Boston Red Sox Interested In Devin Williams

[JoeBrady]

2 hours ago, drewski6 said:

Am I wasting time if I am putting together trade packages for my favorite players in baseball even if I know they arent going to happen? That being said, I know I went too far yesterday pounding the table all day on why we need Schwarber and Corbin Carroll.

To me, it's like suggesting that we trade for Skenes or Ohtani.  A brief mention is fun, but there is an ongoing conversation about something really unlikely.  It's a bit like discussing possible trades of Crochet.

[JoeBrady]

2 hours ago, notin said:

I had no idea Billie Eilish hated John Henry…

I think Billie says things she thinks the crowd wants to hear.  It's why she's been accused of gay-baiting.

[JoeBrady]

1 hour ago, drewski6 said:

Im with Billie.

If you are a billionaire than instantly give away (or even spend) enough money so that you are no longer hoarding a billion OR pray that you never run into me

There is something to be said about using your profits to grow the company.  I wish they would all take that pledge to give away 85% (?) of their wealth when they pass away.  But if you donate $1B of your $2B, then your company only grows at half the pace.

If I gave you a choice of investing in a cure for cancer, or donating to feed the poor, what is the correct answer?  Or is there even a correct answer?

[JoeBrady]

1 hour ago, drewski6 said:

Do you realize that if the Re Sox signed Schwarber, Bichette and trade for  Ryan, there would still be a sizeable payroll gap between us and the yankees?

Sure, but I am looking for practical answers.  We currently have $47M to spend before the CBT.  Or $54M if we spend to the 2025 levels.  For discussion purposes, I like to stay in that range.

[drewski6]

11 minutes ago, JoeBrady said:

There is something to be said about using your profits to grow the company.  I wish they would all take that pledge to give away 85% (?) of their wealth when they pass away.  But if you donate $1B of your $2B, then your company only grows at half the pace.

If I gave you a choice of investing in a cure for cancer, or donating to feed the poor, what is the correct answer?  Or is there even a correct answer?

Well JH is taking the money and trying to buy a football team, sooo......

[drewski6]

6 minutes ago, JoeBrady said:

Sure, but I am looking for practical answers.  We currently have $47M to spend before the CBT.  Or $54M if we spend to the 2025 levels.  For discussion purposes, I like to stay in that range.

JH gets to decide the budget. But if you are telling people that they are being unreasonable for wanting him to spend more than 55m, than you are carrying his water for him.

The Red Sox are the biggest market.  Because LA's market is split between two teams, NY's market is split between two teams. And the RS control Mass, RI, NH, VT, ME, 1/2 Connecticut.

You can say that you dont think hes going to spend more than 55m, and therefore your ideas are framed with that in mind.  And I have no issue.  But JH SHOULD spend more than 55m, and if he doesnt, hes saving up for a football team at our expense.  And dont tell us that we are being unreasonable or greedy because we arent.

We just refuse to lick boots or gaslit into thinking that we should have to compete with NY/LA with a 200m less in payroll when NY and LA have 2 teams each (Chicago too) and we have one team that covers 5 states.

Top 3 in payroll or JH is pathetic. Arguing against that is silly.  But arguing "he's not going to be there, so if you are speculating what team we build, dont go that high in payroll." Arguing that is different and not silly.

Im honestly not sure if we'll get up to top 3 in payroll. Probs not this year. But Im not going to make excuses for a guy who uses our team as a cash-cow to fund NHL and NFL investments.

[mvp 78]

12 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

Top 3 in payroll or JH is pathetic. Arguing against that is silly. 

NYY were 3rd at 304M. TOR was 5th at 255M. I think the argument to be made is that they should at or near the TOR level of 250M+. If they are still below 10th place again, the Sox are no longer a serious franchise. 

[moonslav59]

I really do not think it is unrealistic to suggest JH spend up to the second tax line without going over, especially in light of this stretch of skimping and the upcoming wide open window of opportunity that is upon us, now.

If he is ever going to spend, it should be now.

The second tax line is about $55-65M away, and IMO, we really have three major needs. In theory, that's about $20M per player x 3, but with the excess OF'er situation and some duplicated values here and there, I think we can manage one big trade without hurting the future too much or creating a new hole.

It seems plausible we can trade for a Joe Ryan, Lodolo or maybe even go big and get KMarte and then we have $60M for two players. (Maybe spend $10M on Matz & Ref combined and $50M on 2.) This talking Alonso + Bregman territory. Schwarber + Bichette, maybe. Alonso + Suarez or Polanco, easily.

