Red Sox 2025 Season Review/Offseason Preview Thread

[drewski6]

2 hours 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. 

This post isnt going to get the appreciation it deserves , so im commenting for a double like.

[drewski6]

2 hours 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. 

Someone grasped the true meaning of the movie.  Its not about chasing OBP, that was never what money ball was. It was about zigging when others zagged.

[drewski6]

2 hours ago, 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.

I feel the word cliff coming on

[mvp 78]

2 minutes ago, Hitch said:

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?

 

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?

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.

1. Devers didn't throw any teammate under the bus. Find the quote. Show us. It never happened. 

2. Most people don't know how billionaires work "but let ME break it down for you." Listen to yourself. 

3. Feel free to expect them to spend now. When they don't and still stay outside the top 5 going forward, don't be made at the circle-jerk of people who have been mad at JH ever since they traded Betts. If that is the Original Sin of modern Red Sox fandom, so be it. Until the Red sox get back to a team that spends like they used to, I don't want to hear about projections that they will eventually spend again. They haven't spent in that manner the past 6 years and they don't seem like they are going in that direction this year either. 

[Hitch]

2 hours 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.

I have to ask this as you've mentioned it a few times - you know that John Henry didn't actually appear at the end right? That it was an actor? And it was a fictional portrayal of a conversation that never happened? Henry might have thought similar or said it in another context, but that's a fictionalisation. 

[drewski6]

51 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

Where would the Sox be without Story and Masa! 

And now I have Ja Rule in my head

Where would i be without youuuuu
thought alone drive me crazyyyy
cuz every thug needs a ladyyyyy

[mvp 78]

8 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

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.

[drewski6]

45 minutes ago, UtahSox said:

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. 
 

 

this guys has packed a lot of insight into 155 posts (to date)

[drewski6]

4 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

I chose Ultimate Maniacs (Macho and Warrior) over Mega Powers (depicted here) because I assumed neither of us wanted to be Hogan.

[Hitch]

13 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

1. Devers didn't throw any teammate under the bus. Find the quote. Show us. It never happened. 

2. Most people don't know how billionaires work "but let ME break it down for you." Listen to yourself. 

3. Feel free to expect them to spend now. When they don't and still stay outside the top 5 going forward, don't be made at the circle-jerk of people who have been mad at JH ever since they traded Betts. If that is the Original Sin of modern Red Sox fandom, so be it. Until the Red sox get back to a team that spends like they used to, I don't want to hear about projections that they will eventually spend again. They haven't spent in that manner the past 6 years and they don't seem like they are going in that direction this year either. 

1) this is ridiculous. He literally refused to play a position. You sound like a ten year old still pining over his favourite player and the hell with facts.

2) if that's the way you want to take it, knock yourself out. I suppose it has to be the way you take it as you never want to respond to any of the question or details around this as you just want to generalise and have a good moan and say - Owners bad. Owners cheap. 

3) no and from you we'll hear of no context around it either. See point 2. Also I don't know why we should be expecting them to be 100% in the top 5 spenders when we're 4th in revenue and also behind Cohen, the Rogers family, Illlitch family, and Lerner family in wealth (none of which are included in the 3 turnovers higher than us). In combined revenue and personal wealth, the Sox are the 8th wealthiest team.  Sorry if pointing this out and asking this questions hurts your feelings, but why should they be outspending these teams again?

[moonslav59]

1 hour ago, mvp 78 said:

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. 

Do you think 2025 was the same as 2022-2024?

Even if it turns out to be a one and done uptick, it was an uptick, nonetheless.

[Hugh2]

4 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

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.   

Obviously there are many other factors at play, I was trying to avoid a larger in depth conversation at which we could go at ALL day when it's entirely un-neccesary.  

Apparently I was replying to a point that wasn't even being made and that's ok those things happen. 

And I'm not a proprietor, we are a coporation I just own 51% of the stock with the rest in the treasury. 

I'm a finance guy. "deep pockets" means nothing, I want to see financial statements.  My personal wealth isn't connected to my business but I did pump some capital into here back during COVID, but I took out a loan against it.....and that was reflected in my financials.   But still, the financial advantage the dodgers have over the Red Sox is being entirely pumped into their payroll for the time being. 

