Red Sox 2025 Season Review/Offseason Preview Thread

[Hugh2]

18 minutes ago, Hitch said:

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. 

I haven't seen 2025 numbers yet, but in 2024 the LAD had $174 million more in revenue than the Boston Red Sox.  But LAD spent $307 million more on payroll and tax than Boston did.  The Red Sox actually had more operating income than LAD. 

LAD brings in more money, but they spend MORE than that amount on payroll alone, which means hypothetically they have actually less money than Boston. 

Now I'm just looking at 2024, and not other years, but I'd expect recent history to be similiar and my point is this.  The Red Sox have all the wealth and more to put just as much resources in the development and interanational scouting that the LAD do.  Actually, given their reluctance to go over the higher luxury tax limits I'd say they're in a position to be spending more than LAD right now. 

[Hitch]

3 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

I haven't seen 2025 numbers yet, but in 2024 the LAD had $174 million more in revenue than the Boston Red Sox.  But LAD spent $307 million more on payroll and tax than Boston did.  The Red Sox actually had more operating income than LAD. 

LAD brings in more money, but they spend MORE than that amount on payroll alone, which means hypothetically they have actually less money than Boston. 

Now I'm just looking at 2024, and not other years, but I'd expect recent history to be similiar and my point is this.  The Red Sox have all the wealth and more to put just as much resources in the development and interanational scouting that the LAD do.  Actually, given their reluctance to go over the higher luxury tax limits I'd say they're in a position to be spending more than LAD right now. 

LAD are almost up to a billion in revenue according to Forbes (official numbers for '25 still to come). They're getting £320m a year in revenue form the TV deal alone. And that is locked in for 25 years. Mark Walter is also worth double Henry and a lot more cash rich. These are the reasons that their payroll can be as high as they want it to be and not worry. They're locked into safety. The Red Sox's TV deal is with themselves. I just wish people would take some context into their thinking and actually go a bit deeper than just Red Sox owners = cheap.

My point about International scouting/development is not that we match LAD's, I don't know how much they put in, but that I wish we had their revenue streams to put into that area, and payroll issues would be less of a problem in general. The lifeblood of every single organisation is its scouting and development.

[Hugh2]

6 minutes ago, Hitch said:

LAD are almost up to a billion in revenue according to Forbes (official numbers for '25 still to come). They're getting £320m a year in revenue form the TV deal alone. And that is locked in for 25 years. Mark Walter is also worth double Henry and a lot more cash rich. These are the reasons that their payroll can be as high as they want it to be and not worry. They're locked into safety. The Red Sox's TV deal is with themselves. I just wish people would take some context into their thinking and actually go a bit deeper than just Red Sox owners = cheap.

My point about International scouting/development is not that we match LAD's, I don't know how much they put in, but that I wish we had their revenue streams to put into that area, and payroll issues would be less of a problem in general. The lifeblood of every single organisation is its scouting and development.

I don't really care where its' coming from.  I mean I do, but it's just irelevant to the bottom line of this topic.  

At the end of the day revenue is revenue and if the Mets generate have less money than the red sox (after adjusting for payroll expenses) then the Sox have more cash.  

Now I was looking at 2024, but I wouldn't expect things to be much different for 2025. 

[moonslav59]

4 minutes ago, Hitch said:

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.

They dumped his salary and promised to spend to replace him.

It wasn't all about salary, for sure, but it sure changed the narrative on spending.

The Lester and mookie issues were horrible for Sox fans, and that was a marked change, but we had also lost Manny, Damon, Pedro, Beltre, and many others along the way. Look at all the stars the Astros have lost in just 8 years or so. Hell, even the Braves lost Freeman and some other big stars. The Yanks couldn't keep Soto.

We aren't "cheap." Not even close. The whole start of the long lull in big spending actually started in 2019- the year we had our largest budget ever. We didn't bring back of replace Kimbrel or Kelly from the ring team.

We've always spent more than most team. We've cycled up and down, often. We've let many really good players go, often at the right time- often not. We've added high-priced players and peaked with that in 2018. AWe went through the longest lower (not low) cycle under JH in new spending from about 2019 to the end of 2024. There were a couple blips of upspending, but withing the context of the major cuts from 2019-2020, it was barely noticeable.