I know it sounds outlandish, because we have become accustomed to letdowns and almosts, every winter, but this is doable. It's no joke. It can be done.

Now, I know enough about getting my hopes up to expect this doesn't come close to what will happen, but I'm holding JH to the fire. If we fall short, I'm jumping on the JH Sucks Bandwagon... if there is room for one last poster aboard that wagon.

[moonslav59]

2 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

NYY were 3rd at 304M. TOR was 5th at 255M. I think the argument to be made is that they should at or near the TOR level of 250M+. If they are still below 10th place again, the Sox are no longer a serious franchise. 

So that's about $60M in winter additions.

Alonso + Bregman or Bichette.

Schwarber + Suarez or Polanco.

[drewski6]

1 hour ago, JoeBrady said:

I think Billie says things she thinks the crowd wants to hear.  It's why she's been accused of gay-baiting.

She told a bunch of billionaires that being a billionaire is immoral and they uncomfortably squirmed and it was awesome.  Thats hardly telling the crowd what they want to hear.  

Also, shes gay.  Accusing gay people of choosing or pretending to be gay for clicks/view/profits is right out of the playbook.

[drewski6]

44 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

NYY were 3rd at 304M. TOR was 5th at 255M. I think the argument to be made is that they should at or near the TOR level of 250M+. If they are still below 10th place again, the Sox are no longer a serious franchise. 

Toronto has a lot of money too (the city).  Plus they are the only Canadian team (right?). I think this is spot on. Ill fall back from top 3 or pathetic to just outside top 5 or pathetic.

[moonslav59]

4 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

Toronto has a lot of money too (the city).  Plus they are the only Canadian team (right?). I think this is spot on. Ill fall back from top 3 or pathetic to just outside top 5 or pathetic.

Spotrac has us at 12th with a $136M budget. We could go to #11 with $1M more, #9 or 10 with $15M more, but even these are reasonable jumps:

+25M to #7-8 HOU/SDP

+30-35M to #5-6 PHI/ATL

Jumping to TOR would take about $60M, assuming they don't bring Bichette back or jump their own spending as they are in a window, too.

 

[drewski6]

10 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

Spotrac has us at 12th with a $136M budget. We could go to #11 with $1M more, #9 or 10 with $15M more, but even these are reasonable jumps:

+25M to #7-8 HOU/SDP

+30-35M to #5-6 PHI/ATL

Jumping to TOR would take about $60M, assuming they don't bring Bichette back or jump their own spending as they are in a window, too.

 

Thats the elephant in the room.  That the yankees, blue jays, phils, and dodgers are gonna keep spending.

[moonslav59]

7 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

Thats the elephant in the room.  That the yankees, blue jays, phils, and dodgers are gonna keep spending.

I've made the point that a significant reason we dropped in the budget rankings was that some teams just went "nutty" on spending, but that's was not meant to let JH of the hook nor justify his lack of investments in our quality of players.

We'd probably be 7th or 8th, if he just spent at a steady increase.

[JoeBrady]

4 hours ago, drewski6 said:

She told a bunch of billionaires that being a billionaire is immoral and they uncomfortably squirmed and it was awesome.  Thats hardly telling the crowd what they want to hear.  

Also, shes gay.  Accusing gay people of choosing or pretending to be gay for clicks/view/profits is right out of the playbook.

She's straight, hence the accusation of gay-baiting.  I never heard of the term before today, and I didn't write the articles.

[JoeBrady]

But if you are telling people that they are being unreasonable for wanting him to spend more than 55m, than you are carrying his water for him.

IMO, JH should spend at least to the TO, or at some rough percentage of revenue.  But if I am projecting additions in the off-season, I'll do so using the current budget.  It doesn't make sense to project spending that is unlikely to happen.

Otherwise, put me down for Bregman, Bichette, Alonso, then add Tucker so that I can trade both Abreu and Duran for Greene.

[notin]

17 hours ago, drewski6 said:

JH gets to decide the budget. But if you are telling people that they are being unreasonable for wanting him to spend more than 55m, than you are carrying his water for him.

The Red Sox are the biggest market.  Because LA's market is split between two teams, NY's market is split between two teams. And the RS control Mass, RI, NH, VT, ME, 1/2 Connecticut.

You can say that you dont think hes going to spend more than 55m, and therefore your ideas are framed with that in mind.  And I have no issue.  But JH SHOULD spend more than 55m, and if he doesnt, hes saving up for a football team at our expense.  And dont tell us that we are being unreasonable or greedy because we arent.

