Red Sox 2025 Season Review/Offseason Preview Thread

[Hugh2]

9 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

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

Me as well. 

Henry always seems to Zig when others Zag, and it's worked in the past.  But I do think you leave the door open to FAIL miserably with that philosophy.  Which is what I think has happened 2020-2024. 

[moonslav59]

27 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

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. 

I agree, we were better for most o3-19, but I disagree with the other point. I think we are on the upcycle, again.

Since the end or 2023:

Devers was the largest and longest deal in Sox history and by far.

4 extensions given to young and promising players/rookies.

$21M AAV to Buehler was the second highest ever given to a FA pitcher in Sox history. This on the heels of two 2 year deals given to SP'ers (Gio & Sandoval) when we hadn't signed a FS pitcher to more than one year since Nate's semi-extension deal in 2019.

$40M AAV given to Bregman blew the Devers' AAV away.

The Crochet blockbuster trade and the second largest pitcher extension given in Sox history. (Sale was #1.)

Granted, 8 moves/deals does not tell the whole story, but this is a serious uptick in spending and commitment to winning. This offseason is still TBD, so it can easily be undone by inactivity over this winter and season, but we'll see.

I certainly wish we'd made a bold signing or two by now. One big signing will barely get us to plus status over 2025, but improvement is not something we've seen since last winter.

[moonslav59]

47 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

I have seen nothing that indicates Betts wanted to leave.

He wanted to get paid what he felt he deserved to get. Had BOS given him that, or maybe even close to that, I think he would have been happy to stay in BOS. 

Now, if we had kept the same budgets from 2020 onwards, he'd have been miserable.

[moonslav59]

43 minutes ago, Hitch said:

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

Yes. I didn't mean to sound like I was disagreeing with you.

[Bellhorn04]

1 minute ago, moonslav59 said:

He wanted to get paid what he felt he deserved to get. Had BOS given him that, or maybe even close to that, I think he would have been happy to stay in BOS. 

Now, if we had kept the same budgets from 2020 onwards, he'd have been miserable.

We'll never know how he would have felt about the budgets.  Can't really see him being a "malcontent".    

[moonslav59]

I no longer trust cots, so here are the spotrac tax budget numbers:

Sox placed...

12th in 2023 ($226M) $1M from 11th, $5M from 10th & $32M from 5th.

12th in 2024 ($226M) $1M from 11th, $7M from 10th and $42M from 5th.

7th in 2025 ($249M) $12M from 6th and $3*M from 5th.,

8th in 2029 as of now at ($235M) $16M from 7th and $21M from 6th (A Bregman signing away) What is getting farther out of reach? 5th place is about $45M away. We'd have to go $37M over the tax line to pass the NYY, and they are close to signing Bellinger or someone else to big money.

[moonslav59]

7 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

We'll never know how he would have felt about the budgets.  Can't really see him being a "malcontent".    

I don't either, but paying Betts and keeping the same budgets would have meant trading away some salary in some years, not just no signings.

[Bellhorn04]

Just now, moonslav59 said:

I don't either, but paying Betts and keeping the same budgets would have meant trading away some salary in some years, not just no signings.

His AAV is 29 million.  Maybe no Story signing, maybe no Yoshida signing.

Anyway it's all just speculation.  The damage is huge and there's no way around it.  The Dodgers have annihilated us since the trade.

[Old Red]

4 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

His AAV is 29 million.  Maybe no Story signing, maybe no Yoshida signing.

Anyway it's all just speculation.  The damage is huge and there's no way around it.  The Dodgers have annihilated us since the trade.

Exactly! Maybe no Sale extension.

[Old Red]

21 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

He wanted to get paid what he felt he deserved to get. Had BOS given him that, or maybe even close to that, I think he would have been happy to stay in BOS. 

Now, if we had kept the same budgets from 2020 onwards, he'd have been miserable.

If Betts would have been paid, and stayed in Boston you have NO idea what would have transpired after that. No one does.

