Red Sox 2025 Season Review/Offseason Preview Thread

[UtahSox]

16 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

There was a marked change from 2024 to 2025.

I admitted much was undone by the Devers dump, and pointing out the lack of deadline moves was something I neglected to mention.

So far, this winter, we have not been "aggressive" financially, despite all the extensions kicking in and adding some salary via trades for Gray & Contreras. I agree on that.

You’re both right. At the beginning of last year expectations were that we were on the rise and ownership belief in that was reflected…. It’s funny how people spin it, as we overachieved last year but many picked us to win AL East after we got crochet, moved Devers to DH and had Bregman signed. And that’s before Roman Anthony became who Roman Anthony was in July- August, so you could imagine What we could have been.

And this is the Rub, yes we were aggressive, but you can’t give Breslow credit for being aggressive in December-February without debiting the move that happened in June. We are not a better baseball team having Yoshida DH versus Devers. Now, if he would have traded Devers and actually been aggressive at the trade deadline(like he said he was going to be) then you could say yes things are changing.

 

I just don’t see it. I see fake hustle, I see optics, I see Hella conservative management and ownership that’s going to flounder what should be a championship window. 

[JoeBrady]

25 minutes ago, UtahSox said:

the Red Sox have been extremely effective at looking like big spenders without actually being big spenders.

Let me see if I phrase this thru more minutia.  The difference between the cash payroll and CBT payroll, for 2026, is ~ $57M.  The chief components of this, according to Cots are:

• Gray $10M (I assume the 2027 buyout?)
• Crochet $3.5M
• Bello $3M
• Anthony $13.6M
• Campbell $5M
• Ceddanne $4M
• Player Benefits $18M

I suggest ignoring Gray's $10M, mostly because I don't know the implications, and it's only one year.  And ignoring the player benefits, since I assume every team will have the identical difference.

That leaves us with $29M, attributable entirely to the fact that we chose to pay a player next year instead of this year.  If JH decided to cut a check for $29M to buy treasuries, would he not be 'spending' that $29M?

[JoeBrady]

1 hour ago, drewski6 said:

We zapped Campbells trade value,

But only for now.  I assume that Ceddane's and Anthony's trade value's are much higher due to the long-term contracts.  If KC reverts to his top-prospect status with a .800 OPS, then his value will have risen.  Same with every contract.

[moonslav59]

40 minutes ago, JoeBrady said:

But only for now.  I assume that Ceddane's and Anthony's trade value's are much higher due to the long-term contracts.  If KC reverts to his top-prospect status with a .800 OPS, then his value will have risen.  Same with every contract.

Yes. Eventually their salary will be higher than their AAV or Tax Line number.

The tax dollars hold no more weight than actual year to year salary numbers to some, but to me, it represents a choice to spend more money for now and going forward. 

I, for one, am thrilled we are locking up our best young players and lessening the chance they bolt to free agency in mid prime. Sure, we may get one of these extensions wrong, but I like the new direction in this area.

Utah is right, too, as what good does it all do, if you end up playing it halfway and won't go that extra step to get us over the top, like maybe no bold moves at the last deadline.

[drewski6]

1 hour ago, JoeBrady said:

Let me see if I phrase this thru more minutia.  The difference between the cash payroll and CBT payroll, for 2026, is ~ $57M.  The chief components of this, according to Cots are:

• Gray $10M (I assume the 2027 buyout?)
• Crochet $3.5M
• Bello $3M
• Anthony $13.6M
• Campbell $5M
• Ceddanne $4M
• Player Benefits $18M

I suggest ignoring Gray's $10M, mostly because I don't know the implications, and it's only one year.  And ignoring the player benefits, since I assume every team will have the identical difference.

That leaves us with $29M, attributable entirely to the fact that we chose to pay a player next year instead of this year.  If JH decided to cut a check for $29M to buy treasuries, would he not be 'spending' that $29M?

You reduce 57m to 29m and start fantasizing about how JH can invest this money in treasuries.  Meanwhile, all the insightful stuff he just said flies right over your head.  Its not just cash outlay vs tax hit, like we've been telling you all day.

You also have to look at the alternatives to each decision.  Roman could have cost us min wage from both tax hit and cap.  But you glossed over that point by saying but I dont want to lose him 5 years from now.  As if we couldnt resign him 5 years from now.  

