Red Sox 2025 Season Review/Offseason Preview Thread

JoeBrady · January 27

1 hour ago, jad said:

Things are pretty bad when "getting close to middle-of-the-pack-on-spending" is regarded as a positive.

#6 out of 30 is not middle-of-the-pack.

notin · January 27

Just now, JoeBrady said:

#6 out of 30 is not middle-of-the-pack.

Well, it is if you consider 8 thru 30 to all be the back end of the pack…

UtahSox · January 27

3 minutes ago, JoeBrady said:

#6 out of 30 is not middle-of-the-pack.

We keep doing this same argument: I don’t get why people here keep comparing the Red Sox to all 30 teams. There’s a very clear tier structure in MLB and everyone knows it.

There’s one group of teams that intends to compete every single year, and another group that survives by developing talent, enjoying a few good years, then selling players to the top tier. That’s just reality. For most of the last 20 years, the Red Sox were firmly in the top 2–3 organizations in baseball. Lately, we’ve fallen out of that tier while others moved up — and that’s the problem.

From a revenue, fan base, and brand standpoint, the Red Sox have very few true peers: the Yankees, Dodgers, and Cubs. Just below that are big-market or aggressive ownership teams like the Mets, Padres, Phillies, Blue Jays, and maybe the Giants or Braves if they’re run properly. The rest of the league is irrelevant for comparison. The Red Sox should never be measured against teams like the Rays, Royals, Rockies, etc. Any comparison should start with the big four — maybe the big eight — and nowhere else. And with that establishment, we might not even be middle of the pack. 6th out of 8 isn’t great.

notin · January 27

8 minutes ago, UtahSox said:

We keep doing this same argument: I don’t get why people here keep comparing the Red Sox to all 30 teams. There’s a very clear tier structure in MLB and everyone knows it.

There’s one group of teams that intends to compete every single year, and another group that survives by developing talent, enjoying a few good years, then selling players to the top tier. That’s just reality. For most of the last 20 years, the Red Sox were firmly in the top 2–3 organizations in baseball. Lately, we’ve fallen out of that tier while others moved up — and that’s the problem.

From a revenue, fan base, and brand standpoint, the Red Sox have very few true peers: the Yankees, Dodgers, and Cubs. Just below that are big-market or aggressive ownership teams like the Mets, Padres, Phillies, Blue Jays, and maybe the Giants or Braves if they’re run properly. The rest of the league is irrelevant for comparison. The Red Sox should never be measured against teams like the Rays, Royals, Rockies, etc. Any comparison should start with the big four — maybe the big eight — and nowhere else. And with that establishment, we might not even be middle of the pack. 6th out of 8 isn’t great.

So the complaint is the Sox are in the upper tier, but not high enough in the upper tier?

jad · January 27

23 minutes ago, JoeBrady said:

#6 out of 30 is not middle-of-the-pack.

I was quoting someone, no idea who it was. I have no idea where they stand. I only know they don't spend enough.

Old Red · January 27

On 1/25/2026 at 1:42 PM, moonslav59 said:

I can understand if statements like that are made as hyperbole, but it's been pointed out several times that Contreras was a significant add, and he even agreed that it was significant but just not enough. I agree on the "not enough" point, but continuing the on with the same false statements is getting tiring.

Our rotation has improved by leaps and bounds, and it's hard to know if that improvement does or will outweigh the losses on offense and perhaps defense, too (worse at 3B but better at 1B.)

My hope is we add a 3B/2Bman without dropping off in another areas, except depth at OF or SPer. It may not be enough, and it will never be enough for some posters, but such is life.

Con Man was an add, but he’s not an Alonso, and I think that’s where the rub is. The Red Sox miss out, and don’t get the top tier FA, and that’s why some say JH is cheap. Also not signing the Lester, Mookie, and Bogeys of the world outside of Raffy of course. Cheap means different things to different people.

JoeBrady · January 27

28 minutes ago, UtahSox said:

Any comparison should start with the big four — maybe the big eight

The top-8 is a fair comparison, but it really needs to be culled down to the #3-8. Even the NYY aren't going down the road with the NYM and LAD.