[Bellhorn04]

4 minutes ago, Old Red said:

If Betts would have been paid, and stayed in Boston you have NO idea what would have transpired after that. No one does.

It was a historic blunder, and of course eerily reminiscent of what happened in the previous century at almost exactly the same time.

[Old Red]

2 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

It was a historic blunder, and of course eerily reminiscent of what happened in the previous century at almost exactly the same time.

Agree, and that has been mentioned more than once. At least Betts didn’t go to the YANKEES.

[moonslav59]

15 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

His AAV is 29 million.  Maybe no Story signing, maybe no Yoshida signing.

Anyway it's all just speculation.  The damage is huge and there's no way around it.  The Dodgers have annihilated us since the trade.

The Story and Masa signings came a few years later. How do we reach the 2020 and 2021 budgets with $29M from Betts added?

First, we'd have likely traded Half Price anyway, but that was already deducted from those budgets, so we'd have had to dump others....

One from 2020....?

$26M Sale

$22M JD

$20M Bogey

Maybe 2 from....?

$17M Nate

$14M Pedey (nope)

$11M JBJ

$8M ERod

[moonslav59]

12 minutes ago, Old Red said:

If Betts would have been paid, and stayed in Boston you have NO idea what would have transpired after that. No one does.

Of course we don't know, but my guess is the idea was to cut the budget, and that's why we traded Betts & half-Price. I doubt keeping Betts would have changed the budget plans much.

Just my opinion.

[Old Red]

3 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

The Story and Masa signings came a few years later. How do we reach the 2020 and 2021 budgets with $29M from Betts added?

First, we'd have likely traded Half Price anyway, but that was already deducted from those budgets, so we'd have had to dump others....

One from 2020....?

$26M Sale

$22M JD

$20M Bogey

Maybe 2 from....?

$17M Nate

$14M Pedey (nope)

$11M JBJ

$8M ERod

You are going on the assumption that had the Red Sox had been willing to give Mookie the money, and actually signed him that every thing else would have been done, and turned out the exact same way. I don’t. The Red Sox wouldn’t give Lester the money, but then turned around, and gave Price two times more.

[moonslav59]

Just now, Old Red said:

You are going on the assumption that had the Red Sox had been willing to give Mookie the money, and actually signed him that every thing else would have been done, and turned out the exact same way. I don’t. The Red Sox wouldn’t give Lester the money, but then turned around, and gave Price two times more.

No, I merely pointed out that had we given Betts $29M, I doubt we'd have changed our budget plans going forward. More likely, had we kept Betts, we would not have extended Sale or Nate.

I'm not assuming the budgets stay exactly the same, but I suggested that in my opinion the decision was made to cut the budget by a lot for the next few years, and I doubt it would have changed much had we kept him.

I don't think we let Lester go because the plan was to slash the budget for years to come. I do think that was the case at the time of the Betts, sale, Nate & Boget choices made.

I think JH & Co felt we could still win with the 2020 roster with very few big money additions needed. That year, injuries killed that hope. We did okay in 2021, but then the lack of replacing departing talent in kind caught up to us.

[moonslav59]

53 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

Me as well. 

Henry always seems to Zig when others Zag, and it's worked in the past.  But I do think you leave the door open to FAIL miserably with that philosophy.  Which is what I think has happened 2020-2024. 

Other than 2013, it failed from 2011 to 2014, too.

This is nothing new. It's been a pattern, although the recent down cycle seemed longer than that 4 year period with Ben at the helm, due to the 2013 ring.

[mvp 78]

1 hour ago, moonslav59 said:

I agree, we were better for most o3-19, but I disagree with the other point. I think we are on the upcycle, again.

It remains to be seen if it's an upcycle or if they are just a WC contender every few years now. I'd rather they be a WS contender every few years like they once were. 

[mvp 78]

1 hour ago, Bellhorn04 said:

We'll never know how he would have felt about the budgets.  Can't really see him being a "malcontent".    

The Sox would have been able to solve their 2b/SS issues internally... 😶

[mvp 78]

1 hour ago, Bellhorn04 said:

His AAV is 29 million.  Maybe no Story signing, maybe no Yoshida signing.