The Red sox have become a team that cringe at the thought of paying great players great player money. And so we lock RA up through his prime at a discount, and now we dont have to worry about it, but it zaps our cap for 2026,2027

And you rebut but what about 5 years from now! Well 5 years from now you will be worried about 5 years from then and youll be talking about how we need to trade RA because we can flip for someone else half as good but 1/4 as cheap and thats better value.  Then we'll lock up new guy in 2031, and blow our cap for 2031, 2032, 2033 but at least we wont have to negotiate with new guy and have him locked up through his prime which will be 2038, 2039. THen in 2038, we flip him beccause we can get somene half as good for 1/4 the price and thats better value!  We'll lock up new new guy in 2038, which will blow our cap for 2039 and 2040 but at least we wont have to pay him top dollar in 2045!!

Do you not see how kicking the can down the road is a trap? Where are all these stacked championships of the pirates and the a's since theyve operated under this kick the can model?

You imply that Im short sighted because what about 2032! Had we not locked up RA we might have to pay him top dollar in 2032!! Maybe just maybe we shouldnt revolve our entire philosophy around not having to ever pay people top money.

When you were jumping for joy in 2020 because we traded Betts and yayyyyy no players making good player money, you told me then that it would really help us in 2025/2026. Now in 2025/2026 you are worried about 2031/2032

This isnt hypothetical this happened.

The thing about you can kickers, is that it avoids accountability and its a disappointment shield.  If our best years are always in front of us, then you can never be too disappointed because next year will always be even better.  And like Bloom said when he missed the playoffs multiple times and didnt even really try to field a competitive team. He said "but look at the pipeline" this is an accountability punt.  And i get it.  Saying this is our year is scary. You may not win it all.  Pushing in chips , aligning for 2030 (for example) and then once 2030 comes its scary. Expectations are scary.  But always looking 5-10 years out avoids ever having to face a do or die year. And at some point, you need to just stop being such a wimp.

 

[moonslav59]

1 hour ago, drewski6 said:

 And at some point, you need to just stop being such a wimp.

Tough talk gets us nowhere and fast.

We can beat the spend more money mantra drum 24/7 and loudly. If it never becomes reality, whoopie... we can run around saying we are not wimps. That sure would make me feel a lot better! NOT!

I'm not buying the argument that looking 5-10 years down the road is counterproductive or wrong. Of course, it should not be the only part of any plan, and recognizing when the time is ripe to pounce on the hear and now is important to winning rings from time to time while trying to maintain a steady flow of winning teams for the fans- the customers.

The winning ways of the Sox from 2004 to 2018 often involved step backs in spending and or refocusing on the future at the expense of the now. We were still able to put competitive teams on the field in between ring seasons until the Ben era, but then the all out DD era gave us a taste of "what could be," and some read that to mean (or hoped it meant) "this is how we will be forever and ever." It wasn't and never was going to be. That's the reality for fans that are wimps, tough guys and everyone in between. 

It's who we are. It's not going to change, except for maybe a splurge here and there.

[UtahSox]

32 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

Tough talk gets us nowhere and fast.

We can beat the spend more money mantra drum 24/7 and loudly. If it never becomes reality, whoopie... we can run around saying we are not wimps. That sure would make me feel a lot better! NOT!

I'm not buying the argument that looking 5-10 years down the road is counterproductive or wrong. Of course, it should not be the only part of any plan, and recognizing when the time is ripe to pounce on the hear and now is important to winning rings from time to time while trying to maintain a steady flow of winning teams for the fans- the customers.

The winning ways of the Sox from 2004 to 2018 often involved step backs in spending and or refocusing on the future at the expense of the now. We were still able to put competitive teams on the field in between ring seasons until the Ben era, but then the all out DD era gave us a taste of "what could be," and some read that to mean (or hoped it meant) "this is how we will be forever and ever." It wasn't and never was going to be. That's the reality for fans that are wimps, tough guys and everyone in between. 

It's who we are. It's not going to change, except for maybe a splurge here and there.

We all know this is true, I think the frustration comes out in trying to educate others on what might be happening. As my dad always says “what you do speaks so loud, I can’t hear what you say” - he stole it from someone.
This years frustration is a different frustration for me, hence why I joined this “support group” ha ha Everything set up so perfectly to add Alonso, AB2, trade for a #2 and go take a real run at a WS….. Alas here we are, RS are going to scrape and claw to hopefully 88 wins, and backdoor into playoffs again.
 

