The 2025 postseason, post-Red Sox

[drewski6]

22 hours ago, dgalehouse said:

Considering the circumstances and what was at stake, last night was certainly one of the greatest, most exciting, drama packed, edge of your seat baseball games of all time. A game for the ages. And the Dodgers winning is by no means "killing baseball". It was baseball at its best. That can only be good for the sport.  

not to mention, with taxes they are subsidizing half the league, haha

[drewski6]

6 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

That was my assumption. Giants didn't want him and the Sox wanted that contract. Thought they could turn him around and make him the next Chapman. 

When you throw well over 100 mph, you get a lot of chances

[drewski6]

1 hour ago, mvp 78 said:

For playing in the playoffs and not reaching the 2nd CBT line by trading Devers (more important to him). 

This is exactly why I complain about the lack of competitiveness and urgency league wide (minus 5-8) teams.

If you arent going t ospend on free agents, at least get creative and pound the pavement for trades or have some kind of plan (like Seattle). I just dont like the complacency and how it feels like we hear about "desire to cut payroll" as the primary plan for 2/3 the teams every offseason.

Baseball needs like an owners beef. 

[mvp 78]

16 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

This is exactly why I complain about the lack of competitiveness and urgency league wide (minus 5-8) teams.

If you arent going t ospend on free agents, at least get creative and pound the pavement for trades or have some kind of plan (like Seattle). I just dont like the complacency and how it feels like we hear about "desire to cut payroll" as the primary plan for 2/3 the teams every offseason.

Baseball needs like an owners beef. 

77% of all MLB teams have made the playoffs since '22 (expanded era). With expanding playoffs, you have to be a really stingy owner to not get in anymore.

A's

Rockies

Pirates

White Sox

Angels

Nationals

Giants (made playoffs in '21 as #1 seed LOL, maybe the only outlier here)

[drewski6]

1 minute ago, mvp 78 said:

77% of all MLB teams have made the playoffs since '22 (expanded era). With expanding playoffs, you have to be a really stingy owner to not get in anymore.

A's

Rockies

Pirates

White Sox

Angels

Nationals

Giants (made playoffs in '21 as #1 seed LOL, maybe the only outlier here)

But it goes beyond these teams for me.  Teams like the rangers. They were jumping for joy when they won the ws, and then immediately got to work on cost cutting.

I understand the tv contracts going to crap was a big part of a lot of it.  Baltimore could have done more, they had a once in a lifetime farm system maturing on the same timeline. Texas Rangers instead of trying to repeat as champs, they couldnt wait to use the ws victory as an excuse to immediately cut payroll (me wonders if thats WHY they were happy they won. Woohoo, a ship! Takes the pressure off the next decade, time to get s-t-i-n-g-y). Teams falling jsut short like dbacks and then just not doing what they can to add/get back.

I would only be a little surprised, if we started hearing, look we gave you a playoff appearance last season, rs fans. Dont get greedy, its time to focus on profits cuz we wanna buy the NY jets! Wouldnt that be swell!

[drewski6]

And im over here like.....boo this man!

[mvp 78]

2 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

I would only be a little surprised, if we started hearing, look we gave you a playoff appearance last season, rs fans. Dont get greedy, its time to focus on profits cuz we wanna buy the NY jets! Wouldnt that be swell!

There are already people on here saying the Sox shouldn't spend. 🫠

The Sox should spend because they are 3rd in revenue. It's embarrassing that they can't even spend 50% of their revenue on payroll like real teams. A 250M payroll should be nothing to them. 

[drewski6]

15 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

There are already people on here saying the Sox shouldn't spend. 🫠

The Sox should spend because they are 3rd in revenue. It's embarrassing that they can't even spend 50% of their revenue on payroll like real teams. A 250M payroll should be nothing to them. 

not intended at you , but no way these numbers are accurate.  Does this include all revenue? All payroll (including front office, ballpark vendors/maint)?

