Red Sox 2025 Season Review/Offseason Preview Thread

[Hugh2]

15 minutes ago, Larry Cook said:

I wonder if we can get the Bregman signing done this week, because it appears the Phillies and Mets are in on bichete now!!!! 

Are they? 

Everybody talks to everybody in the offseason.  The whole "Red Sox checked in with _____" isn't exclusive to Boston.  The most people interested the more the price for an asset is so the agents side has every incentive to either increase interest or at the very least increase the perception of that interest.  

Team ABC checking in and doing their due dilligence can turn into "Team ABC is in" on said player real quick. 

The Mets and the Phillies don't exactly need a 3B/2B right now.  I'm not saying they wouldn't swoop in and buy him if his market collapsed, but I don't think either of those teams plan on being the highest bidder right now. 

I think Bregman, despite not having a QO attached is in the same exact boat he was in last year. 

Outlandish prediction.....but I think he ends up back in Boston for 5/125

[JoeBrady]

19 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

And they could have kept Roman cheap,

I always said this in defense of Preller.  He got bashed on the payroll, but part of the payroll issue was that he locked in Tatis long-term.

[JoeBrady]

19 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

And they could have kept Roman cheap,

I always said this in defense of Preller.  He got bashed on the payroll, but part of the payroll issue was that he locked in Tatis long-term.

[JoeBrady]

18 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

We are ONLY looking at CBT because it's a CBT threshold that is where an arbitrary budget line in the sand has been made.

It's not arbitrary; it's a rule.  If you go past $244M, you pay a tax and a penalty.

But I will give you a more concrete reason not to use cash.  How do you want to account for the $50M we still owe Sale?  How about the $14M we owe Bregman?  Or numerous other deferred liabilities?

Or if Sale and Bregman want to settle their receivables today, because we're going to buy the Angels.  So they settle for $50M.  Does that mean JH is now one of the most free-spending owners in BB because his cash outlay is $300M?

The CBT is the measure.

[JoeBrady]

27 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

I think Bregman, despite not having a QO attached is in the same exact boat he was in last year. 

Outlandish prediction.....but I think he ends up back in Boston for 5/125

I would bet on the RS as well.  He hasn't gotten a huge offer, or else he'd already be signed.  And since we haven't signed anyone that would be a Bregman-equivalent, I assume he is still out #1 target.

And I'd say the 5/125 is ballpark accurate.  Some might be deferred to squeeze under the cap, but I'd guess you are within a few percentage points either way.

[mvp 78]

9 minutes ago, JoeBrady said:

It's not arbitrary; it's a rule.  If you go past $244M, you pay a tax and a penalty.

But I will give you a more concrete reason not to use cash.  How do you want to account for the $50M we still owe Sale?  How about the $14M we owe Bregman?  Or numerous other deferred liabilities?

Or if Sale and Bregman want to settle their receivables today, because we're going to buy the Angels.  So they settle for $50M.  Does that mean JH is now one of the most free-spending owners in BB because his cash outlay is $300M?

The CBT is the measure.

It is arbitrary as in the Sox could spend above the 2nd threshold if they wanted to. Other teams spend above that threshold and continue to be competitive. It's not a death knell to an organization. 

The only retained salary affecting CBT is 2M for Devers. There is nothing for Sale that affects CBT currently. 

CBT is A measure.

[mvp 78]

17 minutes ago, JoeBrady said:

I would bet on the RS as well.  He hasn't gotten a huge offer, or else he'd already be signed.  And since we haven't signed anyone that would be a Bregman-equivalent, I assume he is still out #1 target.

And I'd say the 5/125 is ballpark accurate.  Some might be deferred to squeeze under the cap, but I'd guess you are within a few percentage points either way.

He had 2/80 in hand and opted out for only an additional 3/45? 

[drewski6]

26 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

It is arbitrary as in the Sox could spend above the 2nd threshold if they wanted to. Other teams spend above that threshold and continue to be competitive. It's not a death knell to an organization. 

The only retained salary affecting CBT is 2M for Devers. There is nothing for Sale that affects CBT currently. 

CBT is A measure.

100%

Going by CBT and going by total cash outlay are both imperfect. And btw there are others too (which Im sure you know). None of them are perfect, but the CBT can be expanded by a creative GM and also (like you mention) its not a hard cap.

The Red Sox bought discounted years for Cedanne, RA, Campbell, Crochet (think he had 2 years left on his deal when we got him).

