A Realistic View of the 2025 Red Sox: Part I

[notin]

38 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

All of these guys would interest almost every team.

What are you getting at?

The better players you prefer the Sox deal from.  No one, for example, listed Braden Montgomery or Chase Medroith.   Are they more favorable trade chips?

[Old Red]

1 minute ago, mvp 78 said:

I would consider trading anyone for the right trade. The hardest pieces to deal would be Anthony and Houck, but everyone else would be available IMO.

Never Devers, or Devers Forever? How about this one?

[Bellhorn04]

4 minutes ago, Old Red said:

Never Devers, or Devers Forever? How about this one?

That'd be another salary dump.  If they trade Devers it's a really bad sign for where things are headed.

But there's no chance of it happening except here in Wheeler Dealer Fantasy World.

 

[Old Red]

2 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

That'd be another salary dump.  If they trade Devers it's a really bad sign for where things are headed.

But there's no chance of it happening except here in Wheeler Dealer Fantasy World.

 

Just throwing something wild out there.

[mvp 78]

20 minutes ago, Old Red said:

Never Devers, or Devers Forever? How about this one?

I'd trade Devers, but it's a very big contract that many teams would not be able to take on.

[mvp 78]

23 minutes ago, notin said:

The better players you prefer the Sox deal from.  No one, for example, listed Braden Montgomery or Chase Medroith.   Are they more favorable trade chips?

Meidroth just has limited trade value IMO. Montgomery has no professional appearances so I don't know how good he is and can't speculate on where his trade value lies. 

[moonslav59]

1 hour ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Right, but what I'm saying is Betts wasn't traded until February, and I think if they had started shopping him, right after the season we would have known about it.

Soto was traded in the first week of December.

I think they started "shopping" Betts as soon as the settled on a new GM and had their big strategy talks, which was mostly about how to we make massive slashes to the budget.

I don't see waiting until February as evidence of indecision. I think they were trying to do better than the measly off the Dodgers gave, but the found none.

The Price aspect of the trade was the kicker.

[Maxbialystock]

3 hours ago, Bellhorn04 said:

And the Red Sox traded their best player one other time recently when they traded Betts.

That was a disaster.

There's a whole spectrum of outcomes.  San Diego got a phenomenal return for Soto as it turns out, but I don't think it's the norm.

 

 

 

All due respect because you in fact have better insights than I do, but that is utter horsehockey.  Betts went to the Dodgers because they could afford the contract he was going to insist upon and the Sox could not.  

You and others keep forgetting --so I have to keep reminding you--that in 2019 the Sox already had the biggest payroll in MLB.  And, if they simply wanted to maintain the status quo, they were going to have to increase Mookie's salary (then $20M) by at least $10M--and for a long time--and find and offer big contracts to two first line starters to replace Price and Sale while also continuing to pay Price and Sale's existing big contracts.  

Two years later, the Sox still had the 5th highest payroll in MLB without having the services of Betts, Price, or Sale--and of course without having two first line starters to replace Price and Sale.  

On the other hand, we also know that for three straight seasons--2022, 2023, and 2024--the Sox attendance has averaged about 32,600 per game, which is about 4,000 to 5,000 less per game than 2003 through 2019.  It's possible Sox fans stayed away from Fenway because of Mookie's absence.  

On the other hand, one can argue that Sox fans, especially those spending major bucks to go to games at Fenway, are just ignorant.  In 2012 when the Sox had an absolutely miserable team that finished 69-93, average attendance was 37,567.   The next year when the Sox won the AL East and then the WS, the average attendance dropped 2,600 to 34,972.  

[Old Red]

20 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

I think they started "shopping" Betts as soon as the settled on a new GM and had their big strategy talks, which was mostly about how to we make massive slashes to the budget.

I don't see waiting until February as evidence of indecision. I think they were trying to do better than the measly off the Dodgers gave, but the found none.

The Price aspect of the trade was the kicker.

Bloom was hired in October, so waiting to Feb says something. What I don’t know, but there was reports out there that Bloom wasn’t told he had to trade Betts. Knowing Bloom’s track record now maybe this was where Bloom looking for that third option in the fork in the road all started.

[Bellhorn04]

24 minutes ago, Maxbialystock said:

All due respect because you in fact have better insights than I do, but that is utter horsehockey.  Betts went to the Dodgers because they could afford the contract he was going to insist upon and the Sox could not.

Well, they did *reportedly* offer Betts 10 years and 300 million.

You don't think they could have managed an additional 2 years and 65 million?

I'm calling horsehockey right back at ya.   

[Bellhorn04]

21 minutes ago, Old Red said:

Bloom was hired in October, so waiting to Feb says something. What I don’t know, but there was reports out there that Bloom wasn’t told he had to trade Betts. Knowing Bloom’s track record now maybe this was where Bloom looking for that third option in the fork in the road all started.

