Henry, Devers, and Florian Wirtz

[notin]

So for the past two weeks, there’s been this Conspiracy Theory floating around the Internet that the Sox dealt Devers so that Liverpool FC could afford to sign 22yo German superstar footballer Florian Wirtz.  How else could they afford Wirtz? Some have even said.

Im no expert on Euro football leagues, but even I know this is, as Colonel Potter would say, horse hockey.  

Wirtz did sign a 150million euro deal with Liverpool, but it’s not a one year deal.  His AAV on this contract is roughly $15million USD.  You that places him about halfway between Jordan Hicks and Masataka Yoshida among Red Sox AAV’s.  Couple that with the fact that Liverpool FC is valued at roughly $5.4 billion USD, almost a full billion dollars more than the Red Sox, and this whole theory is based on the premise that the more lucrative club cannot afford the cheaper player.  And with an annual revenue of roughly $773million USD, Liverpool is the more lucrative club, and was even before adding Wirtz.

So why does this exist?  Probably because if you replace Wirtz’ name with “No, No, Nannette”, you get a story many Sox fans can understand. Just another greedy owner defunding our passions to feed his other interests.  The Red Sox are just seed money to these guys.  John Henry is the reincarnation of Harry Frazee and we’re into another 86 year title drought.

Henry certainly has a few things in common with Frazee - breaking up great Red Sox teams, for one. Ruth wasn’t the only player he sold to the Yankees.  He also sold the should-be Hall of Famer Carl Mays, actual Hall of Famer Herb Pennock, several other pitchers on the ‘27 team (including spectacularly nicknamed Bullet Joe Bush and Sad Sam Jones) and even the mortgage to Fenway Park.

And like Henry is now, Frazee is part of a financial conspiracy theory about the sale of a Sox great. Frazee  didnt sell Ruth to the Yankees to finance “No, No, Nanette.”  That story is, as Colonel Potter would say, buffalo bagels. 

Frazee did produce a number of plays over his career.  And he also owned theaters and theatrical companies.  But he absolutely didnt sell Babe Ruth in 1919 to finance a play that had not even been written yet.  “No, No, Nanette” didnt even exist before 1924 and Frazee didnt get involved until 1925, some six years after the sale of Babe Ruth.  

So why the legend?  Because we like to blame wealthy ownership.  Thats why.  Don’ylt get me wrong; ownership makes bad decisions all the time. They’re far from innocent victims.  But with certain star players, Sox fans gravitate towards these theories that ownership simply cares about everything else over the one form of entertainment we enjoy most.

I can’t speak for Frazee’s finances in 1919, and he is ghosting all my texts.  But clearly something had him strapped for cash.  That he sold half a dozen other players as well as Fenway says as much.  Nanette likely gets the blame because, unlike most of his theater projects, it was a huge hit.  So rather than Frazee having money trouble, sending off Ruth (and only Ruth) to produce a box office smash just re-enforces where the Sox stood in his list of priorities.

And just like we have this whole myth about greedy Frazee ruining the Sox to appease theater snobs , we now have this new myth about Henry ruining the Sox to appease European Football lunatics.  And while dealing Devers is a huge blow to this team, he certainly wasn’t sent to San Fran along with his contract just so to make Liverpool fans happy.  I don’t know how Henry runs FSG.  Does he even merge his resources from different assets? No idea.  But Devers was dealt because of Devers. And any story connecting him to Florian Wirtz is, as Colonel Potter would say, mule muffins…

[vegasbob]

Due to a complex level of various LLC's or partnerships , the FSG entities do appear to be distinct entities, tax situations, laws and regulations across multiple jurisdictions.   

JH may be a majority owner ( doubt it) but clearly is the managing partner with authority to make executive decisions.

I would discount 99.9% the chance that the  checking accounts , budgets and cashflows for each sport entity under FSG are comingled.

