Red Sox 2025 Season Review/Offseason Preview Thread

[mvp 78]

14 hours ago, JoeBrady said:

You cannot spend your way to prosperity. 

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

Manny

Millar

Reese

Mueller

Damon

Ortiz

Foulke

Timlin

[Bellhorn04]

20 minutes ago, Hitch said:

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? 

I have to disagree that "the revenue thing is a relatively new angle". 

[mvp 78]

13 hours 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.

Uh, do we have to go back and start auditing posts from the '22 season now? 

[mvp 78]

13 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

We are all upset we signed Yoshida. 

LOL, nope. This isn't true either. 

[mvp 78]

2 hours ago, Hitch said:

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?

That dwarf JH's wealth or FSG's wealth? And does that actually matter or no? If we're just looking at Red Sox operations and related real estate, NESN operations, etc. I don't think we need to dip into their personal funds the way Cohen does. We know FSG is making more than enough revenue to go over the 2nd threshold, they just don't want to. That another owner has more personal wealth is irrelevant. 

[Hitch]

9 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

I have to disagree that "the revenue thing is a relatively new angle". 

Yes, we'll most certainly have to disagree. 

[mvp 78]

1 hour 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.🤫

Will they spend 300M on payroll? Probably not. If they went to 280ish, I think it'd make most fans happy enough. They are at 243 right now according to SP. 

[mvp 78]

2 minutes ago, Hitch said:

Yes, we'll most certainly have to disagree. 

We talk about it every time the Forbes report comes out. 

[mvp 78]

15 minutes ago, Hitch said:

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. 

Scouting AND analytics. Not choosing one or the other. Spending a lot on both. 

[Old Red]

1 minute ago, mvp 78 said:

Will they spend 300M on payroll? Probably not. If they went to 280ish, I think it'd make most fans happy enough. They are at 243 right now according to SP. 

I agree. I don’t think anyone is asking the Red Sox to go to the Mets, or Dodgers level.

[Hitch]

4 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

That dwarf JH's wealth or FSG's wealth? And does that actually matter or no? If we're just looking at Red Sox operations and related real estate, NESN operations, etc. I don't think we need to dip into their personal funds the way Cohen does. We know FSG is making more than enough revenue to go over the 2nd threshold, they just don't want to. That another owner has more personal wealth is irrelevant. 

FSG's wealth is tied up in all their sports and media properties - if they sold them they'd be worth billions. But when they're holding the, that wealth is obviously only in the abstract. It's not the Red Sox's 'related real estate'. The wealth belongs to all the media and sporting institutions. 

Yes, they have the revenue to go over the 2nd threshold but how far should they go? As I've mentioned several times over the past three days, two years out of the last three (pre 2024), they have had almost $100m less per year. So if they go up to their revenue markers and get it wrong (IE - spend unwisely) and the revenue drops again, what then?

[Hitch]

5 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

Will they spend 300M on payroll? Probably not. If they went to 280ish, I think it'd make most fans happy enough. They are at 243 right now according to SP. 

I can't remember off the top of my head if that affects our draft picks. But I'd want us to spend below anything that does that. And of course multiple times over the LT's mean punishments on drafts and platers with QO attached to them too.

[Hitch]

5 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

We talk about it every time the Forbes report comes out. 

I've been on this board since 2013 and lingered a lot longer before that. I don't recall any such conversations before 2024. And certainly not when they were $100m lower in the 2021 and 2022.

[Bellhorn04]

9 minutes ago, Hitch said:

Yes, we'll most certainly have to disagree. 

Forbes's annual Business of Baseball rankings started with the 1998 season, so we've had that data at our fingertips for over 25 years now.  I assume that we're not confining to our comments to just what's said on the Talksox forum.  

[Hitch]

Just now, Bellhorn04 said:

Forbes's annual Business of Baseball rankings started with the 1998 season, so we've had that data at our fingertips for over 25 years now.  I assume that we're not confining to our comments to just what's said on the Talksox forum.  

Well, I don't tend to leap into people's minds and discuss what they said at home in 2003 Bel. We're quite clearly talking about what is said in here. For Christ sake.

Let's just let it lie. 3 days of watching people tie themselves up in knots on this subject is quite enough for me.

[Old Red]

1 hour ago, Hitch said:

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.

And yet with having a small old ballpark the Red Sox generate $500M+ in revenue.

[mvp 78]

4 minutes ago, Hitch said:

FSG's wealth is tied up in all their sports and media properties - if they sold them they'd be worth billions. But when they're holding the, that wealth is obviously only in the abstract. It's not the Red Sox's 'related real estate'. The wealth belongs to all the media and sporting institutions. 

Yes, they have the revenue to go over the 2nd threshold but how far should they go? As I've mentioned several times over the past three days, two years out of the last three (pre 2024), they have had almost $100m less per year. So if they go up to their revenue markers and get it wrong (IE - spend unwisely) and the revenue drops again, what then?