And due to the rules, these extensions recalculated the CBT for each of these guys and raised it significantly for 2026.  We could have had Cedanne, RA, Campbell, Crochet all making peanuts in 2026 with minimal tax hit, and most of these guys arent getting a ton of cash in 2026 either (exception Crochet) because they are trying to keep the cash outlay close to each players performance and they care less about the CBT hit getting out of whack with performance.

These players have higher CBT hits and obvs, if we had a 280m tax hit with cedanne/RA/Campbell/Crochet making peanuts we prob have a better team than a 280m tax hit with cedanne/RA/Campbell/Crochet making what they make.

Someone could be glad for it (I think its overrated), but it doesnt change the fact that the CBT shoots up when you extend, and you could just as easily keep them cheap and spend that money shopping for external fortifications and this is a big reason why the CBT isnt the only metric for aggressiveness.

Trading prospects matters too.  Becuase if you refuse to part with any, thats still a non-aggressive mentality.

Its really not about and shouldnt be about just trying to obtain and cram as much value as you can. This is what that article that I found a month ago went into.  At some point you have to try to line it up and make a serious push.  NOt just always looking all future years evenly.  "Over the life of the..." thinking at some point hits a wall.  Theres a time to think about the short term.

 

[moonslav59]

5 hours ago, UtahSox said:

This is one thing I strongly dislike some Red Sox fans do from time to time- I refuse to compare the Boston Red Sox to the 30 team MLB. We should have very little in common with Rays, Rockies, Royals, A’s of MLB
They should and MUST always be compared to the others in the big 4 (Dodgers, Cubs, Yankees) lately you could be kind and add (Phillies, Mets, Bluejays) but at worst we should compare everything the Red Sox do vs these others in top7. 
It’s interesting to watch the Blue Jays starting to carry the same kind of aura the Red Sox had from about 2000 to 2018. It feels like we’re watching a team transition into a national brand, with revenue accelerating quickly and momentum building on and off the field.

If I were John Henry, sitting on $100+ million in additional revenue and a roster on the brink of breaking wide open, I’d be aggressive. I’d go get Bichette and Bregman. Then I’d trade Tristan Casas, Marcelo Mayer, and Campbell or Ceddanne Rafaela to land frontline pitching — whether that’s Alcantara with Cabrera, Ragans with Bubic, or separate deals for someone like Peralta or Skubal.

What you can’t do is allow Toronto to spend heavily, succeed, and grow unchecked. You want them to feel the sting of going all-in and still falling short. If the Blue Jays fully ascend on this trajectory, the AL East won’t just be the toughest division — it’ll be the most punishing path to the playoffs in baseball, by a wide margin.

I want the Sox to go to the playoffs more than the random rate suggests- way more. Of course, I do.

We've spent way more than half the teams since 2019, and in many of those years more than 2/3, 3/4 and even more in 2019. We should win more by spending more. Many other teams do- some don't.

Our revenue is much higher, so spending more makes sense. Winning more makes sense, too.

I'm not defending JH. I'm just not going to lie and say "We aren't spending," which is in the present tense, when we are currently top 8, and only  6 teams paid more in Lux tax, in 2025.

Can and should we spend more? YES! I just don't see the need to misrepresent what is going on now to make the point. I agree with the point being made that we can and should spend more.

[moonslav59]

1 hour ago, mvp 78 said:

But you can't truly say the Sox spent the 7th most in MLB. A lot of it is made up of contracts that have yet to mature (Bello, Anthony) and the Sox have shown that they may just trade those players rather than ultimately pay them. They have signed them to contracts, but they have not paid them in full. 

Posters used to bitch how we let all our top young players go. Now, we lock them up long term, but are being asked to ignore the future spending we committed to. It doesn't really count.

It is obvious to anyone paying attention, the team spending philosophy has changed dramatically since the Devers extension was signed almost exactly 3 years ago. 

While adjusting for inflation, we have not returned to 2018-2019 levels, and we could & should be spending more, there has been some very marked changes in our spending habits.

Still no large and long FA deals, but the amount of veteran and rookie extensions has sky-rocketed.

Our yearly budget, tax budget and new spending has jumped noticeably since the end of 2024. Again, dumping Devers undid much of that trend upwards, and it remains to be seen where we go from here, but JH & Brez have spent more than Bloom ever dreamed of. I haven't checked, but my guess is 2 years of Brez has outspent 4 years of Bloom on new player contracts + extensions.