[notin]

16 minutes ago, vegasbob said:

Due to a complex level of various LLC's or partnerships , the FSG entities do appear to be distinct entities, tax situations, laws and regulations across multiple jurisdictions.   

JH may be a majority owner ( doubt it) but clearly is the managing partner with authority to make executive decisions.

I would discount 99.9% the chance that the  checking accounts , budgets and cashflows for each sport entity under FSG are comingled.

That makes sense, especially since those jurisdictions cross multiple countries.

 

Perfect addition to this post.  Thanks…

[TheSplinteredSplendor]

That's exactly what this site needed, another devers thread..........

[notin]

5 minutes ago, TheSplinteredSplendor said:

That's exactly what this site needed, another devers thread..........

Go back to the Yankee board and count “Aaron Boone Sux” threads until you fall asleep…

[TheSplinteredSplendor]

14 minutes ago, notin said:

Go back to the Yankee board and count “Aaron Boone Sux” threads until you fall asleep…

If I wanted to go to sleep then I would just read more of your posts. Works better than benzodiazepine

[Duran Is The Man]

1 hour ago, notin said:

So for the past two weeks, there’s been this Conspiracy Theory floating around the Internet that the Sox dealt Devers so that Liverpool FC could afford to sign 22yo German superstar footballer Florian Wirtz.  How else could they afford Wirtz? Some have even said.

Im no expert on Euro football leagues, but even I know this is, as Colonel Potter would say, horse hockey.  

Wirtz did sign a 150million euro deal with Liverpool, but it’s not a one year deal.  His AAV on this contract is roughly $15million USD.  You that places him about halfway between Jordan Hicks and Masataka Yoshida among Red Sox AAV’s.  Couple that with the fact that Liverpool FC is valued at roughly $5.4 billion USD, almost a full billion dollars more than the Red Sox, and this whole theory is based on the premise that the more lucrative club cannot afford the cheaper player.  And with an annual revenue of roughly $773million USD, Liverpool is the more lucrative club, and was even before adding Wirtz.

So why does this exist?  Probably because if you replace Wirtz’ name with “No, No, Nannette”, you get a story many Sox fans can understand. Just another greedy owner defunding our passions to feed his other interests.  The Red Sox are just seed money to these guys.  John Henry is the reincarnation of Harry Frazee and we’re into another 86 year title drought.

Henry certainly has a few things in common with Frazee - breaking up great Red Sox teams, for one. Ruth wasn’t the only player he sold to the Yankees.  He also sold the should-be Hall of Famer Carl Mays, actual Hall of Famer Herb Pennock, several other pitchers on the ‘27 team (including spectacularly nicknamed Bullet Joe Bush and Sad Sam Jones) and even the mortgage to Fenway Park.

And like Henry is now, Frazee is part of a financial conspiracy theory about the sale of a Sox great. Frazee  didnt sell Ruth to the Yankees to finance “No, No, Nanette.”  That story is, as Colonel Potter would say, buffalo bagels. 

Frazee did produce a number of plays over his career.  And he also owned theaters and theatrical companies.  But he absolutely didnt sell Babe Ruth in 1919 to finance a play that had not even been written yet.  “No, No, Nanette” didnt even exist before 1924 and Frazee didnt get involved until 1925, some six years after the sale of Babe Ruth.  

So why the legend?  Because we like to blame wealthy ownership.  Thats why.  Don’ylt get me wrong; ownership makes bad decisions all the time. They’re far from innocent victims.  But with certain star players, Sox fans gravitate towards these theories that ownership simply cares about everything else over the one form of entertainment we enjoy most.

I can’t speak for Frazee’s finances in 1919, and he is ghosting all my texts.  But clearly something had him strapped for cash.  That he sold half a dozen other players as well as Fenway says as much.  Nanette likely gets the blame because, unlike most of his theater projects, it was a huge hit.  So rather than Frazee having money trouble, sending off Ruth (and only Ruth) to produce a box office smash just re-enforces where the Sox stood in his list of priorities.

