Kristian Campbell Agrees To Eight-Year Extension With Red Sox

[TheSplinteredSplendor]

18 hours ago, Kimmi said:

They can put together great teams without handing out monster contracts.

So you would rather the owners pocket the money rather than spending it on the team?

[notin]

19 minutes ago, TheSplinteredSplendor said:

So you would rather the owners pocket the money rather than spending it on the team?

Yes.

If you believe spending = winning, then it’s not justifiable to the sport to allow unequal levels of spending that can ruin competition.  
 

What do you prefer in a front office?  The ability to assess talent and recognize underutilized players around the league in order keep a semi-constant pipeline of players coming to Fenway as needed, whether they’re prospects or free agents?  Or the ability to negotiate better TV deals and find new revenue streams?

 

[TheSplinteredSplendor]

1 minute ago, notin said:

Yes.

If you believe spending = winning, then it’s not justifiable to the sport to allow unequal levels of spending that can ruin competition.  
 

What do you prefer in a front office?  The ability to assess talent and recognize underutilized players around the league in order keep a semi-constant pipeline of players coming to Fenway as needed, whether they’re prospects or free agents?  Or the ability to negotiate better TV deals and find new revenue streams?

 

I prefer a combination of both

[notin]

10 minutes ago, TheSplinteredSplendor said:

I prefer a combination of both

Ignoring practical applications and keeping it hypothetical with ONE choice…

 

 

[moonslav59]

2 hours ago, TheSplinteredSplendor said:

So you would rather the owners pocket the money rather than spending it on the team?

It's the "American way."

Are you some kinda commie? (LOL)

[Kimmi]

On 5/2/2025 at 8:28 PM, moonslav59 said:

Not every team "can." There are only so many bargain deals out there.

It takes a lot of planning and it begins with a strong farm system.

[Kimmi]

On 5/3/2025 at 10:51 AM, TheSplinteredSplendor said:

So you would rather the owners pocket the money rather than spending it on the team?

No, I would rather the owners not hand out monster contracts, and by 'monster', I'm speaking more about the number of years than the dollar amount.  Forty million a year for Bregman is way too much, IMO, but the saving grace of that contract is that it's only for 3 years.  I'd rather see that than see a 10 year deal with an AAV of $30M.

The Red Sox owners are not cheapskates, despite the popular opinion of fans.

[Kimmi]

On 5/3/2025 at 11:15 AM, notin said:

Yes.

If you believe spending = winning, then it’s not justifiable to the sport to allow unequal levels of spending that can ruin competition.  
 

What do you prefer in a front office?  The ability to assess talent and recognize underutilized players around the league in order keep a semi-constant pipeline of players coming to Fenway as needed, whether they’re prospects or free agents?  Or the ability to negotiate better TV deals and find new revenue streams?

 

Well said, Notin.

[TheSplinteredSplendor]

1 hour ago, Kimmi said:

No, I would rather the owners not hand out monster contracts, and by 'monster', I'm speaking more about the number of years than the dollar amount.  Forty million a year for Bregman is way too much, IMO, but the saving grace of that contract is that it's only for 3 years.  I'd rather see that than see a 10 year deal with an AAV of $30M.

The Red Sox owners are not cheapskates, despite the popular opinion of fans.

Then you will miss out on most of the best free agents........

[moonslav59]

22 minutes ago, TheSplinteredSplendor said:

Then you will miss out on most of the best free agents........

Maybe. Many of the most expensive FAs end up sucking or doing worse than cheaper ones.

We didn't miss out on Price. Yip-Eee!

[TheSplinteredSplendor]

11 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

Maybe. Many of the most expensive FAs end up sucking or doing worse than cheaper ones.

We didn't miss out on Price. Yip-Eee!

How many teams have we seen win it all without a few high priced additions?

[moonslav59]

1 hour ago, TheSplinteredSplendor said:

How many teams have we seen win it all without a few high priced additions?

Many- practically all.

I'm not arguing against targeted big spending. We don't win without Manny and maybe Lackey & JD.

Despite the feeling of JH turning miser, he did spend more than half of MLB after 2018, and what did it get him? We paid Devers almost 50% more than the previous record contract for the Sox (not a FA, I know.) We did spend rather largely on Story and Yoshida, and neither helped.

I went over the top 50 FA signings o fall time, a while back and found more than half we not a plus for the team or fell way short of expectations. It's a very hit or miss endeavor, but to me, it is necessary. As much as the Price signing did not work out as we hoped, we need an ace, and could not afford trading for one. I was all for it.

To be honest, I think we spent enough, this past winter. I wish we had added Scott, or even signed him over Buehler, but look at all our rotation injuries. It looks like a second major addition to the rotation was needed, even if Buehler does not work out.

I'm a tweener on this issue. As much as I want JH to spend more, and more and more, I can understand it's the American way to maximize profits. I also think there is a pride aspect to spending large, often. An owner/GM look better when they a team wins when not being a top 3-5 spender (just my opinion, there.)

