Article: Red Sox President Sam Kennedy: "I Think We’re An Offseason Away"

[Alex Mayes]

Sam Kennedy recently sat down with MassLive's Sean McAdam and Chris Cotillo to answer questions regarding the most recent season and what to expect of the young core. Did he tip his hand in any fashion or offer up more excuses? 

Sam Kennedy made the second of his yearly appearances on MassLive’s The Fenway Rundown: Boston Red Sox Podcast with Sean McAdam and Chris Cotillo. Typically, Kennedy’s episodes are must-listen as he gives a tiny peek behind the curtains into the organization, and this one was no different. Kennedy gave some typical non-answers, but he usually feels more relaxed in this environment and is comfortable speaking with McAdam and Cotillo. Let’s look at three quotes from Kennedy that stood out to me and what they can mean as we have fully transitioned into the offseason.

Quote

“There is a feeling of missed opportunity, sort of what could have been had we performed better. Especially on the defensive side of the ball if we had stayed healthy.” 

This is a feeling that is shared by most fans as well. Kennedy indicates that the front office realizes that there was a chance to push for a playoff spot this year and that the defensive shortcomings played a large role in the team missing out on another year of playing baseball in October. Although Craig Breslow made some moves at the deadline, it was obvious that a right-handed infield bat would have been the move that probably would have pushed the team into that final playoff spot down the stretch in September. Trevor Story and Vaughn Grissom were still not with the club, and although Ceddanne Rafaela played mostly well at shortstop, there was still a huge hole in the middle of the infield, and adding a piece beyond Danny Jansen was necessary. Had another infield glove been added to the roster, maybe the error total wouldn’t have continued to climb, and the unearned runs from earlier in the season wouldn’t have helped sink the Red Sox as they pushed for the third Wild Card spot.

Quote

“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.”

For maybe the first time in a long time, I agree with Sam Kennedy. This answer was in response to Sean McAdam asking Kennedy, in his opinion, how far the Red Sox are from being where the front office wants them to be. I was surprised this question came as early in the interview as it did and equally as surprised at how quickly Kennedy said they were just an offseason away. With the team still in the mix during September after having two big pieces, Trevor Story and Triston Casas, still on the shelf after early season injuries it was encouraging to think about how close the Sox actually are to playing meaningful baseball all season again. With Roman Anthony, Kyle Teel, and Kristian Campbell all knocking on the door to the majors at the conclusion of the season, it’s not hard to visualize that an offseason of adding pitching and some glove-first infielders would do nothing but push this team over the final hump and into the postseason in 2025.

Quote

“We have three emerging starters in our rotation…We were thin in pitching. We need starting pitching. We need bullpen help.”

Once again, Kennedy and I agree wholeheartedly. While this feels like an obvious answer, I can’t recall anyone from the front office coming out and saying in no uncertain terms that while we had three starters who all took big steps forward the front office seems to realize that the easiest path to the postseason in 2025 is through adding at least one top of the rotation arm during the offseason. Lucas Giolito will be a welcome addition next season after he returns from Tommy John surgery, but shouldn’t be counted on to be the staff's ace. That ace needs to be added either to free agency or, preferably, through the trade market. There are teams that match up well with the Red Sox in terms of trade assets. Seattle seems to be the team most connected to the Red Sox due to their youth pitching movement but other teams would be interested in what the Red Sox have to offer for their young, controllable pitchers.

Sam Kennedy is often viewed as the ‘mouthpiece’ for the front office since John Henry doesn’t do interviews regularly anymore, and the fans tend to hold Kennedy’s feet a little closer to the fire every time he makes an appearance. To his credit, Kennedy seems to take that responsibility in stride and enjoys sitting down for these styles of interviews. Hopefully, these comments will come closer to fruition. Kennedy seems to be a bit more open than he has been in the recent past, so hopefully, the front office has noticed what the team needs and has been listening to a fanbase that has been growing increasingly vocal over the last three seasons. 

View full article

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

When I saw this quote I immediately wondered if Sam meant next offseason -- as in Winter of '25-26 -- since the Red Sox and their fans are already in this offseason... and he's "an offseason away" from this offseason.

