Red Sox 2025 Season Review/Offseason Preview Thread

[Randy Red Sox]

9 hours 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.

and then there are the fans like you that defend JH to no end despite 4 non playoff seasons in the past 6 years. Not mention that the Red Sox are one of the very top revenue making teams in MLB yet the payroll has dropped from a top 3 to somwhere between 8-12 without a single FA signing to date.

[Randy Red Sox]

2 hours ago, JoeBrady said:

One of the reasons I like building for the future.  We shouldn't be in a last chance situation.  One of the reasons I like the young kids signing is that I now see a 5-year window of contention.  By my calculations, we are currently the best team in BB in 2030.  If we don't drain off too many picks via FA penalties and CBT penalties (some is fine), then we should be well re-stocked again by 2031.  With good management, we should always be a contender.

then why have we missed the playoffs 4 of the last 6 years?

[JoeBrady]

25 minutes ago, Randy Red Sox said:

then why have we missed the playoffs 4 of the last 6 years?

Lack of developed prospects.  Choosing 2022 at random, we had Bogaerts and Devers, who were added in maybe 2011, and now expensive?  We had Vazquez at 2.2 bWAR.  We had Whitlock and Houck at 1.8 and 1.6.  You cannot spend your way to prosperity.  We were 5th in payroll, but that's all we had.  I understand that you won't agree with that, but the successful mega-market teams still have a lot of internal development.

[moonslav59]

1 hour ago, JoeBrady said:

Lack of developed prospects.  Choosing 2022 at random, we had Bogaerts and Devers, who were added in maybe 2011, and now expensive?  We had Vazquez at 2.2 bWAR.  We had Whitlock and Houck at 1.8 and 1.6.  You cannot spend your way to prosperity.  We were 5th in payroll, but that's all we had.  I understand that you won't agree with that, but the successful mega-market teams still have a lot of internal development.

We were not even 1-2 key players away from being serious contenders, so thinking we'd buy 3-4 top free agents to "get us over the top" when we were already 5th is spending has to raise a red flag, right?

Apparently, not to some.

Then, they complain about how we spend money foolishly and what can we do with Yoshida.

[Randy Red Sox]

2 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

We were not even 1-2 key players away from being serious contenders, so thinking we'd buy 3-4 top free agents to "get us over the top" when we were already 5th is spending has to raise a red flag, right?

Apparently, not to some.

Then, they complain about how we spend money foolishly and what can we do with Yoshida.

are you trying to suggest i wanted Yoshida ????  I hated the signing from day and was very vocal about it at the time.

[UtahSox]

3 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

Absolutely.  But my point is that having a lot of money isn't going to lead to success if you are always bidding against teams willing to overpay.  For all numbers going around, only 6 of the top-10 spenders even made the playoffs.  The LAD, even with their gargantuan payroll, only finished with the 6th best record.

 

2 hours ago, drewski6 said:

My only thing here is dont start looping people together, which is tough because you are relatively new.

So for example, you responded to moon, but quoted joe.

Moon is great, joe is a clown.

Try to keep the posters distinguished if you can.

Yes I was looping those 2 together, I needed to quote both of them, for clarity of context. which I did not do. But now I figured out how to quote multiple, so in the future my message will be more clear. My response was to both of them, based on what moon had responded to Joe’s (now quoted message.)

Respect both of them, but will not see it the same way as the way the FO has handled this offseason. I also take a more win now approach vs worry about 2030. 

[Hugh2]

6 minutes ago, Randy Red Sox said:

are you trying to suggest i wanted Yoshida ????  I hated the signing from day and was very vocal about it at the time.

Did anyone actually like the Yoshida signing?

besides Bloom that is

[moonslav59]

4 minutes ago, UtahSox said:

 

Yes I was looping those 2 together, I needed to quote both of them, for clarity of context. which I did not do. But now I figured out how to quote multiple, so in the future my message will be more clear. My response was to both of them, based on what moon had responded to Joe’s (now quoted message.)