Actually, now that you mention it, I think Bloom made a public statement in December/19 to the effect that he was assuming Betts would be with the Red Sox in 2020.

I remember 700hitter being livid because he thought Bloom had lied to season ticket buyers about Betts.

Maybe the delay had something to do with that.  

[dgalehouse]

  I don't think we will ever know the exact circumstances of the Mookie trade.  Did John Henry order Bloom to trade Mookie or did he just tell him to cut costs , and Bloom decided that was how to do it ?  Henry would know the answer, but he is not talking.  Also, I don't recall even a rumor in 2019 that Dombrowski was tying to trade Mookie. That is something that has only been claimed lately. I don't know that there is any evidence of it.

[notin]

8 minutes ago, dgalehouse said:

  I don't think we will ever know the exact circumstances of the Mookie trade.  Did John Henry order Bloom to trade Mookie or did he just tell him to cut costs , and Bloom decided that was how to do it ?  Henry would know the answer, but he is not talking.  Also, I don't recall even a rumor in 2019 that Dombrowski was tying to trade Mookie. That is something that has only been claimed lately. I don't know that there is any evidence of it.

https://www.nbcsportsboston.com/mlb/boston-red-sox/dave-dombrowski-nearly-traded-mookie-betts-to-the-dodgers-last-season/397746/

 

This story says no return was known, although I’ve heard other rumors that the deal was to be for catcher Will Smith.

 

Either way, it does say DD broke off talks after a winning streak, which is a very understandable move on DD’s part.  Trying to win should be the priority…

[Old Red]

5 minutes ago, dgalehouse said:

  I don't think we will ever know the exact circumstances of the Mookie trade.  Did John Henry order Bloom to trade Mookie or did he just tell him to cut costs , and Bloom decided that was how to do it ?  Henry would know the answer, but he is not talking.  Also, I don't recall even a rumor in 2019 that Dombrowski was tying to trade Mookie. That is something that has only been claimed lately. I don't know that there is any evidence of it.

Agree, and like I said the other day that we as fans may never know the whole story, and only know that Mookie is gone. What was Mookie offered, and did Mookie really want to stay in Boston.

[dgalehouse]

Most would agree that the Sox have a perennial need for pitching.  But any time someone suggests that they focus more on drafting good college pitchers, they are shouted down with the old " best player available " line.  Followed by stating that these types can always be traded for pitching at a later date. Well, here we are. 

[notin]

8 minutes ago, dgalehouse said:

Most would agree that the Sox have a perennial need for pitching.  But any time someone suggests that they focus more on drafting good college pitchers, they are shouted down with the old " best player available " line.  Followed by stating that these types can always be traded for pitching at a later date. Well, here we are. 

I definitely would say always go “best player.”  The MLB draft is far and away the biggest crapshoot of all professional drafts that it’s easier to find a developed pitcher in another system and use your chips to land him, just like the Sox did with Priester.  You’re better off having lots of prospects than hoping certain ones work out.

And taking best player available doesn’t mean “never take pitching;” there are plenty of times the best player available is a pitcher…

[notin]

45 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Well, they did *reportedly* offer Betts 10 years and 300 million.

You don't think they could have managed an additional 2 years and 65 million?

I'm calling horsehockey right back at ya.   

The logic here is that $65mill is inconsequential pocket change?

Teams move players making $5mill to cut costs and turn down deals for players making less for financial reasons.

Boston certainly was a team that operated in the financial stratosphere at one time, but that doesn’t mean $65mill was ever just thrown around haphazardly…

[Bellhorn04]

14 minutes ago, notin said:

The logic here is that $65mill is inconsequential pocket change?

Teams move players making $5mill to cut costs and turn down deals for players making less for financial reasons.

Boston certainly was a team that operated in the financial stratosphere at one time, but that doesn’t mean $65mill was ever just thrown around haphazardly…

"Financial reasons" covers an awful lot of ground.  No one disputes that money is the driver in most transactions. 

But we're talking about whether the Red Sox could have *afforded* a $365 million contract for Betts, and I don't see how that can be disputed.

It's much more reasonable to assume that they balked at going higher not because of financial limitations but because of the limits they placed on his value.   

Max talks like we're Sisters of the Poor compared to the Dodgers.  But last I checked the Sox franchise was worth only marginally less than the Dodgers.   

[notin]

29 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

"Financial reasons" covers an awful lot of ground.  No one disputes that money is the driver in most transactions. 

But we're talking about whether the Red Sox could have *afforded* a $365 million contract for Betts, and I don't see how that can be disputed.

It's much more reasonable to assume that they balked at going higher not because of financial limitations but because of the limits they placed on his value.   

Max talks like we're Sisters of the Poor compared to the Dodgers.  But last I checked the Sox franchise was worth only marginally less than the Dodgers.   

Obviously they pay and play at a high level.  If the stories at the time were accurate, Betts’ side was talking about $400million (plus?).  That’s an even more substantial demand.