I think the numbers are actually worse (from a standpoint of ownership greed)....For example, I wonder if that payroll number is like 60% of all payroll (because its not counting things like TV or merch or tax penalty sharing) but the payroll numbers still not 100% (becuse not counting like stadium maint crew or 3b coaches) but the payroll numbers being somewhere between 60% and 100%. So both numbers actually higher, but revenue number is like 30% underrepresented and payroll only like 15% underrepresented. Meaning owners even more margin than this implies.

Could be wrong

[drewski6]

Because if thats total revenue and only player payroll, then that means mets prob operate at a net loss when you factor in stadium depreciation, front office budget, coach budget, stadium crew, marketing dept, advertising ....And I dont think thats the case.

[mvp 78]

25 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

Because if thats total revenue and only player payroll, then that means mets prob operate at a net loss when you factor in stadium depreciation, front office budget, coach budget, stadium crew, marketing dept, advertising ....And I dont think thats the case.

It's been reported that NYM have had a Net Loss and the owner is fine with it. Cohen's a billionaire, he's just eating the difference. 

[mvp 78]

29 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

not intended at you , but no way these numbers are accurate.  Does this include all revenue? All payroll (including front office, ballpark vendors/maint)?

I think the numbers are actually worse (from a standpoint of ownership greed)....For example, I wonder if that payroll number is like 60% of all payroll (because its not counting things like TV or merch or tax penalty sharing) but the payroll numbers still not 100% (becuse not counting like stadium maint crew or 3b coaches) but the payroll numbers being somewhere between 60% and 100%. So both numbers actually higher, but revenue number is like 30% underrepresented and payroll only like 15% underrepresented. Meaning owners even more margin than this implies.

Could be wrong

I believe it's just baseball revenue (including tv and merch, but not including real estate ventures around the park). 

[notin]

53 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

There are already people on here saying the Sox shouldn't spend. 🫠

The Sox should spend because they are 3rd in revenue. It's embarrassing that they can't even spend 50% of their revenue on payroll like real teams. A 250M payroll should be nothing to them. 

Don’t these teams have other operating costs not related to the aggregate total of the salaries of 40 employees?

[notin]

35 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

Because if thats total revenue and only player payroll, then that means mets prob operate at a net loss when you factor in stadium depreciation, front office budget, coach budget, stadium crew, marketing dept, advertising ....And I dont think thats the case.

I see others are pursuing my questions…

[notin]

11 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

It's been reported that NYM have had a Net Loss and the owner is fine with it. Cohen's a billionaire, he's just eating the difference. 

Cohen’s probably not losing anything on this.  He didn’t accrue some $15-20billion in net worth by accepting financial losses personally…

[drewski6]

1 minute ago, notin said:

Cohen’s probably not losing anything on this.  He didn’t accrue some $15-20billion in net worth by accepting financial losses personally…

He may have a net loss in a given year, but no way hes operating consistently at a loss.

I shouldnt say no way, replace that with "quite improbable to me"

[mvp 78]

14 minutes ago, notin said:

Don’t these teams have other operating costs not related to the aggregate total of the salaries of 40 employees?

No.

[mvp 78]

10 minutes ago, notin said:

Cohen’s probably not losing anything on this.  He didn’t accrue some $15-20billion in net worth by accepting financial losses personally…

If he's treating it as a hobby and not a business, the losses aren't a big deal. A lot of people spend over 1% of their annual income on a hobby. Him spending that on the Mets wouldn't be a problem. 

[notin]

16 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

If he's treating it as a hobby and not a business, the losses aren't a big deal. A lot of people spend over 1% of their annual income on a hobby. Him spending that on the Mets wouldn't be a problem. 

Maybe, but it’s also fairly safe to assume he isn’t using his own money…

[Duran Is The Man]

2 hours ago, mvp 78 said:

I think they did like his arm. 