We spent big on Devers- bigger than anyone before. We started extending our young talent, so we won't see them boly in peak prime. We made the bold trade for Crochet and then extended him to the end of his prime years. We even started signing pitchers to 2 year deals! (LOL) These are all facts. They are not apologies or constructed defenses.

The other facts that matter are that several teams have significantly jumped their spending- some leaving us in the dust. To me, the beef some posters have is that JH has not kept pace, despite our "higher revenue streams." That point has merit, but I don't get why facts are twisted to try and make JH into some kind of miser. Try looking at the Reds.

Not many people are bitching at the Astros, because they spent the same or less than us, but they won more since 2018. IMO, some are masking their being spoiled with being "tough" and calling out those who point out facts as being some sort of namby pamby enablers of Mr. Miser Henry.

Of course we all wish we'd do what is needed to get us over the top. At times, it seemed like we didn't need all that much to do it, and it sucked when we sat on our hands. What made it worse was the lies and pretenses conveyed by management, such as the "full throttle" statement. Obviously some sort of scam was going on, at some level. I called it a sham and got hell from a guy who has been bashing management for as long as I can remember.

I may be in a minority, but I've seen a significant change in philosophy and planning, and much of it looks good to great, to me. I'm not going to ignore all that because we missed out on overpaying for Alonso or Schwarber. I'm also not ignoring the fact that we avoid large and long deals for players over 29 or 30. I'm not so sure that's a bad thing, especially when you look at out team's record on those deals.

 

[Hugh2]

Boston has zero excuse for not spending as much as any other team on development and scouting. 

Pay roll is a different story. 

[moonslav59]

2 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

Boston has zero excuse for not spending as much as any other team on development and scouting. 

Pay roll is a different story. 

That cut in scouting was puzzling to me. 

I'm glad they put intense focus on pitching, and how these guys turn out will be a reflection of how much we improved the player development aspect of building a top foundation of young players.

It's a little too early to judge that aspect, and I'm not sure how much spending has to do with it, as much as just getting the right people in the right places at the right times.

[Hugh2]

2 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

That cut in scouting was puzzling to me. 

I'm glad they put intense focus on pitching, and how these guys turn out will be a reflection of how much we improved the player development aspect of building a top foundation of young players.

It's a little too early to judge that aspect, and I'm not sure how much spending has to do with it, as much as just getting the right people in the right places at the right times.

A lot of that was philosophical in my opinion.  It's not that they don't value scouting, they just put more weight behind their models, computers, ai etc etc. 

[mvp 78]

10 hours ago, JoeBrady said:

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

Clearly they should have given him an 8 year extension! 

[Bellhorn04]

13 hours ago, JoeBrady said:

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.

I have seen nothing that indicates Betts wanted to leave.

[moonslav59]

7 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

A lot of that was philosophical in my opinion.  It's not that they don't value scouting, they just put more weight behind their models, computers, ai etc etc. 

Yes. I doubt it was to save a few hundred thousand bucks.

So far, I like how our farm has helped this team get better and the pitching outlook looks about as good as I've ever seen our system look.

(Please excuse my optimism.)

[Hitch]

12 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

I don't really care where its' coming from.  I mean I do, but it's just irelevant to the bottom line of this topic.  

At the end of the day revenue is revenue and if the Mets generate have less money than the red sox (after adjusting for payroll expenses) then the Sox have more cash.  

Now I was looking at 2024, but I wouldn't expect things to be much different for 2025. 

It is not irrelevant. Not even in the slightest and is not the way a business is run, If you're locked into 8 BILLION for 25 years, it affords you the freedom of knowing you have a baseline revenue level and can predict and plan and spend off that guarantee.  

The Red Sox revenues vary, just two years earlier they took around 15-18% less than this year - 

2024: $574M (Forbes estimates vary slightly)
2023: $513M
2022: $479M
2021: $479M
2020: $152M (Pandemic impact)

A big chunk of the Red Sox revenue is also from themselves seeing as FSG own NESN. A risk the Dodgers do not have. No one is forced to take into account any context, but it certainly doesn't help anyone to ignore it. People have an idea of our businesses are run. They're almost always wrong and not availed (or want to be) with the facts in my experience.

[mvp 78]

39 minutes ago, Hitch said:

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.

They gave our ace pitcher and #1 prospect long contracts...