And yet to prove JH’s point….  I still booked 3 road trips to see Red Sox this year. Including my 1st Red Sox vs Yankees Fenway series. He knows he’s got us. Go Sox!

[Duran Is The Man]

1 hour ago, drewski6 said:

>>>

The Red sox have become a team that cringe at the thought of paying great players great player money. And so we lock RA up through his prime at a discount, and now we dont have to worry about it, but it zaps our cap for 2026,2027

<<<

that's it exactly.

[moonslav59]

33 minutes ago, Duran Is The Man said:

that's it exactly.

I guess the Anthony and Crochet money is all a hoax.

[JoeBrady]

2 hours ago, drewski6 said:

Had we not locked up RA we might have to pay him top dollar in 2032!! Maybe just maybe we shouldnt revolve our entire philosophy around not having to ever pay people top money.

The idea being that we can have RA, AND, since we will not being paying him $40M, we can have someone else very good.

[JoeBrady]

2 hours ago, drewski6 said:

When you were jumping for joy in 2020 because we traded Betts

I wasn't jumping for joy.  I accepted the fact that he wanted to leave, as his his right.  Don't make stuff up to make a point.

[JoeBrady]

2 hours ago, drewski6 said:

And at some point, you need to just stop being such a wimp.

Such a stupid thing to say.  I am 100% on-board with JH spending up to the second tier.  But I am a wimp simply because I recognize that locking in someone like RA is a smart move?  Pure, unadulterated nonsense, and you know it.

[JoeBrady]

45 minutes ago, UtahSox said:

Alas here we are, RS are going to scrape and claw to hopefully 88 wins, and backdoor into playoffs again.

It's fairly straightforward and simple.  If we make no further moves, and only spend $239M, you will be 100% right.  And you can hound me on this the entire season.  And if we sign Bregman (or a similar move) and spend to the $263,999,999, then I'll be right.

[UtahSox]

9 minutes ago, JoeBrady said:

It's fairly straightforward and simple.  If we make no further moves, and only spend $239M, you will be 100% right.  And you can hound me on this the entire season.  And if we sign Bregman (or a similar move) and spend to the $263,999,999, then I'll be right.

Oh if we don’t sign AB2 we aren’t making the playoffs unless the stars align. And Mayer is 3+ WAR

[JoeBrady]

3 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

Utah is right, too, as what good does it all do, if you end up playing it halfway and won't go that extra step to get us over the top

I have no problem agreeing with that.  Our spending, and virtually everyone else's, should be tailored to their windows.

That said, will signing Bregman make one iota of a difference to this discussion?

[JoeBrady]

3 minutes ago, UtahSox said:

Oh if we don’t sign AB2 we aren’t making the playoffs unless the stars align. And Mayer is 3+ WAR

I'd bet we make the playoffs whether or not we sign Bregman.  I wouldn't think twice about it.

• Bregman is the difference between backing in and being in the contention for 1st place.
• Having a #2 is the difference between a first-round exit, and a serious contender for the WS.

[moonslav59]

9 minutes ago, JoeBrady said:

I have no problem agreeing with that.  Our spending, and virtually everyone else's, should be tailored to their windows.

That said, will signing Bregman make one iota of a difference to this discussion?

it might quiet the masses until the next do-nothing deadline.

[moonslav59]

7 minutes ago, JoeBrady said:

I'd bet we make the playoffs whether or not we sign Bregman.  I wouldn't think twice about it.

• Bregman is the difference between backing in and being in the contention for 1st place.
• Having a #2 is the difference between a first-round exit, and a serious contender for the WS.

Exactly how I see it, and I think we can do this without going over the second tax line.

I know some hate hearing that, but it's the reality, IMO.

[Randy Red Sox]

On 1/5/2026 at 8:19 AM, mvp 78 said:

It was weird to bring Breggie on for only a year with the QO issue and cause the friction with Devers. Even if they end up re-signing him now, the move was a little questionable. An opt out after one year, how did that help the Sox? And now they are willing to move the goal posts and give him a longer term contract? Why? 

On your last point, going over the CBT in '22 was Bloom's biggest sin. He barely went over and had nothing to show for it. Absolutely brutal. 

your last sentence nailed it perfectly

[Randy Red Sox]

Cutter Crawford signs--you guessed it a 1 yr contract

[moonslav59]

1 hour ago, Randy Red Sox said:

your last sentence nailed it perfectly

That was real bad.