That's not saying a lot, but it is a major uptick, so when I hear JH IS cheap, he's not been, recently. It's just not true.

[Larry Cook]

3 hours ago, JoeBrady said:

I'd bet against both teams.  Both have a SS and a 2B, and other needs to spend money on.  Probably agent disinformation.

So who are we bidding against? Detroit? 

[UtahSox]

2 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

I'm not defending JH. I'm just not going to lie and say "We aren't spending," which is in the present tense, when we are currently top 8, and only  6 teams paid more in Lux tax, in 2025.

 

Saying “we spend” by comparing ourselves to all 30 MLB teams misses the point. That’s the wrong benchmark. The only comparison that matters is against our true revenue peers. Look at the next 6–7 teams in revenue: the Yankees, Dodgers, Blue Jays, Cubs, Phillies, and Mets. Against that group, the Red Sox are recently last — or trading places with the Cubs — in actual spending.

Yes, it’s technically true that we’re in the CBT. But context matters. We’re also roughly $60 million behind teams like the Phillies and Blue Jays, who generate $100 million less in revenue than we do. So the issue isn’t whether we spend relative to the league. It’s whether we spend appropriately relative to our revenue and competitive position. And by that standard, we clearly don’t.

[Old Red]

13 minutes ago, UtahSox said:

Saying “we spend” by comparing ourselves to all 30 MLB teams misses the point. That’s the wrong benchmark. The only comparison that matters is against our true revenue peers. Look at the next 6–7 teams in revenue: the Yankees, Dodgers, Blue Jays, Cubs, Phillies, and Mets. Against that group, the Red Sox are recently last — or trading places with the Cubs — in actual spending.

Yes, it’s technically true that we’re in the CBT. But context matters. We’re also roughly $60 million behind teams like the Phillies and Blue Jays, who generate $100 million less in revenue than we do. So the issue isn’t whether we spend relative to the league. It’s whether we spend appropriately relative to our revenue and competitive position. And by that standard, we clearly don’t.

Once again good point. The Red Sox were 23rd in the league in revenue to payroll right behind Washington no less. Like you said it all depends how you look at it that can form different opinions. Different benchmarks, and different standards form those different opinions, and who’s to say, which one is better.

[Bellhorn04]

4 hours ago, JoeBrady said:

It's not arbitrary; it's a rule.  If you go past $244M, you pay a tax and a penalty.

But I will give you a more concrete reason not to use cash.  How do you want to account for the $50M we still owe Sale?  How about the $14M we owe Bregman?  Or numerous other deferred liabilities?

Or if Sale and Bregman want to settle their receivables today, because we're going to buy the Angels.  So they settle for $50M.  Does that mean JH is now one of the most free-spending owners in BB because his cash outlay is $300M?

The CBT is the measure.

Now we have 3 accountants here. 😉

[moonslav59]

1 hour ago, UtahSox said:

Saying “we spend” by comparing ourselves to all 30 MLB teams misses the point. That’s the wrong benchmark. The only comparison that matters is against our true revenue peers. Look at the next 6–7 teams in revenue: the Yankees, Dodgers, Blue Jays, Cubs, Phillies, and Mets. Against that group, the Red Sox are recently last — or trading places with the Cubs — in actual spending.

Yes, it’s technically true that we’re in the CBT. But context matters. We’re also roughly $60 million behind teams like the Phillies and Blue Jays, who generate $100 million less in revenue than we do. So the issue isn’t whether we spend relative to the league. It’s whether we spend appropriately relative to our revenue and competitive position. And by that standard, we clearly don’t.

I've agreed tat we could and should spend more. I'm not sure wat else to say.

My beef is hearing people say we aren't spending, but we are. We are spending way more than the previous 3-4 years, and we are doing some things, like locking up our young talent longterm way more than we did, even in the glory years from 2004 to 2018.

It's not all bad. We have a nice core of young players, some obtained because we tanked- kinda like the Astors did before their run of glory. I don't want us to waste this window, and if we do things right, maybe we can keep the window open wide for many years to come.

We need one more major piece, or maybe 2 really good ones, and spending on one makes the most sense, but spending on one and trading for another would be fine with me. Just do it.

No more talk of full throttle and wanting to be competitive- let's see some action and results.

[JoeBrady]

4 hours ago, mvp 78 said:

It's not a death knell to an organization. 