And just like we have this whole myth about greedy Frazee ruining the Sox to appease theater snobs , we now have this new myth about Henry ruining the Sox to appease European Football lunatics.  And while dealing Devers is a huge blow to this team, he certainly wasn’t sent to San Fran along with his contract just so to make Liverpool fans happy.  I don’t know how Henry runs FSG.  Does he even merge his resources from different assets? No idea.  But Devers was dealt because of Devers. And any story connecting him to Florian Wirtz is, as Colonel Potter would say, mule muffins…

admittedly, i never miss a chance to bash JH, but the idea that he dealt Devers to sign a soccer player is insane.

[notin]

6 hours ago, TheSplinteredSplendor said:

If I wanted to go to sleep then I would just read more of your posts. Works better than benzodiazepine

And if it takes you out for a few hours, I’m happy too…

[Jasonbay44]

I feel like over the last few years the team has definitely gotten cheaper, is it due solely because his attention is focused on Liverpool? I doubt it. But it is frustrating regardless. 

[Bellhorn04]

18 hours ago, notin said:

And like Henry is now, Frazee is part of a financial conspiracy theory about the sale of a Sox great. Frazee  didnt sell Ruth to the Yankees to finance “No, No, Nanette.”  That story is, as Colonel Potter would say, buffalo bagels. 

Frazee did produce a number of plays over his career.  And he also owned theaters and theatrical companies.  But he absolutely didnt sell Babe Ruth in 1919 to finance a play that had not even been written yet.  “No, No, Nanette” didnt even exist before 1924 and Frazee didnt get involved until 1925, some six years after the sale of Babe Ruth.  

So why the legend?  Because we like to blame wealthy ownership.  Thats why.  Don’ylt get me wrong; ownership makes bad decisions all the time. They’re far from innocent victims.  But with certain star players, Sox fans gravitate towards these theories that ownership simply cares about everything else over the one form of entertainment we enjoy most.

I can’t speak for Frazee’s finances in 1919, and he is ghosting all my texts.  But clearly something had him strapped for cash.  That he sold half a dozen other players as well as Fenway says as much.  Nanette likely gets the blame because, unlike most of his theater projects, it was a huge hit.  So rather than Frazee having money trouble, sending off Ruth (and only Ruth) to produce a box office smash just re-enforces where the Sox stood in his list of priorities.

The facts of the story got mangled, but in December 1919 Frazee was in fact producing a play called "My Lady Friends", and that play was the basis for the musical "No No Nanette".  

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

42 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

The facts of the story got mangled, but in December 1919 Frazee was in fact producing a play called "My Lady Friends", and that play was the basis for the musical "No No Nanette".  

His Lady Friends kept telling him No No (especially Nan, with her double negative nickname). They must've all lived and worked in NYC, where they were controlled by other men in power...

... that would explain why Harry constantly gave his best players to the Yankees for a decade: trying to trade Sox stars for one YES.

Years later, in a mock to Frazee, the Yanks named their TV Network after his Big Apple benevolence.

[mvp 78]

21 hours ago, vegasbob said:

Due to a complex level of various LLC's or partnerships , the FSG entities do appear to be distinct entities, tax situations, laws and regulations across multiple jurisdictions.   

JH may be a majority owner ( doubt it) but clearly is the managing partner with authority to make executive decisions.

I would discount 99.9% the chance that the  checking accounts , budgets and cashflows for each sport entity under FSG are comingled.

Comingled isn’t the same as a consolidated financial statement, which they probably provide at some point.

[moonslav59]

12 hours ago, Jasonbay44 said:

I feel like over the last few years the team has definitely gotten cheaper, is it due solely because his attention is focused on Liverpool? I doubt it. But it is frustrating regardless. 

If you were talking 2020 to 2024, I'd agree, but last winter saw a significant uptick in spending. Of course, if you subtract the Devers trade, which makes a sense, it wipes it out, but the fact is, we are still over the tax line.