We just refuse to lick boots or gaslit into thinking that we should have to compete with NY/LA with a 200m less in payroll when NY and LA have 2 teams each (Chicago too) and we have one team that covers 5 states.

Top 3 in payroll or JH is pathetic. Arguing against that is silly.  But arguing "he's not going to be there, so if you are speculating what team we build, dont go that high in payroll." Arguing that is different and not silly.

Im honestly not sure if we'll get up to top 3 in payroll. Probs not this year. But Im not going to make excuses for a guy who uses our team as a cash-cow to fund NHL and NFL investments.

So many things wrong or misleading with this post.

 

Im not even saying JH should or shouldn’t pay more.  But I am saying this logic is either false or misleading or both…

[Hitch]

18 hours ago, mvp 78 said:

NYY were 3rd at 304M. TOR was 5th at 255M. I think the argument to be made is that they should at or near the TOR level of 250M+. If they are still below 10th place again, the Sox are no longer a serious franchise. 

I'm pretty confident they will hit at least this point. He's spent and been near the top when the team looks like it could win. When it hasn't, he's kept his gunpowder dry. Which is not unreasonable considering the mistakes made the past 7 years. 

He's made plenty of mistakes, but this cheap tag is overcooked.  

[notin]

Just now, Hitch said:

I'm pretty confident they will hit at least this point. He's spent and been near the top when the team looks like it could win. When it hasn't, he's kept his gunpowder dry. Which is not unreasonable considering the mistakes made the past 7 years. 

He's made plenty of mistakes, but this cheap tag is overcooked.  

Hes not as cheap as many say, but he also Durant spend like he used to.  And the cheap label got added quick - like the second they stopped adding one top five FA annually.  They were still a top 5-10 payroll all through the Bloom years.

That said, I predict one top FA this off-season.  And probably another key player added via trade, which could include serious salary.  

[Hitch]

9 minutes ago, notin said:

Hes not as cheap as many say, but he also Durant spend like he used to.  And the cheap label got added quick - like the second they stopped adding one top five FA annually.  They were still a top 5-10 payroll all through the Bloom years.

That said, I predict one top FA this off-season.  And probably another key player added via trade, which could include serious salary.  

No, he doesn't, but I mean, when you're making the mistakes we've been making, I don't begrudge him pulling the handbrake. There's also this idea that John Henry is a billionaire and so should be launching all his money into this. His assets are why he's worth billions. He'd have to sell them to be as cash rich as people seem to think he is. The Red Sox should spend the money they turnover, no more. That's all we're entitled to. Forbes had the 2024 Red Sox coming out at $120m ahead. So there's room for more to be spent, but they're going to want safety on their bottom line, too. So we're not far off what is perfectly acceptable if they spend another $50/80m this year. 

I'm still holding up hope for 2 big bats and a trade for a starter. Though we'll likely need to nab some bullpen depth now, too.

[moonslav59]

27 minutes ago, notin said:

Hes not as cheap as many say, but he also Durant spend like he used to.  And the cheap label got added quick - like the second they stopped adding one top five FA annually.  They were still a top 5-10 payroll all through the Bloom years.

That said, I predict one top FA this off-season.  And probably another key player added via trade, which could include serious salary.  

Part of the reason they remained a top budget team was the longer term deals signed under DD.

The new spending dropped off sharply after the Sale and Nate extensions/re-signings.

The cheap label was accurate in this sense.

[Hitch]

1 minute ago, moonslav59 said:

Part of the reason they remained a top budget team was the longer term deals signed under DD.

The new spending dropped off sharply after the Sale and Nate extensions/re-signings.

The cheap label was accurate in this sense.

They've always spent. Always. It's only very recently they've eased off. 

Do you think it's more likely they saw all the mistakes and thought it would be sending good money after bad at that point? Or that they just decided enough is enough, we're happy finishing bottom?

[moonslav59]

1 hour ago, Hitch said:

They've always spent. Always. It's only very recently they've eased off. 

Do you think it's more likely they saw all the mistakes and thought it would be sending good money after bad at that point? Or that they just decided enough is enough, we're happy finishing bottom?

If 2019-2020 winter is recent, okay.

Before 2019, they extended Sale and Nate, planned on trading Betts and let Kimbrel & Kelly go without replacing in kind. One could argue the trend started then, but they did still spend a lot.

Since those two extensions, in terms of adding players, it's been Story and Yoshida. That's a sharp decline.

[drewski6]

3 hours ago, notin said:

So many things wrong or misleading with this post.