Brez went over by $1.5M, last year. Why not go over by 19.5?

[JoeBrady]

4 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

That was real bad.

Brez went over by $1.5M, last year. Why not go over by 19.5?

That stuff drives me crazy..  I liked the May move, even if it didn't work out.  But the key move would've been Naylor.  Our farm could've easily have matched the Mariner offer, and the salary and the tax on Naylor's salary would've been another $4.3-4.4M.  And 1B was a match made in heaven.

[JoeBrady]

51 minutes ago, Randy Red Sox said:

Cutter Crawford signs--you guessed it a 1 yr contract

It's arbitration.  One-year contracts are the norm.

[JoeBrady]

1 hour ago, moonslav59 said:

Exactly how I see it, and I think we can do this without going over the second tax line.

I know some hate hearing that, but it's the reality, IMO.

What they've done in the past was to assess where they are in the pennant race at the deadline and adding to some degree based on our chances.  What I'd like is to spend to the $269M and see where we are at the deadline.

[moonslav59]

17 minutes ago, JoeBrady said:

That stuff drives me crazy..  I liked the May move, even if it didn't work out.  But the key move would've been Naylor.  Our farm could've easily have matched the Mariner offer, and the salary and the tax on Naylor's salary would've been another $4.3-4.4M.  And 1B was a match made in heaven.

Yup. He hit 9 bombs for SEA, and while Lowe did not do poorly, Naylor might have carried us.

What also hurt was the $21M on Buehler and then the D May flop.

[UtahSox]

18 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

Yup. He hit 9 bombs for SEA, and while Lowe did not do poorly, Naylor might have carried us.

What also hurt was the $21M on Buehler and then the D May flop.

The DFA of Buehler made no sense to me. Yes he sucked generally, Would have cost us 500k a start, would have made 3-4 more starts by end of year… And I’ll bet FO wished they kept him, considering his best baseball was always October, and we had to roll out a rookie in game 3. Or he could have been a stop gap in game 2 when Bello gave us a solid 2 innings. 

[Randy Red Sox]

1 hour ago, JoeBrady said:

It's arbitration.  One-year contracts are the norm.

i know--i couldn't resist

[Hitch]

17 hours ago, mvp 78 said:

I'd rather be like the Dodgers or Yankees who somehow are competitive every year. 🤔

Yes, how do these teams with turnovers that dwarf the rest of the league do it? It's a mystery isn't it? 🤔 The Dodgers signed a TV deal that gives them more/around the same in revenue as half the teams in the league!

It would certainly be nice to have the Dodgers wealth to put into development and international scouting. 

[Hitch]

10 hours ago, Randy Red Sox said:

Cutter Crawford signs--you guessed it a 1 yr contract

As do mostly every player in the league in arbs. Stop looking for reasons to be annoyed.

[Hitch]

17 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

 

I admitted much was undone by the Devers dump, and pointing out the lack of deadline moves was something I neglected to mention.

In a discussion last week someone said (I think it was MVP) that we had been psychologically scarred by ownership. I though it was true then, and I think it even more true when I read things like this. (not having a go at you here Moon - this is a regular take from lots of people)

Lester was the start, Mookie was the pinnacle. Now everything is seen through that lens - the owners are cheap, they won't want long contracts. But they've done long contracts. We just give our starting pitcher and first year outfielder big ones. We gave an aging 3rd baseman one. We gave our 3rd baseman one. A huge one that will likely not age well at all. Story, Sale, and others that were disasters for us.

But this idea that they dumped Devers is far fetched for me. If he agreed to move to 1st, he'd still be here now. Instead he acted like a f***ing child and threw his teammates under the bus (after we suffered a devastating injury), before immediately declaring he'd play wherever his new team wanted him to play. Whatever about the way we approached it - he was in control of his own actions and he acted like a piece of s***.

It wasn't about dumping the contract because it was $300 (this is just the scarring talking - they wouldn't have given him the damn thing if they wanted to dump it within a year), it's because the highest paid player in Red Sox history was saying a big FU to management and ownership. And when that happens, you cut the cancer out not let it grow and fester.

That people want to immediately tie it to cheapness is the surest sign confirmation bias I've seen on here.