That's not getting cheaper.

This winter's spending budget will be telling on our spending trend.

[notin]

8 hours ago, Bellhorn04 said:

The facts of the story got mangled, but in December 1919 Frazee was in fact producing a play called "My Lady Friends", and that play was the basis for the musical "No No Nanette".  

They may be more mangled than even that.

My Lady Friends debuted in 1919 about 3 weeks before Ruth was sold, and was apparently a moderate hit.

It’s not easy to research Frazee’s financial concerns, but every time I look into it, everything points to his primary source of debt being the Red Sox.  It seems that the myth was he sold off the Red Sox to finance his theatrical projects, when reality might be that he used his theatrical projects to finance the Red Sox…

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

16 minutes ago, notin said:

They may be more mangled than even that.

My Lady Friends debuted in 1919 about 3 weeks before Ruth was sold, and was apparently a moderate hit.

Ruth was also the name of one Harry's Lady Friends who kept telling him No, No -- so he made sure the Babe was the first to Go, Go to New York. 

[TheSplinteredSplendor]

23 hours ago, notin said:

And if it takes you out for a few hours, I’m happy too…

Hardly, skippy, I usually scroll right past your posts.....

[notin]

21 minutes ago, TheSplinteredSplendor said:

Hardly, skippy, I usually scroll right past your posts.....

And yet you keep responding to them…

[Deja Doh]

This 2025 Red Sox team (0.249 AVG & 0.737 OPS) is not the Red Sox of 2002 or 2003 when Henry took over or any of the WS Championships.  It is far different (we can't hit).  It was Devers attitude that made him become expendable (can't allow that to rub off).

2001 - 0.267 & 0.775

2002 - 0.277 & 0.791 - Henry took ownership.

2003 - 0.290 & 0.852

2004 - 0283 & 0.834

2007 - 0.280 & 0.807

2013 - 0.278 & 0.798

2018 - 0.269 & 0.793

[Hitch]

On 6/28/2025 at 7:40 PM, vegasbob said:

Due to a complex level of various LLC's or partnerships , the FSG entities do appear to be distinct entities, tax situations, laws and regulations across multiple jurisdictions.   

JH may be a majority owner ( doubt it) but clearly is the managing partner with authority to make executive decisions.

I would discount 99.9% the chance that the  checking accounts , budgets and cashflows for each sport entity under FSG are comingled.

The organisations are very much separate. Football clubs in the UK and UEFA have stringent financial rules and an open books policy in which all spending has to be within the range of the clubs operating financials.  The Premier League has an 85% of turnover rule and UEFA is moving to 70% of turnover, though they're trying to get more aligned. 

This means that it doesn't matter a jot how rich your owners are, you can't spend more than the club brings in from its own enterprises. There are loopholes which have started being closed, such as Chelsea inexplicable selling themselves their ladies team for several hundred million dollars, or spreading the cost of the transfer fee to buy a player over the length of a contract (average for new signings is around 4/5 years - Chelsea started buying players and putting them on 8 year contracts which just is not done in European - or world - football), and Manchester City are under investigation for 116 charges such as making up companies for their owners to funnel more money to them through sponsorship and could lead to them being stripped of titles, but in the main, it's a pretty tight ship. Teams routinely get point deductions and fines for not complying. 

So Henry could want to move all the money across he likes. It isn't happening. It's by far the most annoying idiocy I hear from fans. A 2 minute google will tell you all you need to know. But fans prefer to be emotional and irrational about all aspects of fanhood. Proud of it even (not aiming this at anyone in particular, just the standard level of fan engagement in learning about actual facts).  They are separate entities and while Henry's time may well be divided (he's not involved day-to-day with Liverpool, or anywhere near it), his money and assets are not. 