 

Im not even saying JH should or shouldn’t pay more.  But I am saying this logic is either false or misleading or both…

New England has about 15m people, most of which live in Red sox territory.  The greater NY area is 20m, but the largest burough is Queens, which is mets territory.

Toronto has 3m people, double it if you include the suburbs. But baseball is far from as popular in toronto as it is in new england. Im sure most of canada roots for toronto and that helps

The cubs dominate the north side of the chicago, and granted thats where the high income fans are which helps, but they are still splitting half the city.

LA is big and I get that, and even with the Angels and really even the padres cutting into it, its still a huge market.  Keep in mind that LA is the most transient city on the planet though, and if youve been too la (you prob have) youd prob know that practically nobody in la is from la. THey are transplants, but most of them have adopted the dodgers , sure

Yes, my post did have some imperfections (e.g. my use of the word market vs population / geographical area) but my point is that Boston is a major US city, and the red sox get it all to themselves.  Unlike most major cities, which are carved up among teams. And the red sox not only get boston to themsleves, but most of new england as well.  Granted dudes from maine arent particularly likely to come to fenway often

But my point is that we shouldnt be operating from a financial disadvantage.  I like MVPs point that they need to get back to top 5, or just outside of it, or we just arent seriously competing.  ANd I understnad dont spend money to spend money, you have to have holes to justify spending money...But we do.

We'll see.

[drewski6]

14 hours ago, JoeBrady said:

She's straight, hence the accusation of gay-baiting.  I never heard of the term before today, and I didn't write the articles.

The context here is that I waiver back and forth about how much to blame Henry for a significant downturn in payroll over the last 7 years, where we've fallen into the bottom half in terms of % of revenue spent on payroll and have had a frustrating and disappointing team during that span.

So I was agreeing with a post that was like Im not sure all the blame that JH gets is rational, but he prob should spend more, especially right now, so I agreed with that but also wanted to point out that Im just not going to be the dude on here defending billionaires because I believe nobody should hoard that much wealth. It hurts all of us to take that kind of wealth out of circulation.

So I was throwing in a point about how I dont feel like I need to defend billionaires and used a recent quote from Billie (somebody who I like) who made a quote that I like. She told a bunch of billionaires that anybody over a billion in assets isnt giving enough away.

In you come, you said "she was just telling audience what they want to hear" which makes no sense and is the opposite  of what she did. You started talking about her sexuality and I assume she is 25% your age so gross, and not only are you commenting on her sexuality, you are incorrect (she is gay, that is very well known) and the only reason you even brought up her sexuality was to discredit her.

You then fell back to "well the thing that I brought up, wasnt from me, Im just saying what I heard" which is the  twerpiest of moves.  

I have no idea why you even went down this road or why you are so determined to discredit Billie in order to defend billlionaires, but this is text book boot licking behavior.

I am no longer having fun talking to you, this place was better before you (Earth, not Talksox), and so Im ending this, but heres some parting advice:

1. Dont believe everything you read on Twitter
2. You dont need to lick boots
3. Be true to your word, if you are going to eventually fall back to "I didnt write the article, Im jsut repeating what I read.." If you need to fall back to that, dont bring up what you heard or read if you arent going to defend it because its twerpy
4. Dont comment on womens sexuality who are 1/4 of your age, you gross perv
5. Dont bring up someones sexuality in an effort to discredit them
6. Maybe use google before saying and doubling down that a well known gay person isnt gay
7. Charli XCX (straight, with a big gay following) and Billie Eilish (gay) are different people, you barely know either so maybe dont get involved in back-and-forths about them. But Id bet money you are confusing them.
8. Dont talk to me anymore because you are the worst and your takes are bad. Id even rather read  seabeachfred talk about how campbell is an elite defenisve shortstop and abreu doesnt deserve either of his gold gloves

[drewski6]

2 hours ago, Hitch said:

I'm pretty confident they will hit at least this point. He's spent and been near the top when the team looks like it could win. When it hasn't, he's kept his gunpowder dry. Which is not unreasonable considering the mistakes made the past 7 years. 

He's made plenty of mistakes, but this cheap tag is overcooked.  

My only pause before I can confidently say that he willget to 255m in payroll, or be within a stones throw of toronto is that in free agency there is a finite amount of people worth spending big on.

What happnes if schwrber/aonso/bichette all prefer to stay where they are and a differentteam throws 6 or 7 years at bregman and we arent comfy going there.  I think he will still spend, but it will be more like giving high AAV to second tier guys and sure the 2026 payroll will be there but only because you gave O'Hearn and a 3rd tier sp an overpay from an AAV standpoint because you didnt want to commit the years needed to gget the top of the free agent class (like we did with Gio).