What does Hicks remember about Red Sox chief baseball officer Craig Breslow’s pursuit of him in the months leading up to the ‘24 season?

“I just remember they came after me pretty hard, and they were in on me, and it was between them and the Giants,” Hicks said. “So I'm just excited to be here and feel wanted.”

if Brez thinks this guy is someone worth pursuing, i truly wonder about his judgement. the guy is horrendous. 

[jad]

It's easy to operate at a 'loss' when the value of your team is increasing at astonishing rates every year.

[moonslav59]

2 hours ago, mvp 78 said:

That was my assumption. Giants didn't want him and the Sox wanted that contract. Thought they could turn him around and make him the next Chapman. 

But how did they envision getting under the tax line with Hicks aboard?

Or did they not?

[mvp 78]

10 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

But how did they envision getting under the tax line with Hicks aboard?

Or did they not?

I think they just cared about getting under the 2nd line and seeing where the season took them. 

[moonslav59]

9 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

I think they just cared about getting under the 2nd line and seeing where the season took them. 

Well, they fell way below the second line. Maybe they genuinely expected to spend at the deadline, but everything fell through the cracks.

[mvp 78]

1 minute ago, moonslav59 said:

Well, they fell way below the second line. Maybe they genuinely expected to spend at the deadline, but everything fell through the cracks.

I think there was true uncertainty in regards to the payroll going forwards. If the team took a dive, there was going to be a selloff at the deadline which would have put them under the CBT. 

[drewski6]

6 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

Well, they fell way below the second line. Maybe they genuinely expected to spend at the deadline, but everything fell through the cracks.

this is my theory.  that bres doesnt know how to talk to people.

[drewski6]

30 minutes ago, jad said:

It's easy to operate at a 'loss' when the value of your team is increasing at astonishing rates every year.

Appreciation of intangible assets counts.

[moonslav59]

25 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

this is my theory.  that bres doesnt know how to talk to people.

That could be the issue that contributes to holding us back, but I'm not convinced of it, now am I convinced it outweighs the good things he has done and brings to the table.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

3 hours ago, mvp 78 said:

There are already people on here saying the Sox shouldn't spend. 🫠

They shouldn't. The Red Sox shouldn't spend any more of my time telling Sam Kennedy to tell me they're all about championships. 

And the last thing I want as a fan is for my team to sign another free agent who will suck the life out of the line-up or rotation because he's getting paid so much that they have to play him, even if he's a dud.

Boston only has a fanbase of parts of six states, so doesn't have the luxury of a big market franchise that can just cut a guy who doesn't work out. That last phrase has a double meaning that I didn't mean...

[Kimmi]

On 10/29/2025 at 7:29 PM, moonslav59 said:

You do know there are 4 infield positions. Story plus 2 equals 3.

And, that's if we get lucky and 2 of those 3 do well enough.

IMO, Campbell is likely best suited for LF/DH not the infield. Casas may start the season on the 60 Day IL. I like Mayer, but 150 games seems like a big ask. I'm not even all that sure Story will stay healthy and come close to 2025 numbers.

I'm begging for 2 major infield additions, and you think we need none. I'm fine with your position on not spending, but we have to at least sign Josh Bell and Rengifo. Even that is a major step backwards.

I know I'm asking and hoping for a lot.  I also know that what I'm hoping for likely won't happen.  I don't mind spending on shorter term contracts to improve the infield.  But honestly, if it's a choice between going big or taking a chance on what we have, I'll take a chance on what we have.

That said, I fully understand most people's position that we need to spend big on at least a couple of players.  I don't agree with the philosophy, but I understand why people want that.

[Kimmi]

On 10/30/2025 at 3:24 PM, notin said:

Just get rid of revenue sharing.

It was a good idea to share money around the league and narrow the financial gap, but too many small market owners view it as a revenue stream…

I would be okay with that.  I'd prefer they keep revenue sharing and require that the owners use it for payroll, but I'd be okay with doing away with it.