[Duran Is The Man]

Just now, 5GoldGlovesOF,75 said:

When I saw this quote I immediately wondered if Sam meant next offseason -- as in Winter of '25-26 -- since the Red Sox and their fans are already in this offseason... and he's "an offseason away" from this offseason.

that's kinda what i was thinking...he didn't really say which offseason.

[Bellhorn04]

Another heapin' helpin' of ingratiating bafflegab.  Sam thinks they're not far way, and they're going to keep trying their darndest, and they're going to be aggressive and explore all avenues to improve, but they also have to stay smart and keep balancing the future with the present.

If Sam was being 100% honest he'd admit there's a very strong chance he's going to be saying the same things one year from now.     

An aggressive questioner unafraid to ask the tough ones would ask Sam why they did so little about the 2024 rotation, why all they did was swap Sale for Giolito and then sat on their hands when Giolito quickly bid arrivederci to the 2024 season!

[mvp 78]

After the past few offseasons, I'm not sure it matters what they tell the media. It only matters what they actually do prior to April. I'm not going to let the quotes inspire or deflate me. 

[Bellhorn04]

3 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

After the past few offseasons, I'm not sure it matters what they tell the media. It only matters what they actually do prior to April. I'm not going to let the quotes inspire or deflate me. 

Agreed.  At this point I feel like all I can do is derive a twisted sort of entertainment from their messaging shenanigans. 

[mvp 78]

14 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Agreed.  At this point I feel like all I can do is derive a twisted sort of entertainment from their messaging shenanigans. 

Even if John Henry came out and said "I don't care about the luxury tax, we're planning on the playoffs this year," I wouldn't get excited. Ever since the Mookie trade, they haven't shown me anything. Maybe since the Eovaldi/Sale extensions that were even perceived as a swing and a miss at the time. 

[Bellhorn04]

I think they have decided that a sort of watered-down "mea culpa" approach is the best they can do.  They're trying to give the impression they're being "accountable". 

The one thing they will not do is admit that the lowered budgets have hurt the team's chances.  Because that would be pointing the finger at JH.     

[moonslav59]

11 hours ago, 5GoldGlovesOF,75 said:

When I saw this quote I immediately wondered if Sam meant next offseason -- as in Winter of '25-26 -- since the Red Sox and their fans are already in this offseason... and he's "an offseason away" from this offseason.

I thought the same thing, but he foillowed it up with...

"I really believe we have the ingredients to take a run at this thing next year.”

To me, the meaning was clear: it's about this winter, but I'm taking it as a lie, until I see otherwise, in terms of actions taken.

 

[notin]

12 hours ago, Duran Is The Man said:

that's kinda what i was thinking...he didn't really say which offseason.

2039-2040 off-season.  I thought it was obvious…

[notin]

48 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

I thought the same thing, but he foillowed it up with...

"I really believe we have the ingredients to take a run at this thing next year.”

To me, the meaning was clear: it's about this winter, but I'm taking it as a lie, until I see otherwise, in terms of actions taken.

 

Until he added “this year we’re going FULL full throttle!!”

[notin]

1 hour ago, Bellhorn04 said:

I think they have decided that a sort of watered-down "mea culpa" approach is the best they can do.  They're trying to give the impression they're being "accountable". 

The one thing they will not do is admit that the lowered budgets have hurt the team's chances.  Because that would be pointing the finger at JH.     

Ok all of this was divulged prior to 2020 when they said they wanted to duplicate the Rays’ methods and start competing with a consistent pipeline of young talent that negated the need for eight-figure hired guns every year.  They even hired a Rays’ front office guy to get it going (possible subtle hint).

I think most of us didn’t want to believe it would take a few years to get the 29th/30th ranked farm system in place to do this, but in hindsight, this is clearly what happened…

[mvp 78]

The problem is that the mantra of the org has been to build sustainability. Craig Calcaterra had a take that I liked about it a few days ago:

 

"Yesterday Cubs general manager Jed Hoyer spoke to the press about the just-concluded season and the winter ahead. In the course of his comments he said something you hear from most baseball executives these days: ". . . The goal is to build something that's sustainable."

"Sustainable" in this context is almost always a euphemism for "we want to turn a nice profit with a roster that is not too expensive, but we don’t want to be so bad that we catch a lot of hell for it.” The word, often paired with the concept of “financial flexibility,” is almost always deployed as a means of dodging a direct question about payroll and its use strongly implies that the team doesn’t want to shoot for 100 wins or anything approaching dominance, because doing such a thing would be inefficient.