I think we'd look like a sure playoff team had we signed Scott, and he's not really a top MLB FA signings- like Soto, Fried or Bregman were.

I see our team as being loaded with young and inexpensive talent, and we were rip for targeted big spending on our high need areas. To me, the closer and top set up roles were high on the priority list. We missed the boat, but I'm not complaining about how "little" we spent, this particular winter.

[notin]

I don’t like the argument “if you don’t give it to the players, the owners get it.”  First of all, isnt that essentially what happens in EVERY BUSINESS? I don’t know a single company where the factory workers or lowest level production employees - the folks actually doing the work - get paid more than the CEO.  Possibly not even collectively.

But more important, ownership is going to get paid regardless of what players make.  

So do mega contracts drive up ticket prices? I know there are arguments that say they don’t.  But let’s get real.  They aren’t the primary factor, but on some level, they do enter the equation.  Player salaries are a huge expense, and not one owners are willing to overlook, which I base on the fact that owners are extremely wealthy and you don’t get/stay that way by overlooking huge expenses.  Safe bet they all have plans to recoup that expense somehow, and it won’t be a government bailout…

[Bellhorn04]

36 minutes ago, notin said:

I don’t like the argument “if you don’t give it to the players, the owners get it.”  First of all, isnt that essentially what happens in EVERY BUSINESS? I don’t know a single company where the factory workers or lowest level production employees - the folks actually doing the work - get paid more than the CEO.  Possibly not even collectively.

But more important, ownership is going to get paid regardless of what players make.  

You're getting some stuff jumbled up here.  CEO's are not necessarily owners.  Sam Kennedy is the CEO of the Red Sox.  I don't think his salary as CEO is higher than Rafael Devers's salary.  Kennedy does have an ownership stake now, but that happened after he became CEO.

So yeah, factory workers don't get paid more than the CEO, but some baseball players certainly do, so it's not a great analogy.

To the larger point, the relationship among owners, players and fans is an interdependent one.  They all need each other.  The money flows from the fans to the owners to the players.  If fans are disenchanted with the team's performance and think owners are profiteering at the expense of the team, the best case scenario is they're going to gripe about it, the worst is they're going to lose interest.

Here at Talksox we tend to just stick with the griping...

[notin]

21 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

You're getting some stuff jumbled up here.  CEO's are not necessarily owners.  Sam Kennedy is the CEO of the Red Sox.  I don't think his salary as CEO is higher than Rafael Devers's salary.  Kennedy does have an ownership stake now, but that happened after he became CEO.

So yeah, factory workers don't get paid more than the CEO, but some baseball players certainly do, so it's not a great analogy.

To the larger point, the relationship among owners, players and fans is an interdependent one.  They all need each other.  The money flows from the fans to the owners to the players.  If fans are disenchanted with the team's performance and think owners are profiteering at the expense of the team, the best case scenario is they're going to gripe about it, the worst is they're going to lose interest.

Here at Talksox we tend to just stick with the griping...

I think you’re getting to worked up in the minutiae and missing the point…

[Bellhorn04]

1 hour ago, notin said:

I think you’re getting to worked up in the minutiae and missing the point…

So what is your point, exactly?  That owners like profits and salaries impact profits? I think we already know that.  Not really sure what it is that you're trying to illuminate for us.   

"Ownership is going to get paid regardless of what players make?"  What the hell does that mean?  Steve Cohen has taken operating losses on the Mets.  He can afford to because he's worth over $20 billion.  Attitudes toward chasing rings and chasing wealth vary from one owner to the next.  

 

  

  

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

1 hour ago, Bellhorn04 said:

To the larger point, the relationship among owners, players and fans is an interdependent one.  They all need each other.  The money flows from the fans to the owners to the players.  If fans are disenchanted with the team's performance and think owners are profiteering at the expense of the team, the best case scenario is they're going to gripe about it, the worst is they're going to lose interest.

Here at Talksox we tend to just stick with the griping...

... but at least we still care enough to gripe daily. What happens to the Nation if we become casual fans?

Those from a few decades ago who just smoked pot and watched MTV never came back. Now, they're water colors.

[notin]

25 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

So what is your point, exactly?  That owners like profits and salaries impact profits? I think we already know that.  Not really sure what it is that you're trying to illuminate for us.   

"Ownership is going to get paid regardless of what players make?"  What the hell does that mean?  

  

  

The point was that MLB is the rarity in that the lower level employees do make more money than management.  So citing the MLBPA talking point that “if the players don’t get the money, owners do” is not some sort of egregious anomaly.

And what owners have to pay out to players will be recouped one way or another.  Fans are certainly a source for recouping this expense…

[Bellhorn04]

4 minutes ago, notin said:

The point was that MLB is the rarity in that the lower level employees do make more money than management.  So citing the MLBPA talking point that “if the players don’t get the money, owners do” is not some sort of egregious anomaly.