[Hugh2]

19 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

Someone grasped the true meaning of the movie.  Its not about chasing OBP, that was never what money ball was. It was about zigging when others zagged.

I'd have less of a problem with it if Henry zagged again.....but lately it just feels like he's doubling down. 

[UtahSox]

9 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

I chose Ultimate Maniacs (Macho and Warrior) over Mega Powers (depicted here) because I assumed neither of us wanted to be Hogan.

What’s funny is yesterday…  I almost wrote Drewski6 is my spirit animal. Ha 

Hoping I don’t share the Kristian Campbell 2025 season arc, and flame out once you all start adjusting to my posts. Ha 

[Old Red]

23 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

1. Devers didn't throw any teammate under the bus. Find the quote. Show us. It never happened. 

2. Most people don't know how billionaires work "but let ME break it down for you." Listen to yourself. 

3. Feel free to expect them to spend now. When they don't and still stay outside the top 5 going forward, don't be made at the circle-jerk of people who have been mad at JH ever since they traded Betts. If that is the Original Sin of modern Red Sox fandom, so be it. Until the Red sox get back to a team that spends like they used to, I don't want to hear about projections that they will eventually spend again. They haven't spent in that manner the past 6 years and they don't seem like they are going in that direction this year either. 

Some on here haven’t realized yet that JH of today is not the same JH who bought the team20+ years ago. Going after the Evil Empire was a top priority then, and not so much today. As I said the other day JH used to be one of the BIG boys, but now the boys are bigger, and there are more of them. JH spending patterns in the past as some constantly bring up mean nothing today.

[mvp 78]

1 minute ago, moonslav59 said:

Do you think 2025 was the same as 2022-2024?

Even if it turns out to be a one and done uptick, it was an uptick, nonetheless.

So when I think "upcycle" which is the original word used, I assumed it was more room for growth, not that they'd stay at a 89-91 win team going forward. If they just bumped up to a newer level, that's something else. 

I think we are all projecting our personal beliefs of the FO onto what the next few years will be. Right now, I'm down own the ownership, so I'm really hesitant to be super high on their chances for becoming a 95 win team and competing with the big boys just yet. To me, they are still an also ran for the forseable future even if they sign Bregman.

[UtahSox]

5 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

I'd have less of a problem with it if Henry zagged again.....but lately it just feels like he's doubling down. 

Sometimes everybody zags for a reason….. IMO the most dangerous thought you can have, is the thought that you’re the smartest person in the room. 

[JoeBrady]

4 hours 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. 

I agree with that.  R&D is the cornerstone for every business.  But it feels like we've been doing a pretty good job of that recently.

[moonslav59]

6 minutes ago, Old Red said:

Some on here haven’t realized yet that JH of today is not the same JH who bought the team20+ years ago. Going after the Evil Empire was a top priority then, and not so much today. As I said the other day JH used to be one of the BIG boys, but now the boys are bigger, and there are more of them. JH spending patterns in the past as some constantly big up mean nothing today.

You are correct. This Henry is spending about double what the one in 2003 and 2004 did. 

Good point.

This Henry is locking up our young stars, so we don't see another Betts, Bogey, Lester fiasco. Correctomundo!

This Henry of today gave out the biggest contracts in Sox history both in terms of large and long and another in AAV.

For once, I agree with you!

🤪

[Bellhorn04]

31 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

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

Yes, my comment was purely tangential to your discussion with moon, for my own personal entertainment to be honest, as are many of my posts.

[Bellhorn04]

10 minutes ago, Old Red said:

Some on here haven’t realized yet that JH of today is not the same JH who bought the team20+ years ago. Going after the Evil Empire was a top priority then, and not so much today. As I said the other day JH used to be one of the BIG boys, but now the boys are bigger, and there are more of them. JH spending patterns in the past as some constantly bring up mean nothing today.

Red, I laughed when I saw your Eddie Driscoll reference the other day.  Here in Halifax, when we first got cable TV in the 70's, we got the NBC station in Bangor, so we saw plenty of Eddie, and Dick Stacey too. 😀

[mvp 78]

14 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

I'd have less of a problem with it if Henry zagged again.....but lately it just feels like he's doubling down. 