Sometimes it’s not just implied. Here was Mariners GM Jerry Dipoto, infamously stating that goal in explicit terms a little under a year ago:

"If you go back and you look in a decade, those teams that win 54% of the time always wind up in the postseason. And they, more often than not, wind up in the World Series. So there's your bigger picture process. Nobody wants to hear the goal this year is, 'We're going to win 54% of the time.' Because sometimes 54% is -- one year, you're going to win 60%, another year you're going to win 50%. It's whatever it is. But over time, that type of mindset gets you there ... If what you're doing is focusing year-to-year on, 'what do we have to do to win the World Series this year?' You might be one of the teams that's laying in the mud and can't get up for another decade."

He added, "We're actually doing the fanbase a favor in asking for their patience to win the World Series while we continue to build a sustainably good roster."

First off: do you think any fan actually thinks they’re being “done a favor” by being told by the team’s GM that he does not plan to go all-out in an effort to win? I sure as hell don’t. The Mariners have existed for pushing 50 years now and are the only team in baseball which has never been to the World Series. I feel like they’ve exercised plenty of patience by now, don’t you?

While most other executives are not stupid enough to explicitly say “we’re shooting for 87 wins and asking for more is unreasonable,” most of them basically behave that way. They do so by deploying that word Dipoto deployed last year and Hoyer did yesterday: “sustainable.”

The idea of sustainability, when a GM says it, is an exercise in expectation-reduction. It’s a means of conditioning fans not to expect anything more than just Wild Card contention. If they make it, great, we fulfilled expectations! If they fall short, hey, at least they continued to be financially prudent. These efforts at fan conditioning have been greatly aided by 20+ years of “Moneyball’s” influence which has convinced a great many in and around the game to equate wanting to aggressively improve a baseball team with stupidity or recklessness...

Whatever the current breed of baseball executive, their media surrogates, and a small core of sabermetrically or ownership-oriented fans want to believe, most fans just want to watch a winner. It doesn't even have to be every year. They just want the GM and everyone who works for him to f***ing try harder, to stop hiding behind quant-speak, and to make protecting the billionaire owner’s checkbook less of a priority. This is especially true for the Chicago Cubs who almost literally print money.

Most of us have to approach life in a sustainable manner because if we don’t we’re gonna go broke and be in deep s***. No professional sports team is in that boat and even if some claim otherwise, the Chicago Cubs sure as hell aren’t. So spare me, Jed Hoyer, about your and your ownership group's desire to turn a consistent, predictable profit. That’s not why anyone roots for the Cubs."

 

[Nick]

The biggest problem is they are willing to simply admit, "We tried, we really did, but the price,  whether in acquiring a free agent or trading for a player, the cost was too high."

[notin]

14 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

The problem is that the mantra of the org has been to build sustainability. Craig Calcaterra had a take that I liked about it a few days ago:

 

"Yesterday Cubs general manager Jed Hoyer spoke to the press about the just-concluded season and the winter ahead. In the course of his comments he said something you hear from most baseball executives these days: ". . . The goal is to build something that's sustainable."

"Sustainable" in this context is almost always a euphemism for "we want to turn a nice profit with a roster that is not too expensive, but we don’t want to be so bad that we catch a lot of hell for it.” The word, often paired with the concept of “financial flexibility,” is almost always deployed as a means of dodging a direct question about payroll and its use strongly implies that the team doesn’t want to shoot for 100 wins or anything approaching dominance, because doing such a thing would be inefficient.

Sometimes it’s not just implied. Here was Mariners GM Jerry Dipoto, infamously stating that goal in explicit terms a little under a year ago:

"If you go back and you look in a decade, those teams that win 54% of the time always wind up in the postseason. And they, more often than not, wind up in the World Series. So there's your bigger picture process. Nobody wants to hear the goal this year is, 'We're going to win 54% of the time.' Because sometimes 54% is -- one year, you're going to win 60%, another year you're going to win 50%. It's whatever it is. But over time, that type of mindset gets you there ... If what you're doing is focusing year-to-year on, 'what do we have to do to win the World Series this year?' You might be one of the teams that's laying in the mud and can't get up for another decade."