Anyway it's all just speculation.  The damage is huge and there's no way around it.  The Dodgers have annihilated us since the trade.

Where would the Sox be without Story and Masa! 

[mvp 78]

1 hour ago, moonslav59 said:

The Story and Masa signings came a few years later. How do we reach the 2020 and 2021 budgets with $29M from Betts added?

First, we'd have likely traded Half Price anyway, but that was already deducted from those budgets, so we'd have had to dump others....

One from 2020....?

$26M Sale

$22M JD

$20M Bogey

Maybe 2 from....?

$17M Nate

$14M Pedey (nope)

$11M JBJ

$8M ERod

Fantasy booking it, don't extend injured Sale! Trade him ASAP. Bloom had offers to take on the full contract. 

Then deal JD. He was gone soon enough anyway. Keep everyone else until '22 when you make a call on blowing it up or extending some guys (Eovaldi, Xander). 

[UtahSox]

1 hour ago, moonslav59 said:

I agree, we were better for most o3-19, but I disagree with the other point. I think we are on the upcycle, again.

Since the end or 2023:

Devers was the largest and longest deal in Sox history and by far.

4 extensions given to young and promising players/rookies.

$21M AAV to Buehler was the second highest ever given to a FA pitcher in Sox history. This on the heels of two 2 year deals given to SP'ers (Gio & Sandoval) when we hadn't signed a FS pitcher to more than one year since Nate's semi-extension deal in 2019.

$40M AAV given to Bregman blew the Devers' AAV away.

The Crochet blockbuster trade and the second largest pitcher extension given in Sox history. (Sale was #1.)

Granted, 8 moves/deals does not tell the whole story, but this is a serious uptick in spending and commitment to winning. This offseason is still TBD, so it can easily be undone by inactivity over this winter and season, but we'll see.

I certainly wish we'd made a bold signing or two by now. One big signing will barely get us to plus status over 2025, but improvement is not something we've seen since last winter.

And yet we are 8th-9th in spending vs 2018 we were 1st. That’s net regression 8 spots

In life, in business, in baseball nothing happens in a vacuum. I think a lot of the points you are making above……the AB2 40 million AV, the Devers deal and subsequent dump- All fit into what I wrote a few pages back about optics, yes we made all those moves last year, and barely, barely were in Tax.
Us and cubs have the largest gap between revenue and payroll. We know we spend less on scouts than the Yankees and the Dodgers. So basically derive at the assumption we NET. While they win. 
 

I think you guys who have been here a long time, sometimes look for key performance indicators that show slight improvement, you’re way down in the details.  yet take your eye off the main goal. As I say to my team, when I think we are too far in the weeds. 

let’s fly at 30,000 feet for 10 minutes.

1- do we have a championship worthy roster?

 if you can’t say yes emphatically to the first question, proceed to question 2

2- what do we have to do in free agency, to answer yes to the first question. We should be spend 300 million until you get there. That’s what top four teams do. And the Boston Red Sox are a top 4 brand in baseball. 
 

 

[drewski6]

16 hours 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.

I wasnt calling you a wimp, and I wasnt trying to bully JH into spending money (although maybe I would if I could, lol - "Bregman or wedgies, choose 1")

There was a distinct time, an actual moment, when I was watching Bloom - and thought he was punting on accountability. There is a thin line between providing context and providing excuses, and I think Bloom crossed that line.

When asked why the team fell apart 2 years in a row "but look at the pipeline" when asked why his FA adds struggled "but look at the prospects" when asked why he couldnt do a deadline deal "but look at the prospects" why last place? Look at the prospects!!!!

You know me, you know I embrace cyclicality, and not everybody here does. WE both do. We have that in common.  So there are points in the cycle, where what bloom is saying would be valid.  "Hey dont look at this year, or next, look 3-4 years out cuz thats the window we are building towards" - Im okay with hearing that someimes.

