's easy to sit back and say, "JH can afford to spend more and should have done it," and that is totally true, but can't just about every fan of a cost limited team say the same? Maybe some owners aren't as rich as JH, and their revenue streams are smaller, but all owners are rich enough to spend significantly more, if they wanted to do it. In that context, why do we "deserve" it more?

If anything, we could claim we were extremely lucky to have an owner that did fork over hundreds of millions of dollars that could have lined his pockets to bring us 4 rings.  I've shown that JH has not really cut spending as much as him being passed by several owners going nutty with spending. I'm not sure how fair it is to think he should have gotten that "nutty," too.

Now, spending up to the tax line should be easy for him, and I agree that there is no excuse for not doing, at least that, but I'm eternally grateful to JH for doing what he did. There were many times, in my life, I fully believed I'd never see the promise land. I've seen it 4 times. I don't really feel entitled to 5.

[dgalehouse]

It's not just that the Sox were passed by other owners going nutty with spending. The price of everything has gone up since 2018. And that includes Red Sox ticket prices, concessions and memorabilia. But the Sox payroll has decreased by 64 million dollars in that time. That is a sizable spending cut. 

[notin]

48 minutes ago, dgalehouse said:

Of the five highest payrolls in MLB, four of those teams are leading their division at the moment. That is not a coincidence. And the Red Sox decline coincides with John Henry's feeling that he was spending too much on the ballclub. That is not a coincidence either.

And the other two teams are ranked 21st and 23rd in spending.  And the team ranked 22nd is 0.5 games out.

That means an Orioles win coupled with a Yankee loss means that 50% of the division leaders are in the top ten in spending while the other 50% are in the bottom 10.

So, yes, it’s probably a coincidence.  If nothing else, it’s certainly far too precarious to be conclusive.

And another interesting payroll fact, the team leading the AL Central in payroll - the Chicago White Sox.

Also, the Sox decline appears to have started while they had the highest payroll in MLB…

 

 

[dgalehouse]

   That is a convoluted rebuttal. The simple fact is that of the five highest payrolls, four are leading their division. If everything was equal, the odds of that happening would be enormous. It is obvious that there is a connection between spending ( and spending wisely)  and the quality of the team.  Obviously, there are exceptions. 

[moonslav59]

7 minutes ago, dgalehouse said:

   That is a convoluted rebuttal. The simple fact is that of the five highest payrolls, four are leading their division. If everything was equal, the odds of that happening would be enormous. It is obvious that there is a connection between spending ( and spending wisely)  and the quality of the team.  Obviously, there are exceptions. 

About as many exceptions as the "rule."

[moonslav59]

15 minutes ago, notin said:

Also, the Sox decline appears to have started while they had the highest payroll in MLB…

 

 

Yes, we were number 1 in spending in 2019, when the decline began.

We were 3rd in that horrific 202o season, when the writing on the wall became clear to even the non-believers.

The 2021 brought some hope the decline would be short, and we were still 3rd in spending..yes, just 3 years ago.

We went from $180M to $195M, but dropped from 3rd to 6th, as several teams made huge spending leaps:

+86M NYM

+49M NYY

+48M PHI

+42M LAD

+37M SDP

By 2023, the big spending team got way out of hand, led by the Mets adding $93M more than the $86M in '23.

No doubt, JH  could have spent more, but keeping up with some of these wild spenders seems like a lot to ask. Had we stayed the same from '23 to '24, we'd have been 9th not 13th.

[Old Red]

1 hour ago, moonslav59 said:

We were at the top in spending in 2018 and 2019, and we had several big stars coming up on their big paydays. Our farm appeared more empty than it turned out to be, but the years going forward was going to cost a lot more than an already league leading point. 

Many of us felt a downturn was coming. I don't think anyone felt it would be so sudden and steep. JH's near complete divestment, which started slowly in 2019, when we let Kimbrell and Kelly go without replacing them in even half-kind. The rumor that DD nearly traded Betts in 2019 is more evidence that the budget cuts were coming, and comin sooner rather than later.

Surely, it's easy to sit back and say, "JH can afford to spend more and should have done it," and that is totally true, but can't just about every fan of a cost limited team say the same? Maybe some owners aren't as rich as JH, and their revenue streams are smaller, but all owners are rich enough to spend significantly more, if they wanted to do it. In that context, why do we "deserve" it more?

If anything, we could claim we were extremely lucky to have an owner that did fork over hundreds of millions of dollars that could have lined his pockets to bring us 4 rings.  I've shown that JH has not really cut spending as much as him being passed by several owners going nutty with spending. I'm not sure how fair it is to think he should have gotten that "nutty," too.

Now, spending up to the tax line should be easy for him, and I agree that there is no excuse for not doing, at least that, but I'm eternally grateful to JH for doing what he did. There were many times, in my life, I fully believed I'd never see the promise land. I've seen it 4 times. I don't really feel entitled to 5.