But that doesn't mean it is arbitrary.  It's a real number, and it is the number that EVERYONE refers to.  I don't remember MLBR ever referring to cash flow when assessing a team's ability to spend.  Their point of reference is ALWAYS how close a team is to the three thresholds and what the CBT penalties.

Just as an example, we've probably had 1,000 comments about tax thresholds.  Most of us probably have a pretty good idea of what our current CBT payroll is and how much we have to spend at each level.  Now, just for fun, show me one comment where someone referred to our 2026 cash flow payroll.  When that turns up -0-, add in all the MLBR RS comments.  When that turns up with -0-, go to MLBR for every team, and find one comment using cash flow payroll instead of CBT.

Cash flow payroll doesn't exist for discussion purposes.  It's a mirage.

[JoeBrady]

4 hours ago, mvp 78 said:

He had 2/80 in hand and opted out for only an additional 3/45? 

Sometimes players and agents make mistakes, and not necessarily in their favor.  It's the reverse of the sunk cost fallacy.  Once you opt out, then the opportunity is ancient history.

[JoeBrady]

2 hours ago, Larry Cook said:

So who are we bidding against? Detroit? 

IMVHO, we aren't bidding against anyone.  This reminds me of Alonso leaving the NYM, only to find out that no one was overly interested.  I'm not sure it is in our best interested to squeeze every dime out of him, but I do believe that we are in the driver's seat.

That said, there is always a sweet spot in the timing.  You don't want to wake up in the middle of February, only to find out that some team(s) with $30M in the piggy bank, haven't spent a dime of it, and are now desperate to add players at any cost.

[Bellhorn04]

28 minutes ago, JoeBrady said:

But that doesn't mean it is arbitrary.  It's a real number, and it is the number that EVERYONE refers to.  I don't remember MLBR ever referring to cash flow when assessing a team's ability to spend.  Their point of reference is ALWAYS how close a team is to the three thresholds and what the CBT penalties.

Just as an example, we've probably had 1,000 comments about tax thresholds.  Most of us probably have a pretty good idea of what our current CBT payroll is and how much we have to spend at each level.  Now, just for fun, show me one comment where someone referred to our 2026 cash flow payroll.  When that turns up -0-, add in all the MLBR RS comments.  When that turns up with -0-, go to MLBR for every team, and find one comment using cash flow payroll instead of CBT.

Cash flow payroll doesn't exist for discussion purposes.  It's a mirage.

It doesn't get much attention from baseball writers, either.  Everyone is into the tax numbers now.  The team accountants are probably the people most interested in cash flow numbers.     

[Bellhorn04]

Baseball offseasons seem to have become excruciatingly slow-paced, especially compared to other sports.  I'm glad I was kind of checked out of it for a month or two.  I didn't miss much in the way of action.  Breslow seems to have done a workmanlike job with the trades.  It'll be disappointing if they don't sign Bregman or make some sort of comparable acquisition.  

[JoeBrady]

17 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

he team accountants are probably the people most interested in cash flow numbers. 

We're required to know everything.

[moonslav59]

We signed a sweet FA, today.

[Larry Cook]

1 hour ago, moonslav59 said:

We signed a sweet FA, today.

To a minor league deal. 

[moonslav59]

21 minutes ago, Larry Cook said:

To a minor league deal. 

Still very sweet!

[mvp 78]

11 hours ago, Bellhorn04 said:

I'm glad I was kind of checked out of it for a month or two.  

I was worried that I was going to have to do a wellness check at one point. 

[moonslav59]

I do wonder if one domino falls, they all follow quickly.

Bregman or Bichette, then the other and Suarez and maybe a trade or two (KMarte? Donovan? Vientos?)

 

[Hugh2]

18 hours ago, JoeBrady said:

I always said this in defense of Preller.  He got bashed on the payroll, but part of the payroll issue was that he locked in Tatis long-term.

 Bogaerts and Machado are a much larger part of the issue. 

Tatis is 6 years younger than both those guys, making $24 million a year aav.  He's far from the issue.  After Jackson Merrill he's their most valuable asset. 

[drewski6]

13 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

I've agreed tat we could and should spend more. I'm not sure wat else to say.

My beef is hearing people say we aren't spending, but we are. We are spending way more than the previous 3-4 years, and we are doing some things, like locking up our young talent longterm way more than we did, even in the glory years from 2004 to 2018.