He added, "We're actually doing the fanbase a favor in asking for their patience to win the World Series while we continue to build a sustainably good roster."

First off: do you think any fan actually thinks they’re being “done a favor” by being told by the team’s GM that he does not plan to go all-out in an effort to win? I sure as hell don’t. The Mariners have existed for pushing 50 years now and are the only team in baseball which has never been to the World Series. I feel like they’ve exercised plenty of patience by now, don’t you?

While most other executives are not stupid enough to explicitly say “we’re shooting for 87 wins and asking for more is unreasonable,” most of them basically behave that way. They do so by deploying that word Dipoto deployed last year and Hoyer did yesterday: “sustainable.”

The idea of sustainability, when a GM says it, is an exercise in expectation-reduction. It’s a means of conditioning fans not to expect anything more than just Wild Card contention. If they make it, great, we fulfilled expectations! If they fall short, hey, at least they continued to be financially prudent. These efforts at fan conditioning have been greatly aided by 20+ years of “Moneyball’s” influence which has convinced a great many in and around the game to equate wanting to aggressively improve a baseball team with stupidity or recklessness...

Whatever the current breed of baseball executive, their media surrogates, and a small core of sabermetrically or ownership-oriented fans want to believe, most fans just want to watch a winner. It doesn't even have to be every year. They just want the GM and everyone who works for him to f***ing try harder, to stop hiding behind quant-speak, and to make protecting the billionaire owner’s checkbook less of a priority. This is especially true for the Chicago Cubs who almost literally print money.

Most of us have to approach life in a sustainable manner because if we don’t we’re gonna go broke and be in deep s***. No professional sports team is in that boat and even if some claim otherwise, the Chicago Cubs sure as hell aren’t. So spare me, Jed Hoyer, about your and your ownership group's desire to turn a consistent, predictable profit. That’s not why anyone roots for the Cubs."

 

“Sustainable” also means “don’t get attached to young superstars that refuse team-friendly, long term deals early on in their service time”…

[Maxbialystock]

2 hours ago, mvp 78 said:

After the past few offseasons, I'm not sure it matters what they tell the media. It only matters what they actually do prior to April. I'm not going to let the quotes inspire or deflate me. 

Agree.  Moonslav and others have cited specific players and available dollars to invest, trade for, whatever.  Others have chimed in.  So we have a pretty good idea--and a lot of opinions--about what must be done.  

What Sam Kennedy says in October is utterly meaningless.  

Nevertheless, I can't help commenting on the Kennedy's comment that the defense, affected by the injury to Trevor Story, is what let the Sox down.  This is absolute horsehockey because in fact Story did return in September and played absolutely superb defense for 18 games in which the Sox record was 8-10. 

I am not saying that defense makes no difference because I loved the way Story improved the infield defense.  But I am saying pitching and hitting were bigger problems this season.  And let's not forget that this was Story's 3d season with the Sox.  Two seasons ago, 2022, when Story played in 94 games, the Sox had a worse won-lost record.  More Story does not equate to more wins.  

By bringing up the defense and Story, Kennedy neatly bypassed the bigger reality that before the season began the Sox FO dumped Sale--and sent $17M with him to the Braves--and signed Giolito to a $19M x 2 contract.  Giolito, I hasten to add, showed some of the signs/symptoms that Sale showed in 2019.  Thanks to those two dumb moves, the actual Sox rotation--Pivetta, Houck, Crawford, Bello, Criswell, Winckowski, Whitlock, Fitts, et al--were paid less than the closer Jansen ($16M).  We also know that the FO did little to improve the bullpen.  But they did bring in Bailey, and he was enough to actually improve the Sox pitching in 2024.  

 

[mvp 78]

58 minutes ago, notin said:

“Sustainable” also means “don’t get attached to young superstars that refuse team-friendly, long term deals early on in their service time”…

"We can't afford it even though the ticket prices are high, we own the entire neighborhood around the stadium for development, are raking in the dough, own the tv station, etc." 

It's just frustrating. I can see letting some talent because you can't keep everyone. However, when you have franchise changing players like Mookie, it's just beyond belief that you are unable to let that guy walk out the door. Will they let the next one do the same thing over $$$?