 

As an aside, despite bringing a lot of success to Liverpool, there was (tailed off a bit now after another league title last season) a significant and vocal FSG OUT contingent of the fan group who (despite the above mentioned constraints) embarrassingly complained constantly that FSG didn't spend enough. They have been for the most part (there have been several huge errors) excellent owners for Liverpool. What they have in place at Liverpool that the Sox don't, is an absolute top notch management team. You will often hear 'best in class' said about Liverpool and how they do their business. They are run with ruthless efficiency and  rarely take a wrong step in their transfer dealings. If the Sox had the same sort of brain power working at the top of their organisation, Henry's wet dream of having a finely tuned machine at half the price may be possible. 

[tawest]

23 hours ago, Deja Doh said:

This 2025 Red Sox team (0.249 AVG & 0.737 OPS) is not the Red Sox of 2002 or 2003 when Henry took over or any of the WS Championships.  It is far different (we can't hit).  It was Devers attitude that made him become expendable (can't allow that to rub off).

2001 - 0.267 & 0.775

2002 - 0.277 & 0.791 - Henry took ownership.

2003 - 0.290 & 0.852

2004 - 0283 & 0.834

2007 - 0.280 & 0.807

2013 - 0.278 & 0.798

2018 - 0.269 & 0.793

Does my heart good to see he's flailing away to a 217 BA in a Giants uni. May not last but his whiney backside needs to be humbled and a continued slump suits me just fine.

[moonslav59]

2 minutes ago, tawest said:

Does my heart good to see he's flailing away to a 217 BA in a Giants uni. May not last but his whiney backside needs to be humbled and a continued slump suits me just fine.

Maybe we finally pay SF back for Pablito.

[mvp 78]

8 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

Maybe we finally pay SF back for Pablito.

How is that the Giants fault? 

[notin]

1 hour ago, mvp 78 said:

How is that the Giants fault? 

Because they’re evil!

[Bellhorn04]

11 hours ago, tawest said:

Does my heart good to see he's flailing away to a 217 BA in a Giants uni. May not last but his whiney backside needs to be humbled and a continued slump suits me just fine.

.670 OPS and 21 Ks in 13 games.  
 

[notin]

17 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

.670 OPS and 21 Ks in 13 games.  
 

He started out slow in Boston this year too.  Even slower than that in fact…

[Bellhorn04]

9 minutes ago, notin said:

He started out slow in Boston this year too.  Even slower than that in fact…

I know.  Still, it's better than him getting off to a rocking start.  Giants are 4-9 since the trade, with 42 runs scored, 3.23 per game.

[notin]

2 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

I know.  Still, it's better than him getting off to a rocking start.  Giants are 4-9 since the trade, Sox are 5-8.

Overall, I think they will be happy with the trade.  I just hope Boston is as well…

[Bellhorn04]

7 minutes ago, notin said:

Overall, I think they will be happy with the trade.  I just hope Boston is as well…

My gut feeling is the Giants are not going to be happy at all.

[notin]

8 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

My gut feeling is the Giants are not going to be happy.

I disagree.

First of all, they’ve been struggling to land nine figure free agents for some reason.  Not sure why.  Maybe Rice-A-Roni is less popular than I thought.

 

Second, he said he will be a 1b/DH there and do so happily.  Possibly even whistling all the while.  His game really only had two glaring flaws - very weak defense at 3b and refusing to move off 3b.  Sounds like he has finally fixed them both..

[Bellhorn04]

1 minute ago, notin said:

I disagree.

First of all, they’ve been struggling to land nine figure free agents for some reason.  Not sure why.  Maybe Rice-A-Roni is less popular than I thought.

 

Second, he said he will be a 1b/DH there and do so happily.  Possibly even whistling all the while.  His game really only had two glaring flaws - very weak defense at 3b and refusing to move off 3b.  Sounds like he has finally fixed them both..

Yeah, we'll have to agree to disagree.  I think history will show that this was a guy who shot his way out of town, and the Sox are going to benefit from having that $250 million obligation off the books.