Being a lifelong Red Sox fan, which you are not since I can remember from 1960 it gives me a different perspective., which is not as long as Max, but longer than some. The 60’s up until the Impossible Dream of 67 were not very good at all, and Fenway was not a big destination like it is now with real small crowds. Not once though did I never think I would not see the Red Sox win a WS. 67 was never going to happen, because of some guy named Gibson. 75 was close, and a great WS, and 86 was close too. I knew eventually the Red Sox would win a WS, and they finally did in 2004, and have won 3 more after that. JH has been a good owner,but now I believe it’s time for him to go.  I believe the Red Sox would have eventually won one without him. I don’t think expecting the Red Sox to field a competitive winning team every year, and even winning another WS as being entitled either.

[notin]

35 minutes ago, dgalehouse said:

   That is a convoluted rebuttal. The simple fact is that of the five highest payrolls, four are leading their division. If everything was equal, the odds of that happening would be enormous. It is obvious that there is a connection between spending ( and spending wisely)  and the quality of the team.  Obviously, there are exceptions. 

It’s not convoluted.

 

If the Yankees lose tonight, 50% of the division leaders  are near the top in payroll and the other 50% are near the bottom.  So that means your data is precarious.  
 

To me, it looks like spending is the easy way to compete. It’s no guarantee.  The only guarantee is that eventually those big contracts wind down and the players bought decline, and that’s a tough situation to get out of.

 

If the Sox are going to spend, it should be mostly on extension for arb-eligible players, or ones not yet arb-eligible…

 

 

 

[moonslav59]

31 minutes ago, notin said:

It’s not convoluted.

 

If the Yankees lose tonight, 50% of the division leaders  are near the top in payroll and the other 50% are near the bottom.  So that means your data is precarious.  
 

To me, it looks like spending is the easy way to compete. It’s no guarantee.  The only guarantee is that eventually those big contracts wind down and the players bought decline, and that’s a tough situation to get out of.

 

If the Sox are going to spend, it should be mostly on extension for arb-eligible players, or ones not yet arb-eligible…

 

 

 

I do think spending on extensions and arb raises is key, but most of our current players are already locked up or are pre-arb. The few that are arbs are 1st year ones that wont cost much. We have a window opening. We can say it starts in 2025 or 2026, but even if it's determined to be 2026, we can add a multiple year SP'er, this winter to help us have a chance in 2025, and still help in 2026 and beyond.

We don't need another David Price, but we can do better than Gio, Kluber, Richards and all.

Maybe last year was a bit lucky with the mid range SP'ers, but we missed many good chances at strengthening our rotation at moderate prices.

[Bellhorn04]

The only fair way to analyze the correlation between payroll and wins is over a longer period like 5 years, 10 or 20 years.  And you know darn well how that will look.  The correlation has been documented.  Plus there's common sense (Yankees/Dodgers vs. Marlins/Pirates).

The only team that has been able to beat the correlation over an extended period is the Rays.      

[notin]

2 hours ago, Bellhorn04 said:

The only fair way to analyze the correlation between payroll and wins is over a longer period like 5 years, 10 or 20 years.  And you know darn well how that will look.  The correlation has been documented.  Plus there's common sense (Yankees/Dodgers vs. Marlins/Pirates).

The only team that has been able to beat the correlation over an extended period is the Rays.      

That’s some extremely cursory data analysis.   It ignores all the other low spending successes like Milwaukee and Cleveland.  As well as all the high spenders that rarely make the postseason, like the Mets, Giants and White Sox.

I suspect this relationship is less clear than you think…

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

11 hours ago, Bellhorn04 said:

The only fair way to analyze the correlation between payroll and wins is over a longer period like 5 years, 10 or 20 years.  And you know darn well how that will look.  The correlation has been documented.  Plus there's common sense (Yankees/Dodgers vs. Marlins/Pirates).

The only team that has been able to beat the correlation over an extended period is the Rays.      

If Henry was more obsessed with saving money and trying to cut corners than investing in true talent, what he should do is go rob the Rays' front office of one of their young execs to run his club... someone who's been close to the decisions that make Tampa a contender almost every year, while dumping any player worth paying, and scouring the recycle bins for something cheap worth re-using.

[Bellhorn04]

12 hours ago, notin said:

That’s some extremely cursory data analysis.   It ignores all the other low spending successes like Milwaukee and Cleveland.  As well as all the high spenders that rarely make the postseason, like the Mets, Giants and White Sox.

I suspect this relationship is less clear than you think…

Yes, that was cursory.  But there have been a bunch of studies done which are easy to find by Googling correlation between MLB payroll and wins.  It would be tedious to link and discuss them all.  Maybe we can have a thread on it.

I saw a quick and dirty analysis which calculated the average payroll ranking of the last 10 best records in MLB and the last 10 World Series winners.  For best record the average ranking was 5 point something and for World Series winners it was 7 point something.  With 30 teams, those are strong correlations.  

Obviously there are significant exceptions too.  But there's a clear general correlation.

[Bellhorn04]

2 hours ago, 5GoldGlovesOF,75 said:

If Henry was more obsessed with saving money and trying to cut corners than investing in true talent, what he should do is go rob the Rays' front office of one of their young execs to run his club... someone who's been close to the decisions that make Tampa a contender almost every year, while dumping any player worth paying, and scouring the recycle bins for something cheap worth re-using.