It's not all bad. We have a nice core of young players, some obtained because we tanked- kinda like the Astors did before their run of glory. I don't want us to waste this window, and if we do things right, maybe we can keep the window open wide for many years to come.

We need one more major piece, or maybe 2 really good ones, and spending on one makes the most sense, but spending on one and trading for another would be fine with me. Just do it.

No more talk of full throttle and wanting to be competitive- let's see some action and results.

You see UtahSox make good points about how not all revenue bases are the same, and its a SHAM to compare sox to league averages when us (fanbase) provides them with more resources than 80-90% the legaue.  Almost like there are "expected expenditure" tiers.

Lets simplify for the purposes of this post there are three expected expenditure tiers, the top is easy, thats the spenders.  But the bottom tier, the cheapest, those guys forget external acquisitions, they cant even keep their own players when they hit primes. They can borderline keep players when they hit arb! Like the Pirates of a few years ago, or the As, they know they cant even afford to keep guys who it arb 2, so they start loooking to trade guys almot immediately after breaking out and they have a revolving door or high draft picks, development, and prospects. There are only a few teams in this bottom tier, just like how there are only a few in the top tier, theres usually a glut in the middle or "the pack" if you will

Locking up our own players proves we are not in that bottom tier. We are not the Pirates, we are not the A's. Even the pirates and the a's are barely the pirates and the a's anymore (or at least to the extent they use to be) because the getting is good for rich aholes (have you looked outside).

I dont really care, man.  Had we never extended Crochet, RA, Cedanne, Campbell , we'd have enough room between us and the second tax line to bring in 2 more stars.  But we didnt.  Instead we locked up RA, Crochet, Cedanne, Campbell because we dont want to be in a position where we are having to pay them market value, so we zapped our cap for 2026 and 2027.

We did spend, but it was to prevent future spending later.  This is called a coupon. We bought coupons.  We bought a discount on RA's and Crochets prime years (and overpaid for Campbell and cedannes) because we were scared we'd have to pay stars at star money prices (oh the horror) and we are unwilling to do that, so we traded our cap room in 2026,2027,2028 for future discounts on the aforementioned 4.

And I know that we could have spent on the short term even after making those extensions. But we didnt.  So yes we are spending. We are buying coupon books on RA and Crochet so we can keep them through their primes unlike Mookie and Devers because great players cost great money, and we were unwilling to have them through their primes.

We wont sign a free agent, but we will trade prospects for other teams free agents if such team eats some money and so they cost less (Contreras, Gray). We wont hold a FA superstar making close to what they deserve (Betts, Devers) but if we can lock ya up young and get your prime years at a discount, we'll carry you then through your prime (RA, Crochet).

So yes, we do spend nad we do buy.  We buy discounts and coupon books and we arent quite the pure bottom dwellers (who would trade RA and Crochet rather than lock em up at a discount) - but what we do have is a fantastic recipe for a series of third place finishes.

 

[JoeBrady]

1 hour ago, Hugh2 said:

He's far from the issue.  After Jackson Merrill he's their most valuable asset. 

Of course not.  But some fans blamed him for a high payroll.  One of the reasons for the high payroll is that he made prudent decisions to extend those two guys.  That makes it 'look' worse for a couple of years, but then far better thereafter.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

59 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

We wont sign a free agent, but we will trade prospects for other teams free agents if such team eats some money and so they cost less (Contreras, Gray). We wont hold a FA superstar making close to what they deserve (Betts, Devers) but if we can lock ya up young and get your prime years at a discount, we'll carry you then through your prime (RA, Crochet).

So yes, we do spend nad we do buy.  We buy discounts and coupon books and we arent quite the pure bottom dwellers (who would trade RA and Crochet rather than lock em up at a discount) - but what we do have is a fantastic recipe for a series of third place finishes.

Freaking awesome post. Made me think: we WON'T pay market value to superstars in their primes because that's been the Boston business model since the Sox all-time blew it with Mookie. 

No one needs to ask How's That Working For You since we're living it as Red Sox fans.

Reminds of the speaker scam some may be familiar with: shady guy in a van rolls up to young suckers in a parking lot and says he lucked into getting some overstock on brand new speakers and will sell them for cash for half price!

Buyer eagerly brings returns to his flat, plugs them in and curses... can still hear tunes, but the sound is clearly crappy...

... but hey, he got what he paid for.