Crochet: 6 year deal, they basically gave him 4 extra years after arbitration through age 31, is that a huge stretch

Anthony: 8 year deal with club option for 9th year, gives them 3 additional years of control after ARB through age 30

That's not really stretching themselves. They are the most obvious "have to do" deals of all time. 

What is the aging 3b long term deal? I don't see it anywhere.

[Hitch]

19 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

Boston has zero excuse for not spending as much as any other team on development and scouting. 

Pay roll is a different story. 

If this is what you're basing your replies to me off you've misunderstood my point. Above is a given.

Though it doesn't mean that this equals the same outcome of course. 

[Hitch]

21 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

They dumped his salary and promised to spend to replace him.

It wasn't all about salary, for sure, but it sure changed the narrative on spending.

 

I know, That was the whole point of my post. 

[mvp 78]

28 minutes ago, Hitch said:

LAD are almost up to a billion in revenue according to Forbes (official numbers for '25 still to come). They're getting £320m a year in revenue form the TV deal alone. And that is locked in for 25 years. Mark Walter is also worth double Henry and a lot more cash rich. These are the reasons that their payroll can be as high as they want it to be and not worry. They're locked into safety. The Red Sox's TV deal is with themselves. I just wish people would take some context into their thinking and actually go a bit deeper than just Red Sox owners = cheap.

My point about International scouting/development is not that we match LAD's, I don't know how much they put in, but that I wish we had their revenue streams to put into that area, and payroll issues would be less of a problem in general. The lifeblood of every single organisation is its scouting and development.

The Red Sox OWN NESN. The entire network's cash is under their roof. That NESN only passes through to them 100M is kind of laughable TBH. They could double or triple that if they wanted to. 

[Hugh2]

Just now, Hitch said:

If this is what you're basing your replies to me off you've misunderstood my point. Above is a given.

Though it doesn't mean that this equals the same outcome of course. 

No it doesn't and perhaps I need to go back further more and read to understand. 

But the numbers are what they're so as of right now, the gap between Boston and LAD's revenue is smaller than the gap between their payroll expenses.  What LA spends on MLB talent completley wipes out the $$ advantage they would have over the Red Sox and a few other teams towards the top of the revenue stream. 

Personally I think the Red Sox should be a scouting/analytics machine $$$

[mvp 78]

23 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

They dumped his salary and promised to spend to replace him.

It wasn't all about salary, for sure, but it sure changed the narrative on spending.

The Lester and mookie issues were horrible for Sox fans, and that was a marked change, but we had also lost Manny, Damon, Pedro, Beltre, and many others along the way. Look at all the stars the Astros have lost in just 8 years or so. Hell, even the Braves lost Freeman and some other big stars. The Yanks couldn't keep Soto.

We aren't "cheap." Not even close. The whole start of the long lull in big spending actually started in 2019- the year we had our largest budget ever. We didn't bring back of replace Kimbrel or Kelly from the ring team.

We've always spent more than most team. We've cycled up and down, often. We've let many really good players go, often at the right time- often not. We've added high-priced players and peaked with that in 2018. AWe went through the longest lower (not low) cycle under JH in new spending from about 2019 to the end of 2024. There were a couple blips of upspending, but withing the context of the major cuts from 2019-2020, it was barely noticeable.

We spent big on Devers- bigger than anyone before. We started extending our young talent, so we won't see them boly in peak prime. We made the bold trade for Crochet and then extended him to the end of his prime years. We even started signing pitchers to 2 year deals! (LOL) These are all facts. They are not apologies or constructed defenses.

The other facts that matter are that several teams have significantly jumped their spending- some leaving us in the dust. To me, the beef some posters have is that JH has not kept pace, despite our "higher revenue streams." That point has merit, but I don't get why facts are twisted to try and make JH into some kind of miser. Try looking at the Reds.

Not many people are bitching at the Astros, because they spent the same or less than us, but they won more since 2018. IMO, some are masking their being spoiled with being "tough" and calling out those who point out facts as being some sort of namby pamby enablers of Mr. Miser Henry.

Of course we all wish we'd do what is needed to get us over the top. At times, it seemed like we didn't need all that much to do it, and it sucked when we sat on our hands. What made it worse was the lies and pretenses conveyed by management, such as the "full throttle" statement. Obviously some sort of scam was going on, at some level. I called it a sham and got hell from a guy who has been bashing management for as long as I can remember.