Right, somebody like...oh wait.

[moonslav59]

28 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Yes, that was cursory.  But there have been a bunch of studies done which are easy to find by Googling correlation between MLB payroll and wins.  It would be tedious to link and discuss them all.  Maybe we can have a thread on it.

I saw a quick and dirty analysis which calculated the average payroll ranking of the last 10 best records in MLB and the last 10 World Series winners.  For best record the average ranking was 5 point something and for World Series winners it was 7 point something.  With 30 teams, those are strong correlations.  

Obviously there are significant exceptions too.  But there's a clear general correlation.

I agree. Spending more and spending way more increases the chances of winning. When you look at the list of teams that win consistently, as in regular season records, most also have a pretty constant flow of farm help that supports the players added by free agency or trading for expensive players.

I'm a little hopeful JH recognizes this and is planning on spending big, again, once the farm influx is in full scale mode, which is basically now or over the next year or two.

Only time will tell. I'm not going to expect it, but I won't be surprised, if he goes all out, again.

[mvp 78]

20 hours ago, 5GoldGlovesOF,75 said:

I never called myself en-titled -- even before the titles -- but for three decades plus, I was always en-tertained.

And yes, I expect a rich club that I help get richer every year to provide me with the entertainment of -- if not making the postseason -- doing everything it can to field a team that has a legitimate chance at making it.

You can tell the effort they put in by what they do in the offseason. Being the "interest kings" isn't really doing all that they can. I'm sure the CBO would love to acquire top tier talent. Hard to do so when you are handcuffed. I think he new the restrictions when he took the job though. 

[Bellhorn04]

6 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

You can tell the effort they put in by what they do in the offseason. Being the "interest kings" isn't really doing all that they can. I'm sure the CBO would love to acquire top tier talent. Hard to do so when you are handcuffed. I think he new the restrictions when he took the job though. 

Or a little while after he took it.  Craig did have to make a little backpedal speech of his own during the full throttle furor that sounded to me an awful lot like code for them doing a bit of a bait and switch on him.

[moonslav59]

14 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Or a little while after he took it.  Craig did have to make a little backpedal speech of his own during the full throttle furor that sounded to me an awful lot like code for them doing a bit of a bait and switch on him.

100%.

It didn't help that the largest contract handed out to a pitcher, since Sale & Nate back on 2019, missed the whole season due to injury. You get what you pay for, and we paid only small to near mid-level prices, and that's what we got- or worse.

$38.5M/2 Giolito

$32M/2 Jansen (Closer)

$17.5M/2 Martin (RP)

$10M/1 Richards

$10M/1 Kluber

$10M/2 Paxton

$10M/2 Hendriks (RP)

$8M/2 Diekman (RP, later dumped)

$7M/1 Wacha

$6M/1 Perez I

$5M/1 Perez II

$5M/1 R Hill

$3M/1 Strahm (RP)

 

Extensions:

$55M/6 Bello

$18.75M/2 Barnes (RP, later traded)

$18.75M/4 Whitlock

 

Traded for Salary:

$8M/1 Ottavino (RP)

Mid Season: Luis Garcia, Lucas Sims, Robles and others

[Nick]

This was the year of discovery.

 

Sox has several decisions to make regarding positional players including the big 4 in AAA. Or they may just sit on their hands and do nothing.

 

I am not getting too excited about this winter. Their moves have been underwhelming.

[moonslav59]

34 minutes ago, Nick said:

This was the year of discovery.

 

Sox has several decisions to make regarding positional players including the big 4 in AAA. Or they may just sit on their hands and do nothing.

 

I am not getting too excited about this winter. Their moves have been underwhelming.

I think we did get some questions answered, this year of discovery.

Even with our pitching: I think we found out...

Houck should be viewed as a #3. Bello & Gio should be slotted #4 & 5, and no higher.

Crawford, Wink and Whitlock should be the mid/long men, but they probably will slot Crawford in the 4/5 slot and move others up one notch. :(

Slaten and Hendriks should be viewed as set-up me, and nothing more.

Guys like Weissert, Booser, Kelly, Bernardino, I Campbell and others should be viewed as the 6-8 slot RP'er, maybe one could win the 5 slot. If Slaten, Hendriks, Whitlock, Crawford and Wink hold the 2 to 6 slots, we should be okay with adding a top closer. Maybe Criswell can take Crawford's slot, if we start KC.

I'd like to see us add 2 solid SP'ers, a closer and decent set up man. That is just 4 guys, but they will not come cheaply.

To me, we look set at all of the everyday positions, but if Ref retires, we should trade a lefty bat (Abreu) for an equally good RF'er who bats RH'd.

 

[Bellhorn04]

11 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

Even with our pitching: I think we found out...

Houck should be viewed as a #3. 

Houck has a 3.3 bWAR and 3.6 fWAR.  Those are pretty much textbook solid #2 values.

About 2.0 is average, and a #3 is average.