Respect both of them, but will not see it the same way as the way the FO has handled this offseason. I also take a more win now approach vs worry about 2030. 

I did not post what you have written here under my name.

[moonslav59]

11 minutes ago, Randy Red Sox said:

are you trying to suggest i wanted Yoshida ????  I hated the signing from day and was very vocal about it at the time.

Not at all. Some are complaining we need to sign some larger and longer contracts, but with our record, are you so sure?

We are all upset we signed Yoshida. Maybe the next large and long deal will be the next Yoshida.

I'm not trying to imply we should never go large and long, because we got burned by Yoshida, Story and Price, but it's not as simple as just spending more will fix the problems.

[moonslav59]

6 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

Did anyone actually like the Yoshida signing?

besides Bloom that is

Apparently the whole scouting system was goo-goo-gah-gah over this guy since he was in kindergarten.

[Duran Is The Man]

1 hour ago, JoeBrady said:

Lack of developed prospects.  Choosing 2022 at random, we had Bogaerts and Devers, who were added in maybe 2011, and now expensive?  We had Vazquez at 2.2 bWAR.  We had Whitlock and Houck at 1.8 and 1.6.  You cannot spend your way to prosperity.  We were 5th in payroll, but that's all we had.  I understand that you won't agree with that, but the successful mega-market teams still have a lot of internal development.

the Dodgers would disagree.

[moonslav59]

18 minutes ago, Duran Is The Man said:

the Dodgers would disagree.

Would the Mets?

[JoeBrady]

1 hour ago, Duran Is The Man said:

the Dodgers would disagree.

For all their spending, they have developed a lot of prospects.  Smith, Pages, Sheehan and Kershaw came straight from their system, and Edman, Betts, and Glasnow came via trade.  Again, money always helps, but you need development.

[Duran Is The Man]

33 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

Would the Mets?

don't know and don't care.

 

29 minutes ago, JoeBrady said:

For all their spending, they have developed a lot of prospects.  Smith, Pages, Sheehan and Kershaw came straight from their system, and Edman, Betts, and Glasnow came via trade.  Again, money always helps, but you need development.

i may be wrong but it appears that the Dodgers also excel in evaluating free agents. especially compared to the poor decisions made by the Sox front office during the Cherington and Bloom reigns.

 

 

[moonslav59]

1 hour ago, Duran Is The Man said:

i may be wrong but it appears that the Dodgers also excel in evaluating free agents. especially compared to the poor decisions made by the Sox front office during the Cherington and Bloom reigns.

Brez has done great w FAs, either. Not bad, but not great

Breg worked.

Chapman worked.

Wilson was fine.

Giolito redeemed, somewhat.

Sandoval TBD

Buehler & Hendriks yuck-a-doodle-doo

[Randy Red Sox]

6 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

Not at all. Some are complaining we need to sign some larger and longer contracts, but with our record, are you so sure?

We are all upset we signed Yoshida. Maybe the next large and long deal will be the next Yoshida.

I'm not trying to imply we should never go large and long, because we got burned by Yoshida, Story and Price, but it's not as simple as just spending more will fix the problems.

i think Bichette would probably be a pretty safe bet but if we are not in on a guy like that I guess we won't be in on any big name FA's for a while.

[Hitch]

12 hours ago, Randy Red Sox said:

and then there are the fans like you that defend JH to no end despite 4 non playoff seasons in the past 6 years. Not mention that the Red Sox are one of the very top revenue making teams in MLB yet the payroll has dropped from a top 3 to somwhere between 8-12 without a single FA signing to date.

You don't know what you're talking about. I have attacked ownership plenty, including constantly suggesting they're trying to be too smart for their own good. But when I see stuff that makes no sense, or is just flat out made up, on either side of the argument, I'll challenge them. There's an awful lot of hysteria around right now. You were attacking them yesterday for only doing a 1 yar arb. A ridiculous line of attack in anyone's language, but absolutely in line with someone looking for things to be angry about with ownership.