But theres an inherent comfort in that.  Like a honeymoon period in a new job.  Low expectations.  Hey dont me accountable for what Im doing currently, because Im in development mode.  Judge future me, not present me! Theres a comfort in that, that I think Bloom started hiding behind.

Similarly, I think there are a few Red Sox fans who are hesitant to make their move.  Its human.  I have friends at the poker table who play scared. They are not the best players.  Taking a swing is scary.  Putting chips in the middle of the table is scary. Asking a girl out is scary.  You cant miss if you dont swing.

If one was to say , hey "2028 is the year" it takes pressure off 2026.  ANd Im okay wiht that.  Where I get frustrated personally is when 2028 comes, and then some of those people get nervous, and start talking about 2031.  There is a shiny new toy syndrome that applies to prospects as well.  Hey this guy on sox prospects I just read about , hes 19 , hes going to be soooo good.  4 years later, hey this new guy who is 19 is going to be soo good.

And these things kind of run together.   The people who are afraid to say this is the beginning our window its time for results (and I acknowledge that is scary) generally are the people who will then go find a 19 yr old and say well, even if we fall on our face this year - we'll still have that guy coming up - and they'll use the existence of a good prospect  to take the pressure off any year.  And if it helps their nerves, thats okay. They are not bad people. BUT the poker player who plays scared is not the best player at the table, and the GM who operates scared is not the best GM. The baseball fan who is scared to acknowedge that certain years have more pressure than others is not the best armchair GM.  These people are letting hesitancy get the best of them. Bloom got fired for this reason.

I have firends who never evere ever make fantasy trades in our league. Because they are scared they are going to give up something good.  They arent the best managers in the league.

Sometimes , its time to pull the trigger and acknwledge a window.  Sometimes, you look around and you say there are expectations and pressure on this team THIS year.  That is scary.  And sometimes, people deal with that fear by finding a way to take the pressure off.  Well, even if we fall on our face this year , we still ahve x,y,z coming up.  And thats okay. Worse things to be than optimistic.  But when those fans start saying (in those widows) well , I dont want to sign x because it could wind up overpaid, or I dont want to trade prospects because already too many eggs in the short term basket.....Sometimes this is valid, but sometimes its someone's hesitancy clouding their ability to be objective. Theres a comfort in knowing that better days lie in front of you. It takes the pressure off that year.  But there comes a time when you need to meet expectations and face lofty goals, and acknowledge that if we fail to win this year or next thats a larger failure than it otherwise would be because we've had these years circled and have been building for them.  One could, instead, alleviate some of that pressure by kicking the can further down the road....IN 2025  you say wait until 2028, in 2028 you wait until 2031, in 2031 you wait until 2034....And youll never have to confront expectations/pressure and its a shield to prevent dissapointment.

I get it, dissapointment stinks.



 

[mvp 78]

1 hour ago, moonslav59 said:

Other than 2013, it failed from 2011 to 2014, too.

This is nothing new. It's been a pattern, although the recent down cycle seemed longer than that 4 year period with Ben at the helm, due to the 2013 ring.

Other than them winning in 2013, they failed in this 4 year period. Huh? 

2011 - missed playoffs by one game. 90 wins! More than 2025!

2012 - hired Valentine and blew up the team

2013 - won the WS

2014 - Aside from Lester and Lackey, they didn't have another competent starting pitcher, both were traded at the deadline. Half of the offense was a AAA lineup at one point. It was clearly a transition year with all the in season promotions and running JBJ out there for a full season while he hit under 200. They had no intention of winning that year. 

I don't know about your 4 year cycle thing. Very arbitrary endpoints IMO. 

[drewski6]

3 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

 

 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.

 

Lets go back 35 years and compare how many championships were won by a team that either had a big contract that was going to run well into that players 33s vs the championships won by team that had no contracts that were going to look scary by the end of it.

IF you play this game, and manage via minimization of risk, you wont sign any bad deals. But I assure you the majority of championships are won by teams that take risks or teams that are willing to carry a contract that will one day be ugly (but helps in the short term)

What Im trying to say - if you play ultra conservative, you wont make any major blunders. But you also probably wont win the game.