And what owners have to pay out to players will be recouped one way or another.  Fans are certainly a source for recouping this expense…

Steve Cohen has taken some large operating losses on the Mets.  He can afford to because he's worth over $20 billion.  

But you're not really guaranteed not to lose money. 

[Kimmi]

19 hours ago, TheSplinteredSplendor said:

Then you will miss out on most of the best free agents........

I understand that, and I'm good with that. 

I can get behind a Kristian Campbell just as easily, and even more so, as I can get behind a Shohei Ohtani.

[Bellhorn04]

I just want to win.  However they do it is fine.  But the Red Sox have definitely had some well-paid free agents figure in their 4 titles this century. 

[Larry Cook]

Campbell back in the lineup today and hitting 4th???? Looks like Cora is ready to try something new. 

[TheSplinteredSplendor]

2 hours ago, Kimmi said:

I understand that, and I'm good with that. 

I can get behind a Kristian Campbell just as easily, and even more so, as I can get behind a Shohei Ohtani.

But, will it lead to rings is the point.

[TheSplinteredSplendor]

8 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

Many- practically all.

Nonsense.

Go back over the last 25yrs or so and tell me how many teams that didn't spend big that won it all.

Some may have been spending big to retain their own players instead of free agents, but not many teams have won it all without spending.

[moonslav59]

Sorry. I misread your Q. I meant the opposite. Many- practically all won with a high priced FA or more on the roster, including the Sox.

My bad.

[Kimmi]

22 hours ago, Bellhorn04 said:

I just want to win.  However they do it is fine.  But the Red Sox have definitely had some well-paid free agents figure in their 4 titles this century. 

Agree with this.  I just want to win regardless of how the team is put together.

That said, I think many will agree with me when I say that watching our home grown players succeed is more rewarding than watching expensive free agents succeed.  I can even say the same about watching second tier free agents succeed over expensive superstars.  

[Kimmi]

21 hours ago, TheSplinteredSplendor said:

But, will it lead to rings is the point.

If it's done correctly, absolutely.  Having a huge payroll is more likely to consistently get a team into the playoffs, I can't argue that.  However, it's not more likely to give you a ring once you're in the playoffs.  

Granted, you have to get to the playoffs first.  But yes, absolutely a team can get to the playoffs without signing expensive superstars.  Once in the playoffs, it's largely a crapshoot.

[TheSplinteredSplendor]

9 minutes ago, Kimmi said:

If it's done correctly, absolutely.  Having a huge payroll is more likely to consistently get a team into the playoffs, I can't argue that.  However, it's not more likely to give you a ring once you're in the playoffs.  

Granted, you have to get to the playoffs first.  But yes, absolutely a team can get to the playoffs without signing expensive superstars.  Once in the playoffs, it's largely a crapshoot.

Sounds good, but it's not reality. This doesn't include last year, but that only adds to the point.

• In the wild card era (1995-present), 26 of the 29 teams to win a World Series ranked in the top half of MLB in opening day payroll.
• In the same time frame, 20 of the 29 World Series champions ranked in the top 10 in opening day pay payroll.
• Only three World Series champions—the 2017 Astros, 2015 Royals and 2003 Marlins—ranked in the bottom half of MLB in opening day payroll. The 2017 Astros (Justin Verlander) and 2015 Royals (Johnny Cueto, Ben Zobrist) both made midseason trades that put them into the top half of payroll by the end of the season.
• Only one team, the 2003 Marlins, won a World Series after ranking in the bottom 10 in opening day payroll.

[Kimmi]

10 minutes ago, TheSplinteredSplendor said:

Sounds good, but it's not reality. This doesn't include last year, but that only adds to the point.

• In the wild card era (1995-present), 26 of the 29 teams to win a World Series ranked in the top half of MLB in opening day payroll.
• In the same time frame, 20 of the 29 World Series champions ranked in the top 10 in opening day pay payroll.
• Only three World Series champions—the 2017 Astros, 2015 Royals and 2003 Marlins—ranked in the bottom half of MLB in opening day payroll. The 2017 Astros (Justin Verlander) and 2015 Royals (Johnny Cueto, Ben Zobrist) both made midseason trades that put them into the top half of payroll by the end of the season.
• Only one team, the 2003 Marlins, won a World Series after ranking in the bottom 10 in opening day payroll.

I acknowledged that having a higher payroll will get you to the postseason more consistently.  More WS winners will have higher payrolls because there are more of those teams in the playoffs.

At any rate, I'm not against a higher payroll, necessarily.  I'm against the insane superstar contracts.

[moonslav59]

Just now, Kimmi said:

I acknowledged that having a higher payroll will get you to the postseason more consistently.  More WS winners will have higher payrolls because there are more of those teams in the playoffs.

At any rate, I'm not against a higher payroll, necessarily.  I'm against the insane superstar contracts.

 

19 minutes ago, TheSplinteredSplendor said:

• In the wild card era (1995-present), 26 of the 29 teams to win a World Series ranked in the top half of MLB in opening day payroll.

So, what were Sox fans complaining about our spending when we were top half every year?