UtahSox · January 27

25 minutes ago, notin said:

So the complaint is the Sox are in the upper tier, but not high enough in the upper tier?

I mean, are you OK with comparing the Red Sox to the Washington Nationals and the Miami Marlins?
Cause, if so, we’re kicking butt, inherently we are in a different world.

Look, I live and work in Utah, from a geographic standpoint, I’ve had no family live in Boston in over 100 years. I just as easily could have grown up a Minnesota Twins fan. But the brand is part of what drew me in. And the Yankees winning in the 90s. My parents live in Southern California, when the Red Sox play the Dodgers, the Angels, or the Padres, I take my family to the games. Due to my parents living there, and my kids love of baseball we go to games every time we visit grandma and grandpa regardless of who they are playing. When the Red Sox are in town, it is different. I promise you there are 100 times more Red Sox fans in Southern California than Miami Marlins fan. To ignore that would be idiotic. Yes I only compare the Boston Red Sox to the aforementioned eight teams.

drewski6 · January 27

35 minutes ago, UtahSox said:

We keep doing this same argument: I don’t get why people here keep comparing the Red Sox to all 30 teams. There’s a very clear tier structure in MLB and everyone knows it.

There’s one group of teams that intends to compete every single year, and another group that survives by developing talent, enjoying a few good years, then selling players to the top tier. That’s just reality. For most of the last 20 years, the Red Sox were firmly in the top 2–3 organizations in baseball. Lately, we’ve fallen out of that tier while others moved up — and that’s the problem.

From a revenue, fan base, and brand standpoint, the Red Sox have very few true peers: the Yankees, Dodgers, and Cubs. Just below that are big-market or aggressive ownership teams like the Mets, Padres, Phillies, Blue Jays, and maybe the Giants or Braves if they’re run properly. The rest of the league is irrelevant for comparison. The Red Sox should never be measured against teams like the Rays, Royals, Rockies, etc. Any comparison should start with the big four — maybe the big eight — and nowhere else. And with that establishment, we might not even be middle of the pack. 6th out of 8 isn’t great.

Also, we're not sixth. Luxury tax concerns are overblown. Its about the cash. Thtas why teams defer. The cash is the true expenditure. We're like 10th. And thats median, average we're prob average because top heavy pulls the average higher than the median.

Hugh2 · January 27

4 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

Also, we're not sixth. Luxury tax concerns are overblown. Its about the cash. Thtas why teams defer. The cash is the true expenditure. We're like 10th. And thats median, average we're prob average because top heavy pulls the average higher than the median.

I think it’s literally the exact opposite. Teams don’t lose draft picks because of cash payroll, it’s the LT number that dictates that.

and adding deferred money to a deal lowers AAV and makes it easier for teams to get below those thresholds

drewski6 · January 27

1 minute ago, Hugh2 said:

I think it’s literally the exact opposite. Teams don’t lose draft picks because of cash payroll, it’s the LT number that dictates that.

and adding deferred money to a deal lowers AAV and makes it easier for teams to get below those thresholds

It also pushes out the cash, and nobody cares about the 10 draft pick placements at 284M. Teams go to 270m or like 400m. Its not like teams are running up to 284 and making sure they stay under.

In basketball you see that. Theres legit basketball penalties after 2nd threshold so you see teams toe that line. In baseball , nobody is hard stopping at 284. And if so, its like 1 or 2 teams

Hugh2 · January 27

26 minutes ago, Old Red said:

Con Man was an add, but he’s not an Alonso, and I think that’s where the rub is. The Red Sox miss out, and don’t get the top tier FA, and that’s why some say JH is cheap. Also not signing the Lester, Mookie, and Bogeys of the world outside of Raffy of course. Cheap means different things to different people.

Disclaimer before the following statement is made:

Pete Alonso is better than Wilson Contreras.

ok, now the point. I think people overvalue Alonso and undervalue Contreras. There’s so many ways to add value on the diamond.

its entirely possible that it can both be true that one thing is more important than the rest in a vacuum AND that thing is overvalued at the same exact time. To me, that is the long ball. Alonso is elite there but not really anywhere else.

