Red Sox 2025 Season Review/Offseason Preview Thread

[JoeBrady]

4 hours ago, Hitch said:

I notice nobody ever answers the why they should be in the top 5 spenders question.

IMO, they should average top-5.  But it matters when we spend.  We had weak teams from 2022-2024, and probably longer.  IMHO, we over-spent.  I think the league and the PA should take a position that team spending should ebb and flow.  In the case of the RS, I'd have preferred to have spent $60M less over those three years, and then have $20M more added to 2026-2028.

[mvp 78]

13 minutes ago, JoeBrady said:

That's a key part of the equation.  I always said that part of DD's genius (and Preller as well to a lesser degree) was convincing ownership to spend more.  The Phillies draw a million more than they did before DD.  I'm going to round that off to $100M+ in revenue.  That pays for a lot of payroll.

But, for better or worse, that won't happen in Boston.  We're talking about maybe 250k more fans.  That won't motivate more spending.  We should spend more, but the market doesn't force us to spend more.

Sox can bring in more fans AND jack up the prices even more with their variable pricing system.

[Hitch]

2 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

They were pressured into signing Devers and regretted it the morning after which is why he was dealt. 

Yeah, nah. 

[mvp 78]

1 minute ago, JoeBrady said:

IMO, they should average top-5.  But it matters when we spend.  We had weak teams from 2022-2024, and probably longer.  IMHO, we over-spent.  I think the league and the PA should take a position that team spending should ebb and flow.  In the case of the RS, I'd have preferred to have spent $60M less over those three years, and then have $20M more added to 2026-2028.

Those weak teams were sold to the fanbase as "competing for the playoffs" each season. If they overspent and underperformed, it's on the FO. 

[JoeBrady]

3 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

My issue is why people think this one specific owner of a business should forgo trying to maximize profits,

Because it is not their money.  For those that own their own business in here, I'm kind of betting that you're looking to maximize revenue and minimize expenses in accordance with some long-term plan.

[Old Red]

12 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

They were pressured into signing Devers and regretted it the morning after which is why he was dealt. 

I agree, and as I’ve said many times that Raffy was the last man standing after Mookie, and Bogey left.

[Old Red]

12 minutes ago, Hitch said:

Yeah, nah. 

Yeah, yeah.🤔

[mvp 78]

11 minutes ago, Old Red said:

I agree, and as I’ve said many times that Raffy was the last man standing after Mookie, and Bogey left.

Nobody left from the 2019 roster.

2020: Houck

2021: Whitlock, Duran, Wong

But we think we know the 2030 roster and how great it will be. Ok. 

[drewski6]

15 minutes ago, JoeBrady said:

Because it is not their money.  For those that own their own business in here, I'm kind of betting that you're looking to maximize revenue and minimize expenses in accordance with some long-term plan.

WRONG. Gifts from employers, bonuses, profit-share (even when none of which are required or in a contract) are a real thing in the real world.  Some companies give back and invest in communities. Some companies want people who give them their work-lives to be compensated generously. And its not all for PR/business reasons.  Sometimes, people are generous for the sake of being generous.  JH has raised wealth beyond his wildest dreams, and he should "give back" more than he does (and not even just by spending on the red sox).

Now i know theres ample propaganda out there that would have the gullible gullies believe that every generous act has a motive....but some people give back for no other reason than kindness.  A good deed done to get into heaven or PR or because its good business or tax write off is NOT a good deed at all. 

Some of the most generous people in our lifetimes are villainized by greedy pigs because such generosity makes greedy pigs look bad.

See people like you who would run a business "LESS FOR EMPLOYEES, JACK UP PRICES, MORE FOR MEEEE" (pathetic), you're out there, but you're not everybody. You just like to believe everyone thinks like you so you can convince yourself that you are not especially terrible.

[JoeBrady]

1 hour ago, drewski6 said:

And Im not 100% if I should disguise my JoeBrady dislike for civility purposes

I give you a 100% permission to challenge any of my facts.  I know we are going to disagree.  I disagree with everyone in here on occasion.  Some more, some less, but it would be rather strange to agree with anyone 100% of the time.