[Bellhorn04]

11 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

Other than them winning in 2013, they failed in this 4 year period. Huh? 

2011 - missed playoffs by one game. 90 wins! More than 2025!

2012 - hired Valentine and blew up the team

2013 - won the WS

2014 - Aside from Lester and Lackey, they didn't have another competent starting pitcher, both were traded at the deadline. Half of the offense was a AAA lineup at one point. It was clearly a transition year with all the in season promotions and running JBJ out there for a full season while he hit under 200. They had no intention of winning that year. 

I don't know about your 4 year cycle thing. Very arbitrary endpoints IMO. 

4 years is arbitrary unless we're talking about JH's patience period with CBOs, which is now pretty close to an established fact! 

[drewski6]

3 hours 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.

Its not always true, man. Liquidity does not come only from profit. Maybe in your business' case because you are a proprietor and not backed by a team of deep-pocket investors.

Sofi financial had the naming rights to a stadium and commercials running non-stop before they ever turned a profit. Because they had deep pocketed investors.

How profitable you are is just one factor when determining whether to ramp up or ramp down your expenditures.   

[Hitch]

2 hours ago, mvp 78 said:

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. 

Oh come on man. Devers is not here because he twice refused to help the team and challenged the entire organisation. The second of which came when we badly needed a first baseman after ours had a serious injury. He then happily played it at another organisation. He threw his teammates under the bus. 

What happened in your mind? The ownership were bullied into giving him the contract? And then just wanted out from Day 1? You know how crazy that sounds right? Especially up against Devers' ACTUAL actions?

Quote

 

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'll ignore the ******* part of your reply. 

Most people have no idea how business works at this level. That's not a criticism, why would most people? It's a world 99% of the population never come in to contact with. It's not easy to become a billionaire after all. But when people refuse to even listen to basic facts especially when the same conversations recycle time and time again here, it just feels like some people seem absolutely determined to not learn a thing/change their mind along the way. We're 4th in revenue (possibly about to go lower), up against teams that have $8billion TV deals (locked in - no risk, no market worries), and we are much further down the scale when it comes to individual wealth of owners, yet it's demanded that they reach the levels of investment of these other organisations. Why? Because just saying "we're the Boston Red Sox" is just not going to cut it in the modern world unfortunately. And what level of profit is acceptable for these people that have brought success to a town that hadn't had any in decades (baseball wise)? What level of risk is acceptable? Do people want lower ticket prices, or lower payroll? Few fans bother to think of these things they just want their favourite players signed. But the ones that do think about these things but cast them aside in the name of confirmation bias is who I have the biggest issue with. The ones that seem desperate for anything to grasp onto to complain about ownership, no matter how ridiculous - 1 year arb deals, anyone?

Quote

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. 

Look I totally get this. I'm with you. I want them to spend more as well. But I also want us to be run well, and not just throw bad money away on contracts that will hurt us soon, just so we can say we're spending. I also completely understand the rational behind not spending big on players when we are struggling with sunken contracts and a bad team.

And I actually think that is why we did pull back. We spent ourselves into trouble the past 5/6 years ago and let the wrong people go. As I say ad nauseum, I expect us to spend now. If we don't I'll be as vocal as anyone* because they need to strike now, and make up for the mistakes. Now is the time and they can afford extra dollar cost as long as we don't too often damage out draft prospects.

*Well not as vocal as Fred.

[drewski6]

2 hours ago, mvp 78 said:

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! 

 

Yes, those of you channel your inner Irwin R Sheister (from a baseball fan standpoint) need to swirlie yourselves because you dont want MVP and I to show up at your door dressed liked the Ultimate Maniacs

MVP - you wanna be Warrior or Macho Man?  I was a bigger Warrior fan growing up but currently own more Macho Man gear so Im fine with either.

[mvp 78]

12 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

4 years is arbitrary unless we're talking about JH's patience period with CBOs, which is now pretty close to an established fact! 

And yet 2011-2014 doesn't match any CBO's timeline?