Again, we are 4th in revenue, and there are 4 teams (outside of the 3 above us in revenue) that dwarf our ownership in wealth, so why exactly should we be higher than 8th?

[Hitch]

7 hours ago, Duran Is The Man said:

don't know and don't care.

 

This proves the point I was making yesterday quite nicely. 

[Hitch]

13 hours ago, drewski6 said:

My only thing here is dont start looping people together, which is tough because you are relatively new.

So for example, you responded to moon, but quoted joe.

Moon is great, joe is a clown.

Try to keep the posters distinguished if you can.

That's a s***** thing to say. Joe converses with everyone with respect and backs up his points of view. Nobody is forcing you to engage with him.

[Old Red]

51 minutes ago, Hitch said:

You don't know what you're talking about. I have attacked ownership plenty, including constantly suggesting they're trying to be too smart for their own good. But when I see stuff that makes no sense, or is just flat out made up, on either side of the argument, I'll challenge them. There's an awful lot of hysteria around right now. You were attacking them yesterday for only doing a 1 yar arb. A ridiculous line of attack in anyone's language, but absolutely in line with someone looking for things to be angry about with ownership.

Again, we are 4th in revenue, and there are 4 teams (outside of the 3 above us in revenue) that dwarf our ownership in wealth, so why exactly should we be higher than 8th?

Having the highest ticket prices, but only 23rd in the league on revenue to payroll, which was even worse before I agree with you the Red Sox should spend more.🤫

[Hitch]

48 minutes ago, Old Red said:

Having the highest ticket prices, but only 23rd in the league on revenue to payroll, which was even worse before I agree with you the Red Sox should spend more.🤫

While they should spend a bit more than they are doing (which I'm very confident they will), part of the reason the ticket prices are so high is because they have the 26th biggest park in the MLB with no scope to expand.

I'm sure the majority of fans would be absolutely fine with them lowering ticket prices and spending less though. 😐

I notice nobody ever answers the why they should be in the top 5 spenders question. Easier to ignore it I suppose.

[moonslav59]

5 hours ago, Randy Red Sox said:

i think Bichette would probably be a pretty safe bet but if we are not in on a guy like that I guess we won't be in on any big name FA's for a while.

I do not want Bichette to be "THE GUY" we break the mold on.

He lacks the power we need.

He's not that good on defense. We have to -once again- project how he'll be at 2B defense.

While he's been amazingly consistent as a hitter, except for the bad half season in '24, he has not really had a great season at the plate. At 28, maybe he will. Maybe at 29 or 30. His age is his biggest plus, and to me, that's not a top priority selling point.

Other than 2024, he's been between .800 and .840 since 2020. 121-129 OPS+ is nice but not mega large and long worthy, to me. 

I'd give him 2-3 more years than Bregman, but Breggie should really only get a 2-3 year deal. I'd give Breggie 4, if it's not too big, but I doubt he'd take it. I'd give Bichette 6 years, but no way would I give him the AAV othes will surely offer. If it takes $30M x 4 to get Breggie or $28M x 6 to get Bichette, I'd probably pass, but I guess it might depend on what Suarez gets or the cost of trading for a talented 3Bman (or 2Bman.). $25-26x 5 for Breggie? $26-27M x 7 for Bichette? 

[Bellhorn04]

2 hours ago, Hitch said:

You don't know what you're talking about. I have attacked ownership plenty, including constantly suggesting they're trying to be too smart for their own good. But when I see stuff that makes no sense, or is just flat out made up, on either side of the argument, I'll challenge them. There's an awful lot of hysteria around right now. You were attacking them yesterday for only doing a 1 yar arb. A ridiculous line of attack in anyone's language, but absolutely in line with someone looking for things to be angry about with ownership.

Again, we are 4th in revenue, and there are 4 teams (outside of the 3 above us in revenue) that dwarf our ownership in wealth, so why exactly should we be higher than 8th?