Attendance was down across the league in '21 and '22. Very cool that in 2025, owners were still complaining that they were unable to spend due to what happened due to COVID. 

Why is attendance below 2.8M for the first time since 2003? The product on the field has been degraded due to decisions by ownership and the prices are still high. That's kind of on them TBH. 

[Bellhorn04]

1 minute ago, Hitch said:

Well, I don't tend to leap into people's minds and discuss what they said at home in 2003 Bel. We're quite clearly talking about what is said in here. For Christ sake.

Let's just let it lie. 3 days of watching people tie themselves up in knots on this subject is quite enough for me.

We've got about 2 dozen people who post regularly here.  But I agree, there's not much point in this discussion.  

[mvp 78]

10 minutes ago, Hitch said:

I can't remember off the top of my head if that affects our draft picks. But I'd want us to spend below anything that does that. And of course multiple times over the LT's mean punishments on drafts and platers with QO attached to them too.

Anything above 264 pushes the draft picks down 10 spots. 

[Old Red]

2 minutes ago, Hitch said:

Well, I don't tend to leap into people's minds and discuss what they said at home in 2003 Bel. We're quite clearly talking about what is said in here. For Christ sake.

Let's just let it lie. 3 days of watching people tie themselves up in knots on this subject is quite enough for me.

3 days? It’s been discussed for some time now. Here, there, and everywhere.

[Hitch]

3 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

Attendance was down across the league in '21 and '22. Very cool that in 2025, owners were still complaining that they were unable to spend due to what happened due to COVID. 

Why is attendance below 2.8M for the first time since 2003? The product on the field has been degraded due to decisions by ownership and the prices are still high. That's kind of on them TBH. 

I don't know if owners were still saying that in particular in '25, but I certainly don't begrudge a reaction after Covid devastated revenues across every industry outside of the pharma one. 

Totally agree with the second part. Completely on them. But as we've seen time and time again - they're not infallible or geniuses. So there's every chance they spend extra, get it wrong and then revenues dive again because the product is poor. Yet now we have record pay roll. It's absolutely sensible that they would give themselves buffers. 

And yet, I'll say it again for the zillionth time. They should definitely spend more than they currently are. 

I fully expect them to go up near $260. Higher, and you're into draft pick territory so it's on a case by case basis then, depending on who we would add.

[Hitch]

8 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

Anything above 264 pushes the draft picks down 10 spots. 

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

[Hitch]

11 minutes ago, Old Red said:

And yet with having a small old ballpark the Red Sox generate $500M+ in revenue.

I know right, almost like it's tied to the higher ticket pricing.

8 minutes ago, Old Red said:

3 days? It’s been discussed for some time now. Here, there, and everywhere.

Yeah, you missed the point.

[mvp 78]

1 minute ago, Hitch said:

I don't know if owners were still saying that in particular in '25, but I certainly don't begrudge a reaction after Covid devastated revenues across every industry outside of the pharma one. 

Totally agree with the second part. Completely on them. But as we've seen time and time again - they're not infallible or geniuses. So there's every chance they spend extra, get it wrong and then revenues dive again because the product is poor. Yet now we have record pay roll. It's absolutely sensible that they would give themselves buffers. 

And yet, I'll say it again for the zillionth time. They should definitely spend more than they currently are. 

I fully expect them to go up near $260. Higher, and you're into draft pick territory so it's on a case by case basis then, depending on who we would add.

Nearly every team has a record payroll. Payroll across the league is at an all time high. Is that due to JH or inflation? 

If they only go to 260, they either aren't signing Breggie or they are signing Breggie and dealing another salary away. 

[mvp 78]

I looked and we were discussing the Forbes revenue numbers going back as far as the 09-10 offseason.

Thanks A700 and Dipre! Come back and post more! 

[mvp 78]

1 minute ago, Hitch said:

Yeah, you missed the point.

This could be nearly every response to anyone's posts these days. We're all just talking past each other. 

[Hitch]

Just now, mvp 78 said:

Nearly every team has a record payroll. Payroll across the league is at an all time high. Is that due to JH or inflation? 

If they only go to 260, they either aren't signing Breggie or they are signing Breggie and dealing another salary away. 

Okay, but let's not get tied up on the labeling. The point which I have to keep making is that they aren't going to want to put themselves in a position where making bad decisions puts them in the red.

Breggie signs. Duran is traded.  Bit short on the bullpen for my liking however. I would think there will be other trades yet mind, and also Breggie will be asked to defer some.

[mvp 78]

4 minutes ago, Hitch said:

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

This FA class wasn't good. I kinda get it if they didn't spend. 

If they overspend on Bregman, we'll regret it 3-4 years from now. 

[Hitch]

1 minute ago, mvp 78 said:

This could be nearly every response to anyone's posts these days. We're all just talking past each other. 

It does feel more and more like this, yes.

[Old Red]

11 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

This could be nearly every response to anyone's posts these days. We're all just talking past each other. 

I’ve missed so many points on here I’ve been told I’ve got sent to the bench several times.