[mvp 78]

8 minutes ago, Maxbialystock said:

Agree.  Moonslav and others have cited specific players and available dollars to invest, trade for, whatever.  Others have chimed in.  So we have a pretty good idea--and a lot of opinions--about what must be done.  

What Sam Kennedy says in October is utterly meaningless.  

Nevertheless, I can't help commenting on the Kennedy's comment that the defense, affected by the injury to Trevor Story, is what let the Sox down.  This is absolute horsehockey because in fact Story did return in September and played absolutely superb defense for 18 games in which the Sox record was 8-10. 

I am not saying that defense makes no difference because I loved the way Story improved the infield defense.  But I am saying pitching and hitting were bigger problems this season.  And let's not forget that this was Story's 3d season with the Sox.  Two seasons ago, 2022, when Story played in 94 games, the Sox had a worse won-lost record.  More Story does not equate to more wins.  

By bringing up the defense and Story, Kennedy neatly bypassed the bigger reality that before the season began the Sox FO dumped Sale--and sent $17M with him to the Braves--and signed Giolito to a $19M x 2 contract.  Giolito, I hasten to add, showed some of the signs/symptoms that Sale showed in 2019.  Thanks to those two dumb moves, the actual Sox rotation--Pivetta, Houck, Crawford, Bello, Criswell, Winckowski, Whitlock, Fitts, et al--were paid less than the closer Jansen ($16M).  We also know that the FO did little to improve the bullpen.  But they did bring in Bailey, and he was enough to actually improve the Sox pitching in 2024.  

 

To me, putting the emphasis on defense shows that they believe there is a cheap way to fix this team. I don't think there is. 

[moonslav59]

I think it took longer to build up the farm that many felt it would, and we still have a hole in the pitching side of the farm. Bello, Crawford, Houck and others are better than we've seen in a while, but still not enough.

With a few decent to good pitchers now on the 26, and a solid 13 everyday players with depth, I think we can say we have reached a "sustainable" level, but only if we add a few key pieces, namely pitchers, and here is where JH and Brez need to step in.

[mvp 78]

If sustainable is .500, sure. They can be consistently mediocre and make lots of money. Good for them? 

[Maxbialystock]

39 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

To me, putting the emphasis on defense shows that they believe there is a cheap way to fix this team. I don't think there is. 

Agree defense is cheap and that just maybe they are looking for cheap solutions.  

On the other hand--and thanks to talksox and all the insights here--we know that the Sox badly need pitching, especially starters, and probably some righty bats.  Thanks to you and moonslav and others, we also know that the Sox will have a lot of "under control" talent for trade bait this winter.  

As I've already said on this thread, the Fenway attendance--after throwing out 2020 and 2021, both of which were affected by covid--has dropped by 4,000/game for 3 straight seasons.  If we assume 4,000 x 81 games x $100, that's $32M less income, which might also be matched by TV and internet (mlb.com) revenues. 

Of course, we also know that Sox fans can be just plain stupid.  Easily the worst Sox team in the JH era was the 2012 Sox, who finished 69-93.  Their average attendance was 37,567.  The year before 2011, they also failed to make the postseason, and their average attendance was 37,703.  

 

 

 

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

54 minutes ago, Maxbialystock said:

 

What Sam Kennedy says in October is utterly meaningless. 

 

What Sam Kennedy says in October is utterly meaningless (that's what I'm posting about...)

And his last two young genius CBOs both have stuttered from the moments of their hirings.

Whenever they tried to sign or make trades for good pitchers, the only thing stainable was their boxers.

Dombrowski never has such worries, because he attends the Winter Meetings commando.

 

[Duran Is The Man]

2 hours ago, notin said:

2039-2040 off-season.  I thought it was obvious…

   

is that right after a 90 year old Henry croaks and new ownership takes over?

[notin]

3 minutes ago, Duran Is The Man said:

   

is that right after a 90 year old Henry croaks and new ownership takes over?