The real zag: sign all the low exit velo guys with horrible launch angles. Find every pitcher than can't break 90. Load up and save!

[drewski6]

11 minutes ago, UtahSox said:

Sometimes everybody zags for a reason….. IMO the most dangerous thought you can have, is the thought that you’re the smartest person in the room. 

Ive never bought a house because I try to zag when everyone else zigs, and Im over here kind of wishing I bought a house 15 years ago.

[mvp 78]

6 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

You are correct. This Henry is spending about double what the one in 2003 and 2004 did. 

Good point.

This Henry is locking up our young stars, so we don't see another Betts, Bogey, Lester fiasco. Correctomundo!

This Henry of today gave out the biggest contracts in Sox history both in terms of large and long and another in AAV.

For once, I agree with you!

🤪

What is the cost of a ticket today in comparison to 2003? 

Depending on the game, bleacher seats can be $69-76 face value now. Field box goes up to $307. While his payroll has doubled, fans are definitely paying more than double to go see the Sox. 

 

[UtahSox]

5 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

Ive never bought a house because I try to zag when everyone else zigs, and Im over here kind of wishing I bought a house 15 years ago.

Do it now! Based on your ja rule reference, I think we’re about the same age…… so I’m not giving you advice.
 

I went to b school with Professors that said the same sh**. “S&P historically out performs blah blah blah”

Biggest differentiator in wealth in our country is owning a home. Case study is obviously looking at past performance not future. 

[mvp 78]

15 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Yes, my comment was purely tangential to your discussion with moon, for my own personal entertainment to be honest, as are many of my posts.

If Breslow is gone after exactly 4 years, the org is toast. 

[JoeBrady]

3 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! 

I don't think you're getting it.  Most of the accountants want smart spending, not spending just for the sake of spending.  My favorite example is in 2011.  Everyone was happy when we signed Gonzo and CC, as was I.  But I also knew it made no sense, and that Headley (if possible) and Willingham were the best targets.

Did money have anything to do with it?  Yes and no.  I thought Headley and Willingham were better fits, but the idea that we'd have a gazillion $$$ to spend elsewhere was a consideration.  It has to be.  I couldn't care less how rich or how poor JH gets.  My only concern is WAR/$$$.

[drewski6]

9 minutes ago, JoeBrady said:

My only concern is WAR/$$$.

I dont think you get it.

Who wins a team of 100 WAR with a 300m payroll (.3 WAR /$)

or a team with a 50 WAR with a 100m payroll (.5 WAR/$)

I posted an article for you about 1.5 months ago that went into how WAR / $$ will only get you far and becomes a trap.

I understand that we cant assume a 300m payroll; however, the concept still applies. Chasing value non-stop will only get you so far.  Its not the teams with the deepest discounted players that win, its teams with the best players.

Understood that WAR/$$ can help you get great players and still have room for more, I get that.  But if you have a good foundation of WAR/$$ , its time to pivot and stop chasing value.  If you chase WAR/$$ exclusively , youll have a team of min wage players because nobody can 4x their $$ like a min wage player can, but teams full of pre-arb players aint winning anything.

WAR/$$ is a great metric to help you get the ball rolling, but it eventually becomes time to get the studs.

[Old Red]

36 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Red, I laughed when I saw your Eddie Driscoll reference the other day.  Here in Halifax, when we first got cable TV in the 70's, we got the NBC station in Bangor, so we saw plenty of Eddie, and Dick Stacey too. 😀

Eddie Driscoll was a real legend who wore many hats, and costumes , and Dick Stacey was well know too.

[JoeBrady]

1 hour ago, drewski6 said:

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.

This is a pet peeve for me, as well as a corporate philosophy.  Getting off the RS for a moment, I think some teams should tank occasionally, cut the payroll in half, but then cut the ticket prices and concession prices at the same time.  I think you could engage a fair amount of fans of a rebuild, if they thought the team was making a sacrifice as well.

Unfortunately, teams apparently aren't allowed to say that, and then they spiral down until they have 60 wins and the rebuild is blindingly obvious.