In fact, I find disagreement to be healthy.  That some on here dislike the idea of signing Bregman is just a discussion point for me.  Nothing more.

[JoeBrady]

4 hours ago, mvp 78 said:

Sure you can. How do you think the 2004 Red Sox did it? 

Manny

Millar

Reese

Mueller

Damon

Ortiz

Foulke

Timlin

Only Manny, Damon and Foulke were real, high-priced FAs.  I have no problem with that.  But if they didn't back that up with shrewd acquisitons like Millar, Reese, Muuller, Papi, Timlin and Pedro, then Manny, Damon, and Foulke would've been meaningless.

[drewski6]

17 hours 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. 

Apologies, my intention was not like a forum etiquette tsk-tsk. I did not intend to comment on how you reply or use the quote features or anything like that....

I just know that when I was brand-new here, I would mix up posters, and it took a little while until I could keep everybody straight.  

For example: Moonslav said along the lines : I would love for them to spend more, but I want them to be smart about it , another Yoshida contract doesnt help.  This is not the same as someone else here who says things like:

"JH worked hard for his money, and its his business and why should he have to spend. I love himmmmm and if it wasnt for billionaire greed, I wouldnt have my cell phone. God bless the billionaires, I hope one of them sees this and gives me a nice little pat on the head.  May I lick your boots."

These 2 beliefs are not the same, but they may say things that overlap.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Patsy Devers was set up as soon as the Red Sox leaked they were interested in Bregman. By not playing, he played right into their hands. 

The Fanfest is this weekend, so expect the front office to congratulate themselves for trading Devers and making the playoffs. They patted themselves on the back for months for turning Campbell into Frankenstein, (until he got demoted). 

It doesn't matter if Raffy never refused to hit homers for Boston, or management NEVER replaced his power bat. We'll hear how Wong or someone else is lifting heavy weights and already in the best shape of their lives.

Just like all posters -- every new year we're in the best shape of the rest of our lives.

[JoeBrady]

3 hours ago, Hitch said:

That's a problem for me. But depends on the player that takes us over it.

I agree completely, and I think most GMs think the same.  The draft picks are just part of the cost, much like freight is on a purchase.  I like Bregman well enough, but losing two picks annoys me.  OTOH, if we offer Skubal $300M next year, the two draft picks are a nothing-burger.

[drewski6]

7 minutes ago, JoeBrady said:

I give you a 100% permission to challenge any of my facts.  I know we are going to disagree.  I disagree with everyone in here on occasion.  Some more, some less, but it would be rather strange to agree with anyone 100% of the time.

In fact, I find disagreement to be healthy.  That some on here dislike the idea of signing Bregman is just a discussion point for me.  Nothing more.

Your homophobia, boot-licking, and fascist streak is what bothers me, not your facts. 

[mvp 78]

10 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

greedy pigs

[mvp 78]

We can all have a silly, fun time, but let's try to get along though. Ok? 

[mvp 78]

8 minutes ago, JoeBrady said:

I agree completely, and I think most GMs think the same.  The draft picks are just part of the cost, much like freight is on a purchase.  I like Bregman well enough, but losing two picks annoys me.  OTOH, if we offer Skubal $300M next year, the two draft picks are a nothing-burger.

They don't have anyone they can QO to offset it this time either. 

[drewski6]

4 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

We can all have a silly, fun time, but let's try to get along though. Ok? 

Ill settle down , dad

[JoeBrady]

1 hour ago, Hitch said:

Agreed on both counts. But that will fire up the 'they're cheap' shouts.

Again, this is one of those issues I'd prefer on numbers.  Here's my take, and EVERYONE can feel free to disagree with it:

1. FG projects (projection warning) Bregman for a ~3.8 WAR.  If I apply the standard -0.5 decline each year, then his 5-year WAR is 14.  At $125M/5 (net, for the people that don't like deferrals) that I hope for, that's $8.9M.
2. IMHO, $8.9M per is about break-even.  The reason I like Bregman at that number is that we aren't overflowing in future IF help.  I'd prefer Mayer at 3rd, but that's small potatoes.  The way I see it, the l/t 2nd, SS, 3rd alignment will a combination of Mayer, Arias, and no one else I feel comfortable with.