Id rather they go the trade and extend route before they go this route (giving 2nd and 3rd tier free agents high AAV deals becasue you wont give anybody any term). Being cheap goes beyond just hte 2026 payroll

But I do agree that the cheap thing is probs overcooked.

[Hitch]

1 hour ago, moonslav59 said:

If 2019-2020 winter is recent, okay.

Before 2019, they extended Sale and Nate, planned on trading Betts and let Kimbrel & Kelly go without replacing in kind. One could argue the trend started then, but they did still spend a lot.

Since those two extensions, in terms of adding players, it's been Story and Yoshida. That's a sharp decline.

2015 - 3rd highest payroll

2016 - 3rd

2017 - 3rd

2018 - 1st

2019 - 1st

2020 - 3rd

2021 - 3rd

2022 - 6th

2023 - 13th

2024 - 12th

2025 - 11th

 

So I'll ask the question again, do you think it's more likely that an ownership group that was routinely in the top 3 payroll (and sometimes the highest spender), that brought unprecedented success to this fanbase, decided 3 years ago that they no longer wish to compete and instead want to sit around trying to swindle its fanbase with shams, or, that they believed the roster was in bad shape, with contracts that were hurting them, and needed to get itself back on track before they outlaid big sums again?

Because I know which seems most likely to me. 

If they don't go big this summer, they will deserve a hammering. Other than making stupid mistakes and comments/promises, I don't think they deserve all the ire they get on times.

[notin]

21 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

So that's about $60M in winter additions.

Alonso + Bregman or Bichette.

Schwarber + Suarez or Polanco.

The problem with signing Alonso and Bregman isn’t the money; it’s the years.

Alonso wants 7 years, but that’s not very likely.  But 6 is possible, and Bregman is looking at 5-6 years himself.

This would make for a great lineup in 2026 and 2027 and maybe even 2028.  But in 2030, Alonso is 35 years old and Bregman is 36.  And these two are still combining for some $60mill on the roster for two aging and very likely declining corner infielders that are untradable, potentially unproductive, and hogging up too much budget to replace.  How good will the Sox be then?

 

[Hitch]

26 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

My only pause before I can confidently say that he willget to 255m in payroll, or be within a stones throw of toronto is that in free agency there is a finite amount of people worth spending big on.

What happnes if schwrber/aonso/bichette all prefer to stay where they are and a differentteam throws 6 or 7 years at bregman and we arent comfy going there.  I think he will still spend, but it will be more like giving high AAV to second tier guys and sure the 2026 payroll will be there but only because you gave O'Hearn and a 3rd tier sp an overpay from an AAV standpoint because you didnt want to commit the years needed to gget the top of the free agent class (like we did with Gio).

Id rather they go the trade and extend route before they go this route (giving 2nd and 3rd tier free agents high AAV deals becasue you wont give anybody any term). Being cheap goes beyond just hte 2026 payroll

But I do agree that the cheap thing is probs overcooked.

All fair questions and I don't know the answer because if someone is willing to go 7 at $210m for Bregman and Alonso (or anything approaching that), I don't want any part of it. But, we also badly need bats and they need to make it happen one way or another. Maybe then we look at your Marte's and do it that way. 

My dream is that they go and get Bregman, Alonso and trade for Marte and a #2. I'm also keenly aware that's got next to no chance of happening. 

I'd be very happy with Alonso and Bregamn/Bo and a #2 with some bullpen help. 

My guess is it'll be Alonso, plus another slightly lesser player and a trade for a #2 and some bullpen help. That's isn't hugely impressive, but it's definitely a step in the right direction with them being able to add in season. 

But yeah, if things get crazy price wise then it will really get hot in JH's and Bres' kitchens. 

[Hitch]

Just now, notin said:

The problem with signing Alonso and Bregman isn’t the money; it’s the years.

Alonso wants 7 years, but that’s not very likely.  But 6 is possible, and Bregman is looking at 5-6 years himself.

This would make for a great lineup in 2026 and 2027 and maybe even 2028.  But in 2030, Alonso is 35 years old and Bregman is 36.  And these two are still combining for some $60mill on the roster for two aging and very likely declining corner infielders that are untradable, potentially unproductive, and hogging up too much budget to replace.  How good will the Sox be then?

 

I sometimes wonder if the age of our posters is significant in this mindset. I'm pretty sure I'm one of the youngest on the site outside of Thunder (and I'm still middle aged) and so I'm always thinking 5/6 years in advance. But I get it if some of the older guys are life F- that, I want success now when I can enjoy it.