We don't expect owners to dip into their own pockets to fund their teams, that's why we normally look at the revenue the team is generating rather than the wealth of the owners.

[Hitch]

Personally, I'd prefer Bo for 7 than I would Bregman for 5. But any higher on either would make me queasy. 

[moonslav59]

25 minutes ago, Hitch said:

I notice nobody ever answers the why they should be in the top 5 spenders question. Easier to ignore it I suppose.

The answer on being a top 5 revenue streaming team is an answer. You may not like it or think it's a valid reason, but it is an answer with merit.

My issue is why people think this one specific owner of a business should forgo trying to maximize profits, when that is how the world works. Reality is being asked to be suspended, because we want a team that wins more. We deserve it more than others, because we pay more to watch the games than others. That rings hollow, to me, but I can understand the reasoning. It's the way of the world\, right now: me, me, ME!

[Hitch]

1 minute ago, Bellhorn04 said:

We don't expect owners to dip into their own pockets to fund their teams, that's why we normally look at the revenue the team is generating rather than the wealth of the owners.

You must be kidding? That's all we hear around here is that Henry is a billionaire and should be spending more. The revenue thing is a relatively new angle. Before then it was ALL about Henry's wealth. 

But yes, revenue is one part that should dictate spend. They took $100m less in both 2021 and 2022 seasons than they did in 2024. So if they went up to their absolute cap and spent another $100m on long term contracts and then revenues dip again, what then? Expect the owners to cover it with their own money? 

[Hitch]

1 minute ago, moonslav59 said:

The answer on being a top 5 revenue streaming team is an answer. You may not like it or think it's a valid reason, but it is an answer with merit.

My issue is why people think this one specific owner of a business should forgo trying to maximize profits, when that is how the world works. Reality is being asked to be suspended, because we want a team that wins more. We deserve it more than others, because we pay more to watch the games than others. That rings hollow, to me, but I can understand the reasoning. It's the way of the world\, right now: me, me, ME!

I'd be absolutely fine with people expecting them to be around 4th/5th in spending if that's the parameters of the conversation (simply revenue streams), but we know only too well that every single conversation around this up until about a month or so ago was about Henry is a billionaire and that they're rolling in it. There is and was an expectation they should dip into their pockets. 

Yes, your second paragraph sums it up. I just find the hypocrisy and bullsh*t hard to stomach on times. 

But again, that said, now is the time they should be spending more.

[mvp 78]

15 hours ago, JoeBrady said:

It's better than whatever anyone else has.  That's vitally important.

If you believe these guys can actually play MLB level ball in 2030. What if Roman is a guy that is never an MVP level/All Star starting OFer? What if the other guys don't project the way you expect them to? Then the club isn't very good. If Tolle doesn't get a second pitch, he's not a starter, he's a reliever. 

[mvp 78]

15 hours ago, JoeBrady said:

It's better than whatever anyone else has.  That's vitally important.

The Dodgers still have the best farm system in baseball and are willing to outspend everyone. I'll guess that they'll have a chance to be better than the Sox. The Yankees rarely miss a postseason, so I'm not counting them out either. Brewers have a monster system and have only missed the playoffs once in the past 7 years so I'll go with them too. 

Also, with how the past few offseasons have gone, there's a good chance that a few of the guys you have projected to be on the roster will be traded before they reach the bigs. 

[Hitch]

3 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

The Dodgers still have the best farm system in baseball and are willing to outspend everyone. I'll guess that they'll have a chance to be better than the Sox. The Yankees rarely miss a postseason, so I'm not counting them out either. Brewers have a monster system and have only missed the playoffs once in the past 7 years so I'll go with them too. 

Also, with how the past few offseasons have gone, there's a good chance that a few of the guys you have projected to be on the roster will be traded before they reach the bigs. 

I'd like to know how they are doing this - losing draft picks and being punished in drafts for their spending, yet still having great farm systems consistently. Whatever it is they are doing development/draft wise - I hope we're looking to emulate.