I may be in a minority, but I've seen a significant change in philosophy and planning, and much of it looks good to great, to me. I'm not going to ignore all that because we missed out on overpaying for Alonso or Schwarber. I'm also not ignoring the fact that we avoid large and long deals for players over 29 or 30. I'm not so sure that's a bad thing, especially when you look at out team's record on those deals.

 

They cycled down and haven't cycled up again. If the lack of consistent winning on the field looks great to you, enjoy. I'm not on board. The team was better off 03-19. 

[mvp 78]

1 minute ago, Hugh2 said:

No it doesn't and perhaps I need to go back further more and read to understand. 

But the numbers are what they're so as of right now, the gap between Boston and LAD's revenue is smaller than the gap between their payroll expenses.  What LA spends on MLB talent completley wipes out the $$ advantage they would have over the Red Sox and a few other teams towards the top of the revenue stream. 

Personally I think the Red Sox should be a scouting/analytics machine $$$

And yet, the Sox have gutted their scouting and are leaning more and more on cheaper computer models. 🤔

[Hugh2]

4 minutes ago, Hitch said:

It is not irrelevant. Not even in the slightest and is not the way a business is run, If you're locked into 8 BILLION for 25 years, it affords you the freedom of knowing you have a baseline revenue level and can predict and plan and spend off that guarantee.  

The Red Sox revenues vary, just two years earlier they took around 15-18% less than this year - 

2024: $574M (Forbes estimates vary slightly)
2023: $513M
2022: $479M
2021: $479M
2020: $152M (Pandemic impact)

A big chunk of the Red Sox revenue is also from themselves seeing as FSG own NESN. A risk the Dodgers do not have. No one is forced to take into account any context, but it certainly doesn't help anyone to ignore it. People have an idea of our businesses are run. They're almost always wrong and not availed (or want to be) with the facts in my experience.

I literally run a business, TWO actually with an accounting base degree.  

It's not overaly complicated. 

If I make $100, and you make $50   But you spend $10 on payroll and I spend $75  Then you have $15 more left over than me. 

As I said before, the extra revenue LAD spends is less than the excess amount the spend on payroll and taxes. 

This means THEY DO NOT have more cash flow to spend on scouting and development than the Red Sox.

[mvp 78]

9 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

I have seen nothing that indicates Betts wanted to leave.

It's easier to cope with the loss if you believe he didn't want to be here anymore. 

[Hugh2]

Just now, mvp 78 said:

And yet, the Sox have gutted their scouting and are leaning more and more on cheaper computer models. 🤔

The numbers are what the numbers are.  And as I said, the Soix reliance on computer models over scouting is a philosophical move, if it is $$$$ based, it's not because they have to, it's because they chose to. 

If me and you each have $100 and you save $50 but I save $75  I don't have the capacity to saving more money than you......I'm just chosing to do so.

[Hitch]

18 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

They gave our ace pitcher and #1 prospect long contracts...

Crochet: 6 year deal, they basically gave him 4 extra years after arbitration through age 31, is that a huge stretch

Anthony: 8 year deal with club option for 9th year, gives them 3 additional years of control after ARB through age 30

That's not really stretching themselves. They are the most obvious "have to do" deals of all time. 

What is the aging 3b long term deal? I don't see it anywhere.

They gave a pitcher who hadn't yet shown he could pitch a season as a starter without limitations $30m (give or take) for 6 years. It is a stretch, no. Is it a long/big contract? Yes.

Same for Anthony.

I didn't say they were stretching themselves, I said they've given out long contracts. I see you missed out Devers $300m. And obviously they committed $40m a year x 3 to Bregman. They gave Story $120m, Extended Sale, gave big contracts to Hanley and Pablo. 

Almost all the big contracts they've handed out haven't worked out, but still they get hammered for not signing aging players to long deals. 

And when they don't work out the same fans complaining they aren't spending are there to complain for making stupid investments. And so the circle-jerk continues.

[Hitch]

7 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

The Red Sox OWN NESN. The entire network's cash is under their roof. That NESN only passes through to them 100M is kind of laughable TBH. They could double or triple that if they wanted to. 