Well, it’s when Henry’s pact with Satan expires, if thats what you are referring to…

[mvp 78]

1 minute ago, notin said:

Well, it’s when Henry’s pact with Satan expires, if thats what you are referring to…

My ouija board said they held mutual options through 2080. 🧛‍♂️

[Duran Is The Man]

6 minutes ago, notin said:

Well, it’s when Henry’s pact with Satan expires, if thats what you are referring to…

[moonslav59]

Fixing the defense is a loaded term. It could involve hurting the offense by making changes to help the defense. It can mean moving current players around without changing the offense. It can mean adding external player and replacing who we have, with or without hurting the offense.

I just don't see us adding a player from another team, to help the defense without hurting the offense. What position? Catcher seems like our weakest defensive position, but Wong was one of the best offensive catchers in MLB, this year, and we have who looks like an all-around player in Teel, just about ML ready. So, maybe a one year fix at catcher, who may or may not be a step down from Wong. (We also have to look at how badly McGuire did and Jansen not all that good on O.)

The return of Story has to be viewed as the centerpiece to defensive improvement. We aren't adding another SS, like Adames. Maybe Mayer plays, some, and he is not supposed to be bad on defense, so our SS position should improve. Keeping DHam at 2B only helps, too, especially since Grissom is a question mark on D, at best, and sucks at worst. Mayer or campbell can't be any worse than E Valdez, our leader in 2B innings, this year. Moving Rafaela to FT OF or 4th OF'er status should help the OF defense, which was already very good. Less innings from O'Neill and Ref, and more from rafaela and Anthony looks like an improvement.

That leaves corner IF, which was the worst in MLB, last year, combined and maybe close to one-by-one. We've beaten the idea of moving Devers to 1B or 1B/DH combo with Casas, but it's hard to imagine that happening, this winter. Keeping Devers and Casas healthy might be a bi-product of that choice, and I'm not so sure it would hurt the offense by DH'ing Casas and or Devers, and batting Campbell or Mayer over Yoshida. There has been the suggestion of playing Grissom at 3B (not 2B) and using Campbell at 2B, but I'm not sure than improves the offense as much as having Story, Campbell and Mayer play middle IF and 3B. (DHam could platoon at 2B, if a righty bat struggles vs RHPs.)

I kinda like this defense:

C: ___ (one year FA or trade___ & Wong (Teel in July?)

1B: Devers (Casas, when Devers "rests" at DH)

2B: Campbell or Mayer (Grissom-DHam platoon)

SS: Story (Mayer)

3B: Mayer or Campbell (Grissom vs LHPs with Campbell at 2B?)

LF: Duran

CF: Anthony/ Rafaela (*Rafaela and Abreu platoon)

RF: Abreu*/Anthony

DH: Casas/Devers combo (Refsnyder-Abreu platoon)

The offense is no worse than it looks, now.

 

 

[TheSplinteredSplendor]

It's awful.

The Sox should be competing for first place, not battling to stay out of the cellar.

[Maxbialystock]

19 minutes ago, TheSplinteredSplendor said:

It's awful.

The Sox should be competing for first place, not battling to stay out of the cellar.

I'm not disposed to defend JH, but on the other hand it's worth noting the following--

1.  We know our front office are idiots because they demonstrated it in the last postseason when they dumped Sale and $17M to the Braves and brought in Giolito for $18M x 2.  

2. Kennedy and company  aren't the only dummies out there.  The Mets, for example, spent $318M (to our $190M) to get 8 more wins--89 vs our 81.  And the Astros spent $255M to get 7 more wins.  The Braves, who outsmarted us on the Sale deal, spent $236M to get 8 more wins.   The Rangers, Jays, and Giants all had bigger payrolls and fewer wins than the Sox, and we know the Sox were stupid.  

3. Meanwhile, the Padres spent $18M less than the Sox and won 12 more games, the Mariners $42M less with 4 more wins, the Royals $67M less with 5 more wins, the Orioles $80M less with 10 more wins, the Guardians $83M less with 11 more wins, and the Tigers $91M less with 5 more wins.  Oh, and the Rays spent $101M less than the Sox and had 1 fewer wins.  

 

[dgalehouse]

" Sustainability " is just a buzzword to keep the suckers hooked. Of course you need a steady supply of young talent . But you should not have to hit rock bottom for a few years to get the high draft picks to do it.  And you should not let your best players get away because you feel you are " not ready" yet. The Sox are/were a big time franchise.  They should not be operating this way.