For those inclined to throw furniture, I won't care.  I've done so myself.

[mvp 78]

For everyone worrying about how much JH is or isn't spending, today is ARB deadline day. 

Casas - 7.7M

Wong - 1.375M

Kutter - 2.75M

Houck, Oviedo, Romy, Casas - agreement not reached yet

[JoeBrady]

1 hour ago, mvp 78 said:

This one was the worst because there was so much noise about a Joe Ryan deal getting done. 🙃

IMO, it was the worse because we didn't do enough.  Like I said, the 22-24 teams were weak.  Even if they made the playoffs, they'd likely be out in the first round.  We needed a 1B and Naylor was right there.

[drewski6]

2 WAR players are getting qualifying offers (22m).  So , if we are trying to simplify, 1 WAR = 11m.

I'll accept a 15 WAR projection for Bregman over next 5 years (avg out to 3 / yr). Thats 33m/yr.

33*5 feels reasonable to me, not sure if it gets it done , though.

For me, if I read right now "Red Sox sign Bregman for 5 yrs / 165m" , I'd be celebrating.

[mvp 78]

2 minutes ago, JoeBrady said:

Again, this is one of those issues I'd prefer on numbers.  Here's my take, and EVERYONE can feel free to disagree with it:

1. FG projects (projection warning) Bregman for a ~3.8 WAR.  If I apply the standard -0.5 decline each year, then his 5-year WAR is 14.  At $125M/5 (net, for the people that don't like deferrals) that I hope for, that's $8.9M.
2. IMHO, $8.9M per is about break-even.  The reason I like Bregman at that number is that we aren't overflowing in future IF help.  I'd prefer Mayer at 3rd, but that's small potatoes.  The way I see it, the l/t 2nd, SS, 3rd alignment will a combination of Mayer, Arias, and no one else I feel comfortable with.

For those inclined to throw furniture, I won't care.  I've done so myself.

Ok, if we're projecting -0.5 per year, when does the decline happen? He declined 0.7 from 24 to 25. Maybe the 26 projection is overstated and he's already in the decline? 

My daughter threw a chair when Devers was traded so... 🫠

I think Bregman wants more than 5/125 as that's less than the Alonso contract. I think he doesn't care about the break even point and is holding out for something stronger. Again, we don't really know what the "aggressive" offer is that the Sox made. 

[drewski6]

125/5 is a non-starter.  125/3 is more likely 

[mvp 78]

4 minutes ago, JoeBrady said:

IMO, it was the worse because we didn't do enough.  Like I said, the 22-24 teams were weak.  Even if they made the playoffs, they'd likely be out in the first round.  We needed a 1B and Naylor was right there.

Tibbs for May was just a pathetic trade. They lucked into Lowe becoming available for free weeks later. 

[drewski6]

1 minute ago, mvp 78 said:

Ok, if we're projecting -0.5 per year, when does the decline happen? He declined 0.7 from 24 to 25. Maybe the 26 projection is overstated and he's already in the decline? 

My daughter threw a chair when Devers was traded so... 🫠

I think Bregman wants more than 5/125 as that's less than the Alonso contract. I think he doesn't care about the break even point and is holding out for something stronger. Again, we don't really know what the "aggressive" offer is that the Sox made. 

Your daughter sounds awesome.

[JoeBrady]

1 hour ago, mvp 78 said:

Aside from his WS starts, I think the Dodgers are happy enough with Snell's '25. 

He had 61 IPs.  I acquire Snell in a lot of my leagues, but 61 innings doesn't make me happy.

[mvp 78]

1 minute ago, drewski6 said:

125/5 is a non-starter.  125/3 is more likely 

This would put the Sox at the third threshold for just signing Bregman. It makes no sense. 

[drewski6]

I think its going to be 5/180(ish) with enough deferred that it feels more like 5/150(ish). To compensate for the deferrals (which help team), there will also be concessions from the team (to help Bregman). 1. No trade clause 2. prob opt-outs but not every year. Maybe 1 opt-out after yr 3.