Alonso is most likely going to return less than 1 War than Contreras next year, and I want to see what they do at 2nd too

mvp 78 · January 27

46 minutes ago, notin said:

So the complaint is the Sox are in the upper tier, but not high enough in the upper tier?

I thought they were a mid-market team now? That's what I've seen on here.

Also, I need to worry about the team making money rather than signing players!

mvp 78 · January 27

21 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

Also, we're not sixth. Luxury tax concerns are overblown. Its about the cash. Thtas why teams defer. The cash is the true expenditure. We're like 10th. And thats median, average we're prob average because top heavy pulls the average higher than the median.

9th

mvp 78 · January 27

22 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

I think it’s literally the exact opposite. Teams don’t lose draft picks because of cash payroll, it’s the LT number that dictates that.

and adding deferred money to a deal lowers AAV and makes it easier for teams to get below those thresholds

And teams can trade players before they actually have to start paying them the large extension $$$'s at the end of their contracts. The luxury tax is just a function of the CBA. Aside from calculating the additional tax (pennies TBH) and draft pick issues, most of the arguments on here have been "well shouldn't the owners be able to make money." Well, they are using cash paid, not lux tax basis, in determining operating income for the year and what to pay out as distributions.

drewski6 · January 27

14 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

Disclaimer before the following statement is made:

Pete Alonso is better than Wilson Contreras.

ok, now the point. I think people overvalue Alonso and undervalue Contreras. There’s so many ways to add value on the diamond.

its entirely possible that it can both be true that one thing is more important than the rest in a vacuum AND that thing is overvalued at the same exact time. To me, that is the long ball. Alonso is elite there but not really anywhere else.

Alonso is most likely going to return less than 1 War than Contreras next year, and I want to see what they do at 2nd too

Contreras is going into his age 34 season, and catching, in my opinion, ages you. Lot of wear and tear on the knees.

Im glad we have Contreras, but I wish we had Alonso.

drewski6 · January 27

Just now, mvp 78 said:

And teams can trade players before they actually have to start paying them they large extension $$$'s at the end of their contracts. The luxury tax is just a function of the CBA. Aside from calculating the additional tax (pennies TBH) and draft pick issues, most of the arguments on here have been "well shouldn't the owners be able to make money." Well, they are using cash paid, not lux tax basis, in determining operating income for the year and what to pay out as distributions.

Thank you!

drewski6 · January 27

And honestly, I dont mind owners managing to get themselves paid as much as I mind the bootlickers carrying water for them.

UtahSox · January 27

9 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

Disclaimer before the following statement is made:

Pete Alonso is better than Wilson Contreras.

ok, now the point. I think people overvalue Alonso and undervalue Contreras. There’s so many ways to add value on the diamond.

its entirely possible that it can both be true that one thing is more important than the rest in a vacuum AND that thing is overvalued at the same exact time. To me, that is the long ball. Alonso is elite there but not really anywhere else.

Alonso is most likely going to return less than 1 War than Contreras next year, and I want to see what they do at 2nd too

There’s intrinsic value in a lineup that goes beyond simple apples-to-apples WAR comparisons. Roster construction is about composition and fit. Just like any good relationship, players fill different roles and cover for each other’s weaknesses.

That’s why someone like Pete Alonso would’ve been a massive addition, even if the WAR gap looks small on paper. He’s the bat that changes how the entire lineup is pitched. He’s the guy everyone’s afraid of making one mistake to.

With Roman Anthony, pitchers aren’t thinking “intentional walk.” They’re thinking, “Stay off the inner half and live with a walk.” That’s manageable, especially when you know the next two hitters have to string something together.

With Alonso…… or even someone like Eugenio Suárez…… one bad pitch and you’ve given up 2 runs. That kind of threat forces different pitch sequencing, to Roman, and that creates mistakes, and elevates everyone around him.