 

Of course this was all back when the Sox had a three year cycle of pay-pay-reset, and I think luxury tax payments were a bigger factor than fans generally prefer.

[Randy Red Sox]

12 hours ago, notin said:

If we go back 3 years, wasn’t Iglesias pasty of those worst middle infield combos?

But of all the players the Sox have failed to retain, I think Iglesias is the one I’ll lose the least sleep over.  One area in which I thought the Sox were ok was utility infielder…

that is because almost all their infielders including their regular infielders save the part time one are like utility infielders

[moonslav59]

2 hours ago, Bellhorn04 said:

 

But we're talking about whether the Red Sox could have *afforded* a $365 million contract for Betts, and I don't see how that can be disputed.

 

Of course, JH can "afford" anybody, but the 2020 budget cannot be disputed, either.

Had we kept Betts, we'd have had to find a full-Price taker plus someone else to trade, like maybe $JD at $15M a year plus Beni and others.

[moonslav59]

“I think we’re an offseason away, I really do. I mean, I really believe we have the ingredients to take a run at this thing next year.”

-Sam "the man" Kennedy

Anyone know what this translates to?

A or B?

A. "Budget cuts on the way?"

B. "Our internal options are ready to fill all our needs."

[notin]

2 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

“I think we’re an offseason away, I really do. I mean, I really believe we have the ingredients to take a run at this thing next year.”

-Sam "the man" Kennedy

Anyone know what this translates to?

A or B?

A. "Budget cuts on the way?"

B. "Our internal options are ready to fill all our needs."

Can’t it be both?

[moonslav59]

41 minutes ago, notin said:

Can’t it be both?

Yes, I shoulda had a C. All of the above

[moonslav59]

Ian Browne wrote an article asking 5 Qs on the Sox winter needs.

1. Will they get an ace? "An ace can change the confidence level of the club."

2.  How to improve the defense? The "quickest solution" is for Story to play a full season, but also this..."Will Devers be asked to move off 3B?"

3. Can they balance out the lineup? "Look for the Sox to go after two right-handed bats." (Bregman, Adames, Teoscar were named, along with O'Neill.)

4. Is Roman Anthony ready to make the club on Opening Day? "There are a lot of moving parts Breslow has to consider."

5. Will Whitlock move back to the pen? "The guess here is the Whitlock will move back to the pen... Whitlock expressed an openness to do whatever the medical staff thinks will keep him the healthiest."

[moonslav59]

notin, I went to BTV and can't see how you can see player values without paying.

What am I missing?

[moonslav59]

Would the Sox and Rays agree to this trade?

5 years of Abreu + Wikelman or Murphy

for

Pete Fairbanks RHP  ($3.7M in '25 w $7M option for '26 w $1M buyout.)

Colin Poche LHP (3rd arb '25)

 

[notin]

10 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

notin, I went to BTV and can't see how you can see player values without paying.

What am I missing?

Use the search on the boards…

[Bellhorn04]

14 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

Of course, JH can "afford" anybody, but the 2020 budget cannot be disputed, either.

Had we kept Betts, we'd have had to find a full-Price taker plus someone else to trade, like maybe $JD at $15M a year plus Beni and others.

No one can dispute what actually happened, that's Captain Obvious!  Not the point!

The dispute can only be about why it happened.  My dispute is with Max's take, which is essentially that Betts had to be traded because the Red Sox can't compete financially with the Dodgers.  Here's what he said: 

Betts went to the Dodgers because they could afford the contract he was going to insist upon and the Sox could not.  

[moonslav59]

18 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

No one can dispute what actually happened, that's Captain Obvious!  Not the point!

The dispute can only be about why it happened.  My dispute is with Max's take, which is essentially that Betts had to be traded because the Red Sox can't compete financially with the Dodgers.  Here's what he said: 

Betts went to the Dodgers because they could afford the contract he was going to insist upon and the Sox could not.  

I was talking to the point about the "indecisiveness" of the choice made comment, namely because we waited until February. While I do think Bloom was kicking around various scenarios of trades, I think the "why" is as clear as day: to meet the budget set by JH.

I think Max was right: he knew we could not afford Betts, or if we did try to do it, we'd have had to gut much of the supporting cast as we ended up doing, even with trading Betts w half-Price. We also lost Porcello's contract and a few small to moderate ones, too- replacing all these guys with Martin Perez and scrubs.

It was a total tear down that was made even worse by ERod missing 2020 and Sale missing almost all of 2020-2022 or 2023.

Remember, we never replace Kimbrel & Kelly, the winter before,. That was just the beginning, as we followed up by letting Beni, JD, ERod, Nate, Bogey and others go, in subsequent years. If that is not proof of the "why," what is?

It was obviously about the money. What is the alternative theory?

Some quotes about there being not set budget or that Betts was going to return? Like, all of a sudden, we are taking their word as truth? If anything, their word should show the opposite, as we've learned since the trade.