Yes, thanks for making the point I've made twice already. The point is that, this has to stay stable and there is no guarantee. The Dodgers are getting $8billon from an entertainment conglomerate. 

[Hitch]

5 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

I literally run a business, TWO actually with an accounting base degree.  

It's not overaly complicated. 

If I make $100, and you make $50   But you spend $10 on payroll and I spend $75  Then you have $15 more left over than me. 

As I said before, the extra revenue LAD spends is less than the excess amount the spend on payroll and taxes. 

This means THEY DO NOT have more cash flow to spend on scouting and development than the Red Sox.

Which is all well and good if that was the point being made. I have clarified three times now.

[mvp 78]

4 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

The numbers are what the numbers are.  And as I said, the Soix reliance on computer models over scouting is a philosophical move, if it is $$$$ based, it's not because they have to, it's because they chose to. 

If me and you each have $100 and you save $50 but I save $75  I don't have the capacity to saving more money than you......I'm just chosing to do so.

The team at the top of the league is doing both analytics and scouting. Very weird that the Sox are still kind of in the middle in the pack and cutting corners when they are 3rd in revenue. Hard to keep cheering for the "they saved money" line. 

The A's saved money for years and years and never won anything. Henry loved that model. 

[Hugh2]

1 minute ago, mvp 78 said:

The team at the top of the league is doing both analytics and scouting. Very weird that the Sox are still kind of in the middle in the pack and cutting corners when they are 3rd in revenue. Hard to keep cheering for the "they saved money" line. 

The A's saved money for years and years and never won anything. Henry loved that model. 

I'm not cheering for them on this, I wish they spent even more on it.  Into both personel and "THE MACHINES" 

I'm not sure the A's are comparision.  Boston could spend a lot more if they wanted too, as they have a more favorable market. 

[Hugh2]

4 minutes ago, Hitch said:

Which is all well and good if that was the point being made. I have clarified three times now.

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

We do....that was and is my only point. 

[Hitch]

Just now, Hugh2 said:

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

We do....that was and is my only point. 

Then we're having different conversations. My point there is that I'd love the Dodgers supposed near billon dollar revenue so that we can invest more in that area (more than anyone preferably). We are behind other teams in what we draft and develop in international markets I'd argue.

That all said, the Sox seem to be going down different routes to scouts on the ground. If this works or no is sot be seen, but I'm not hopeful.

[mvp 78]

8 minutes ago, Hitch said:

They gave a pitcher who hadn't yet shown he could pitch a season as a starter without limitations $30m (give or take) for 6 years. It is a stretch, no. Is it a long/big contract? Yes.

Same for Anthony.

I didn't say they were stretching themselves, I said they've given out long contracts. I see you missed out Devers $300m. And obviously they committed $40m a year x 3 to Bregman. They gave Story $120m, Extended Sale, gave big contracts to Hanley and Pablo. 

Almost all the big contracts they've handed out have worked out, but still they get hammered for not signing aging players to long deals. 

And when they don't work out the same fans complaining they aren't spending are there to complain for making stupid investments. And so the circle-jerk continues.

They gave Devers a long contract? I don't see it on the books anymore! Where'd it go! Oh, they got cold feet and dumped him the second they were able to because they are cheap. 

You can complain about a circle-jerk all you want but from the other side I see "well, JH got 4 rings and now he's running his business EFFECTIVELY and SAVING BIG BIG MONEY. You just don't know how it is in big business. I'm a big boy who sits in big business meetings and the last BOD meeting I was at..........."

The vast majority of us on here are middle aged professional white dudes who come from similar backgrounds. The amount of CPA's that have posted daily on here could be counted on 3 hands. Most of us know what cash flow means. Some of us can do the direct and indirect method even! But we're fans. We want the team to win. Owning a baseball team should be a passion project, not a means to deliver corporate profits to stock holders. If you are cheering on the team saving money at the expense of the product on the field, stick your head in the toilet and flush! 

I still remember what it was like in the 80's and 90's and the "wait 'til next year." I don't want to go back there. 

[mvp 78]

12 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

I'm not cheering for them on this, I wish they spent even more on it.  Into both personel and "THE MACHINES" 

I'm not sure the A's are comparision.  Boston could spend a lot more if they wanted too, as they have a more favorable market. 

I watched Moneyball a year or two ago and JH appears at the end. His scene has really stuck with me.