WAR doesn’t capture that.

mvp 78 · January 27

17 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

Disclaimer before the following statement is made:

Pete Alonso is better than Wilson Contreras.

ok, now the point. I think people overvalue Alonso and undervalue Contreras. There’s so many ways to add value on the diamond.

its entirely possible that it can both be true that one thing is more important than the rest in a vacuum AND that thing is overvalued at the same exact time. To me, that is the long ball. Alonso is elite there but not really anywhere else.

Alonso is most likely going to return less than 1 War than Contreras next year, and I want to see what they do at 2nd too

I think Contreras will actually have higher fWAR than Alonso this year.

drewski6 · January 27

2 minutes ago, UtahSox said:

There’s intrinsic value in a lineup that goes beyond simple apples-to-apples WAR comparisons. Roster construction is about composition and fit. Just like any good relationship, players fill different roles and cover for each other’s weaknesses.

That’s why someone like Pete Alonso would’ve been a massive addition, even if the WAR gap looks small on paper. He’s the bat that changes how the entire lineup is pitched. He’s the guy everyone’s afraid of making one mistake to.

With Roman Anthony, pitchers aren’t thinking “intentional walk.” They’re thinking, “Stay off the inner half and live with a walk.” That’s manageable, especially when you know the next two hitters have to string something together.

With Alonso…… or even someone like Eugenio Suárez…… one bad pitch and you’ve given up 2 runs. That kind of threat forces different pitch sequencing, to Roman, and that creates mistakes, and elevates everyone around him.

WAR doesn’t capture that.

THeres only one player on the sox Im scared of if Im an opponent, and that player is Duran (he'll cut you).

Position player I mean, nobody is jazzed to face Crochet or Chapman.

mvp 78 · January 27

3 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

Contreras is going into his age 34 season, and catching, in my opinion, ages you. Lot of wear and tear on the knees.

Im glad we have Contreras, but I wish we had Alonso.

Alonso looks like a rat. Probably sneakily a bad guy too. Pass.

JoeBrady · January 27

29 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

The cash is the true expenditure.

If the CBT and the draft picks punishments are based on cash flow, then I will agree.

drewski6 · January 27

If I was Jarren Durans agent , I would be whispering things in his ear. Devilish things.

drewski6 · January 27

2 minutes ago, JoeBrady said:

If the CBT and the draft picks punishments are based on cash flow, then I will agree.

The tax is pennies TBH, and the 10 draft slots is barely on anyones radar. Ive never seen a team run to 280 and then hard stop over potentially moving back 10 spots.

drewski6 · January 27

just give me one good fight this year and im happy.

When was the last time a baseball player got punched in the mouth?

moonslav59 · January 27

23 hours ago, FredLynn said:

Of course he SPENDS. Every owner spends SOMETHING. But as I stated its REALISM when I say he more often dumpster dives than pays for top talent-Soto, Schwarber, Alonso, even Bregman. He wouldn’t pay for any of them. He gets a lollipop for signing Suarez. Whooppee! We are still not talented enough to compete for a ring.

Suarez was a major signing. Calling him a lillipop is hyperbole, I hope.

I guess JH could have not allowed $21M for Gray and $21M for Contreras, and instead signed Bregman, and you'd say he was spending agian?

drewski6 · January 27

Just now, moonslav59 said:

Suarez was a major signing. Calling him a lillipop is hyperbole, I hope.

I guess JH could have not allowed $21M for Gray and $21M for Contreras, and instead signed Bregman, and you'd say he was spending agian?

He didnt want bregman lol

moonslav59 · January 27

1 hour ago, notin said:

So the complaint is the Sox are in the upper tier, but not high enough in the upper tier?

...and also that he's spending but not on the high end players, so it doesn't count.

$28M Bregman > $42M Gray + Contreras.

moonslav59 · January 27

1 minute ago, drewski6 said:

He didnt want bregman lol

Okay...

$32M Alonso > $42M Gray+Contreras

Sign In

Red Sox 2025 Season Review/Offseason Preview Thread

Recommended Posts

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

moonslav59

Duran Is The Man

mvp 78

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Member Statistics

Prospect News & Highlights

Recent News

Notes & Rumors

Recent Blog Entries

Recent Status Updates